[ocrenter]

I really doubt any small specialty market would significantly increase or decrease a neighborhood value. on the other hand, a big box store like Walmart would be a different story.

speaking of Jimbos, been to the one in 4S, business appear to be quite sparse and we couldn’t see ourselves buying $10 bread… maybe they have a much more sophisticated clientele in mind.

[ocrenter]

I really doubt any small specialty market would significantly increase or decrease a neighborhood value. on the other hand, a big box store like Walmart would be a different story.

speaking of Jimbos, been to the one in 4S, business appear to be quite sparse and we couldn’t see ourselves buying $10 bread… maybe they have a much more sophisticated clientele in mind.

[ocrenter]

you’re right dz, you guaranteed that the MAJORITY would not be over 200k. And that is absolutely right. with large amount of condos (including condo conversions) as well as apartments, the majority of CV would not have household income over 200k.

of course it would be more relevant to see if SFR owners are at or over 200k in CV.

that I think is likely.

The issue with CV is what you discussed earlier with the dramatic difference between coastal and inland that is quite out of historic range.

and this is part of the “house arrest” phenomenon I warned against back in the bubble days. In those days, a research professional making $150k purchased a 1800 sqft detached condo with zero lot line in 4S for $650k. Had he waited he could now buy a 2500 sqft real house in 4S. But this guy is now under house arrest due to the purchase. And simply walking away is not as easy for an upper middle class professional.

with regard to CV, this same house arrest scenario is being played out. the 200k couple end up with a 15 year old 2500 sqft tract home for $850k. while they could easily find a newer home close to or near 4000 sqft over at 4S for the same price. At best, that 2500 sqft home in CV will not appreciate and may even slide down a little. But the 4S 4000 sqft home will appreciate slowly and will likely eventually narrow that costal-inland gap.

this is why coastal places like CV is not a good place to buy. it isn’t that CV will drop another 50%, it is that by buying in CV, you are missing much better opportunities else where.

[ocrenter]

you’re right dz, you guaranteed that the MAJORITY would not be over 200k. And that is absolutely right. with large amount of condos (including condo conversions) as well as apartments, the majority of CV would not have household income over 200k.

of course it would be more relevant to see if SFR owners are at or over 200k in CV.

that I think is likely.

The issue with CV is what you discussed earlier with the dramatic difference between coastal and inland that is quite out of historic range.

and this is part of the “house arrest” phenomenon I warned against back in the bubble days. In those days, a research professional making $150k purchased a 1800 sqft detached condo with zero lot line in 4S for $650k. Had he waited he could now buy a 2500 sqft real house in 4S. But this guy is now under house arrest due to the purchase. And simply walking away is not as easy for an upper middle class professional.

with regard to CV, this same house arrest scenario is being played out. the 200k couple end up with a 15 year old 2500 sqft tract home for $850k. while they could easily find a newer home close to or near 4000 sqft over at 4S for the same price. At best, that 2500 sqft home in CV will not appreciate and may even slide down a little. But the 4S 4000 sqft home will appreciate slowly and will likely eventually narrow that costal-inland gap.

this is why coastal places like CV is not a good place to buy. it isn’t that CV will drop another 50%, it is that by buying in CV, you are missing much better opportunities else where.

[ocrenter]

you’re right dz, you guaranteed that the MAJORITY would not be over 200k. And that is absolutely right. with large amount of condos (including condo conversions) as well as apartments, the majority of CV would not have household income over 200k.

of course it would be more relevant to see if SFR owners are at or over 200k in CV.

that I think is likely.

The issue with CV is what you discussed earlier with the dramatic difference between coastal and inland that is quite out of historic range.

and this is part of the “house arrest” phenomenon I warned against back in the bubble days. In those days, a research professional making $150k purchased a 1800 sqft detached condo with zero lot line in 4S for $650k. Had he waited he could now buy a 2500 sqft real house in 4S. But this guy is now under house arrest due to the purchase. And simply walking away is not as easy for an upper middle class professional.

with regard to CV, this same house arrest scenario is being played out. the 200k couple end up with a 15 year old 2500 sqft tract home for $850k. while they could easily find a newer home close to or near 4000 sqft over at 4S for the same price. At best, that 2500 sqft home in CV will not appreciate and may even slide down a little. But the 4S 4000 sqft home will appreciate slowly and will likely eventually narrow that costal-inland gap.

this is why coastal places like CV is not a good place to buy. it isn’t that CV will drop another 50%, it is that by buying in CV, you are missing much better opportunities else where.

[ocrenter]

you’re right dz, you guaranteed that the MAJORITY would not be over 200k. And that is absolutely right. with large amount of condos (including condo conversions) as well as apartments, the majority of CV would not have household income over 200k.

of course it would be more relevant to see if SFR owners are at or over 200k in CV.

that I think is likely.

The issue with CV is what you discussed earlier with the dramatic difference between coastal and inland that is quite out of historic range.

and this is part of the “house arrest” phenomenon I warned against back in the bubble days. In those days, a research professional making $150k purchased a 1800 sqft detached condo with zero lot line in 4S for $650k. Had he waited he could now buy a 2500 sqft real house in 4S. But this guy is now under house arrest due to the purchase. And simply walking away is not as easy for an upper middle class professional.

with regard to CV, this same house arrest scenario is being played out. the 200k couple end up with a 15 year old 2500 sqft tract home for $850k. while they could easily find a newer home close to or near 4000 sqft over at 4S for the same price. At best, that 2500 sqft home in CV will not appreciate and may even slide down a little. But the 4S 4000 sqft home will appreciate slowly and will likely eventually narrow that costal-inland gap.

this is why coastal places like CV is not a good place to buy. it isn’t that CV will drop another 50%, it is that by buying in CV, you are missing much better opportunities else where.

