[no_such_reality]

.snip.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl]craptcha, if you’re a prospective buyer in 92127/92128, may I ask what’s wrong with the 21 listings that you presumably CAN make an offer on?[/quote]

The fact that there are probably 1000 buyers looking.

This isn’t a market that is in balance. This is a market that is horribly constrained.

That constraint, raises prices, pushes people out of the market and causes people to hold their properties thus decreasing turnover because they can’t replace their property.

That low turnover, and low availability of housing units INCREASES demand for NEW HOUSING buildout. It is what drives demand for those CFDs.

I could care less if they build new units as downtown condos, increase denseness in existing housing tracts, but SD has an inadequate supply or both rentals and owner occupied housing. More importantly, the housing mix have is actually quite poor in quality and location. We need more housing close to the job centers and that housing needs appropriate social infrastructure.

Your argument is akin to Soviet Era grocery shopping behind the iron curtain. There’s three steaks in the counter and 100 people in the line. So you better be happy getting a turnip.

[no_such_reality]

Because if 1% of households wants to buy house or investment property, that’s 11,000 needed sales.

We have 5000 on the market.

see a problem?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler] I was going to say,
And the next 4-6 million people SD expected is to grow will fit where?[/quote]

They can stay back in their double-wide in the state of MO, where they likely have family to help them in the event they are in need of “social services.” CA doesn’t need any more people, ESP of the “low to moderate income” variety.
[/quote]

I define affordable housing as pretty much anything sub-million. Not affordable as in low income. As for not having a high volume of sales, that is a peculiar SoCal thing, we have very high population and very low housing sales. When saying we need 7000 a month, something SD has never come close to, I’m talking to have the kind of fluidity in availability of housing that will keep from what you’re seeing happen.

I’m talking what kind of volume of listings and sales a county like SD needs, with 3 million inhabits and a million+ household units to not have what amounts to chronic scarcity. At the moment SD county has about 5400 listings. Less than 0.5% of the housing stock is for sale.

Again, as for Marin or SF county, most people residing in Marin, don’t make their living in Marin. As for SF, they’re having some real problems with traffic jams OUT of the city in the morning as the youthful workers working in silicon valley and living in the city.

As for not building, that would be interesting. But, I really doubt the population will stop coming. In fact, I think not building and not providing adequate housing will actually have the opposite effect that you desire, actually increasing the amount of low and poverty level inhabits. They’re use to living in substandard conditions where-as mid-high level incomes know they can have more.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Couldn’t have said it any better myself …. except for one caveat. In SD County, we already DO currently have hundreds of “affordable” residential listings within 20 miles of job centers. The areas they are situated in were “affordable” decades ago and are still “affordable” now.
[/quote]

Minor nit, with 1.1 million housing units, you don’t hundreds, you need ten’s of thousands.

Owner occupied housing vacancy in SD is 1.9%. Owner occupancy housing is 591,000 units. At a reasonable turnover rate, you need 85,000 sales a year, or just over 7000/month.

[no_such_reality]

I prefer pictures.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]

*Edited to add that prices are actually all over the place. Not sure how appraisers are valuing things, but there are very large divergences between different sales (some strangely low, yet another similar house nearby might be $200K+ more, very near bubble highs). The presence of flippers along with the extremely low inventory in many areas is really adding to the wild pricing.[/quote]

Most of the actual sold are hitting at 2003 numbers. There is a lot of wishing on asking prices and huge disparity between the amount of deferred maintenance on homes for sale.

[quote=CA Renter]It is MUCH easier to make a profit on an asset purchase (especially one that is usually purchased with debt) when interest rates are high and inflation is high. Buying when inflation and interest rates are at/near historic lows, and prices are historically high, does not bode well for capital appreciation going forward.[/quote]

Who needs capital appreciation when you can get a cash return pushing 8% that is basically indexed to inflation and tax sheltered?

[no_such_reality]

Houses get consumed surprisingly quickly. That’s why there is depreciation. That’s why in California the useful life on a carpet is 5 years for a rental. That’s why when you look at rent controlled areas, the rentals tend to quite cruddy.

You’re argument is the same as saying everybody workig down at the auto-shop doesn’t produce anything. They just do maintenance.

As for renters being willing to pay more, you’re wrong there too. Most renters aren’t renting because they can’t get loans, they rent because they perceive themselves as temporarily in a given location. They perceive ownership as being more expensive, time consuming and a hassle.

And frankly,most people grossly underestimate the true cost of ownership for a property. That’s why you see all that deferred maintenance in sales. Time consumes buildings.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, this is also the “flipper” price range, but if the asking and bid prices are too close to what the property would sell for flipped, the flipper won’t want it.
…
It’s different for the long-term owner-occupier buyer because they don’t have to fix everything at once to get it back out on the market ASAP. They can move in (or partially move in) and fix as time/money permits.
[/quote]

You’re correct if the price was too close to post fix, but they’re not. The market hasn’t heated to the point that those cosmetic fixes aren’t major price hitters.

There-in is problem in our current marketplace. The pool of people willing to pay premium price for fully gloss coated greatly outweighs the price of those willing to deal with good enough.

And hence, people that want to live there while they fix it are being out bid by people that want to flip it, because the people that want it fixed right now are outbidding all of them.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Sorry, nsr, but you’re clearly not getting my point about “productive” investment vs. “speculative” investment.[/quote]

That’s because it is erroneous and capricious.

Growing food or rehabbing a house, productive use of capital to provide basic needs.

Maintaining a house from the cash flow generated by a tenant is no different than maintaining your home use with the cash flow generated by growing food.

You’ve steadily failed to draw a distinction between anybody wanting to be a landlord and have an investment and speculators.

[no_such_reality]

Banks push bonds to school building group

Why settle for just getting rich when you can indenture future generations.

[no_such_reality]

Ouch, that’s pretty harsh. Family of 3 or 4 is $1149/month with $12,800 out of pocket. Medicaid carries until an income of $32,500. At $32,500, out of pocket is limited to $4500 (a lot if you make $32K) and you’re premium estimate is $81/month.

At $47,100, out of pocket jumps to $10,400, premium running $247/month. At just before $59K you jump to $12,800 and your premium is still only $395/month.

Next cutoff is $94,200. At $94,201, your prior tax credit goes from $403/month to $0. Which corresponds to 400% of poverty level.

[no_such_reality]

Oh, so it’s only after investors successfully gentrify the area that they should be banned from buying or owning property there.

[no_such_reality]

ah. yes, those evil investors have inflated prices so much that free is out of reach of average people.

Just more of your cake and eat it too.

[no_such_reality]

[Author]

Posts