[ocrenter]

you’re right dz, you guaranteed that the MAJORITY would not be over 200k. And that is absolutely right. with large amount of condos (including condo conversions) as well as apartments, the majority of CV would not have household income over 200k.

of course it would be more relevant to see if SFR owners are at or over 200k in CV.

that I think is likely.

The issue with CV is what you discussed earlier with the dramatic difference between coastal and inland that is quite out of historic range.

and this is part of the “house arrest” phenomenon I warned against back in the bubble days. In those days, a research professional making $150k purchased a 1800 sqft detached condo with zero lot line in 4S for $650k. Had he waited he could now buy a 2500 sqft real house in 4S. But this guy is now under house arrest due to the purchase. And simply walking away is not as easy for an upper middle class professional.

with regard to CV, this same house arrest scenario is being played out. the 200k couple end up with a 15 year old 2500 sqft tract home for $850k. while they could easily find a newer home close to or near 4000 sqft over at 4S for the same price. At best, that 2500 sqft home in CV will not appreciate and may even slide down a little. But the 4S 4000 sqft home will appreciate slowly and will likely eventually narrow that costal-inland gap.

this is why coastal places like CV is not a good place to buy. it isn’t that CV will drop another 50%, it is that by buying in CV, you are missing much better opportunities else where.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]

First, I GUARANTEE that the majority of households in Carmel Valley for instance do NOT make 200K Plus. You guys forget that much of the real estate boom was due to the Ponzi nature of it and being able to move up to higher end due to their equity rising in existing homes.
[/quote]

how can you guarantee this?

estimated median household income in 92130 is $128k

and this is including folks living in apartments, condos, and SFRs. renters and owners.

So it is very reasonable to assume there are quite a bit of folks making above $200k in 92130.

Now dz is absolutely right, there is a good portion of folks stretching and underwater. but I would only say this is a sizable minority, not an overwhelming majority.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]

First, I GUARANTEE that the majority of households in Carmel Valley for instance do NOT make 200K Plus. You guys forget that much of the real estate boom was due to the Ponzi nature of it and being able to move up to higher end due to their equity rising in existing homes.
[/quote]

how can you guarantee this?

estimated median household income in 92130 is $128k

and this is including folks living in apartments, condos, and SFRs. renters and owners.

So it is very reasonable to assume there are quite a bit of folks making above $200k in 92130.

Now dz is absolutely right, there is a good portion of folks stretching and underwater. but I would only say this is a sizable minority, not an overwhelming majority.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]

First, I GUARANTEE that the majority of households in Carmel Valley for instance do NOT make 200K Plus. You guys forget that much of the real estate boom was due to the Ponzi nature of it and being able to move up to higher end due to their equity rising in existing homes.
[/quote]

how can you guarantee this?

estimated median household income in 92130 is $128k

and this is including folks living in apartments, condos, and SFRs. renters and owners.

So it is very reasonable to assume there are quite a bit of folks making above $200k in 92130.

Now dz is absolutely right, there is a good portion of folks stretching and underwater. but I would only say this is a sizable minority, not an overwhelming majority.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]

First, I GUARANTEE that the majority of households in Carmel Valley for instance do NOT make 200K Plus. You guys forget that much of the real estate boom was due to the Ponzi nature of it and being able to move up to higher end due to their equity rising in existing homes.
[/quote]

how can you guarantee this?

estimated median household income in 92130 is $128k

and this is including folks living in apartments, condos, and SFRs. renters and owners.

So it is very reasonable to assume there are quite a bit of folks making above $200k in 92130.

Now dz is absolutely right, there is a good portion of folks stretching and underwater. but I would only say this is a sizable minority, not an overwhelming majority.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]

First, I GUARANTEE that the majority of households in Carmel Valley for instance do NOT make 200K Plus. You guys forget that much of the real estate boom was due to the Ponzi nature of it and being able to move up to higher end due to their equity rising in existing homes.
[/quote]

how can you guarantee this?

estimated median household income in 92130 is $128k

and this is including folks living in apartments, condos, and SFRs. renters and owners.

So it is very reasonable to assume there are quite a bit of folks making above $200k in 92130.

Now dz is absolutely right, there is a good portion of folks stretching and underwater. but I would only say this is a sizable minority, not an overwhelming majority.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]sdr, the relative premimum between coastal prices and non-coastal is still much higher than historical average, that is the bottom line. Of course coastal prices are lower than they were during the peak. But still a long way to go whether you want to accept it or not.[/quote]

this is why this is such a perfect time to look for non-coastal premium bargains.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]sdr, the relative premimum between coastal prices and non-coastal is still much higher than historical average, that is the bottom line. Of course coastal prices are lower than they were during the peak. But still a long way to go whether you want to accept it or not.[/quote]

this is why this is such a perfect time to look for non-coastal premium bargains.

[ocrenter]

[quote=deadzone]sdr, the relative premimum between coastal prices and non-coastal is still much higher than historical average, that is the bottom line. Of course coastal prices are lower than they were during the peak. But still a long way to go whether you want to accept it or not.[/quote]

this is why this is such a perfect time to look for non-coastal premium bargains.

[Author]

Posts