[Ren]

[quote=carlsbadworker]TG, you do realize that Temecula 2001 median house price was 200-220k, 2002 price was 230-280k and 2003 price was 290-340k, right? DQNews still reports the current median house price at 325k. So I don’t see how you can get anywhere near 2001 price.
[/quote]
I see 2001 prices and $100/sq quite a bit in Temecula. They’ll be at 1999 prices by winter of 2009, in my opinion. Don’t look at the median, look at actual sales and current listings. It took me a few seconds to find these:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/44528-Love-Ct-92592/home/12511955

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/43990-Cindy-Cir-92592/home/12506691

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33913-Turtle-Creek-St-92592/home/12275285

There are also smaller ones (2k), newer construction, showing up at close to $100/sq.

[Ren]

[quote=carlsbadworker]TG, you do realize that Temecula 2001 median house price was 200-220k, 2002 price was 230-280k and 2003 price was 290-340k, right? DQNews still reports the current median house price at 325k. So I don’t see how you can get anywhere near 2001 price.
[/quote]
I see 2001 prices and $100/sq quite a bit in Temecula. They’ll be at 1999 prices by winter of 2009, in my opinion. Don’t look at the median, look at actual sales and current listings. It took me a few seconds to find these:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/44528-Love-Ct-92592/home/12511955

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/43990-Cindy-Cir-92592/home/12506691

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33913-Turtle-Creek-St-92592/home/12275285

There are also smaller ones (2k), newer construction, showing up at close to $100/sq.

[Ren]

[quote=carlsbadworker]TG, you do realize that Temecula 2001 median house price was 200-220k, 2002 price was 230-280k and 2003 price was 290-340k, right? DQNews still reports the current median house price at 325k. So I don’t see how you can get anywhere near 2001 price.
[/quote]
I see 2001 prices and $100/sq quite a bit in Temecula. They’ll be at 1999 prices by winter of 2009, in my opinion. Don’t look at the median, look at actual sales and current listings. It took me a few seconds to find these:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/44528-Love-Ct-92592/home/12511955

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/43990-Cindy-Cir-92592/home/12506691

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33913-Turtle-Creek-St-92592/home/12275285

There are also smaller ones (2k), newer construction, showing up at close to $100/sq.

[Ren]

[quote=carlsbadworker]TG, you do realize that Temecula 2001 median house price was 200-220k, 2002 price was 230-280k and 2003 price was 290-340k, right? DQNews still reports the current median house price at 325k. So I don’t see how you can get anywhere near 2001 price.
[/quote]
I see 2001 prices and $100/sq quite a bit in Temecula. They’ll be at 1999 prices by winter of 2009, in my opinion. Don’t look at the median, look at actual sales and current listings. It took me a few seconds to find these:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/44528-Love-Ct-92592/home/12511955

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/43990-Cindy-Cir-92592/home/12506691

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33913-Turtle-Creek-St-92592/home/12275285

There are also smaller ones (2k), newer construction, showing up at close to $100/sq.

[Ren]

[quote=carlsbadworker]TG, you do realize that Temecula 2001 median house price was 200-220k, 2002 price was 230-280k and 2003 price was 290-340k, right? DQNews still reports the current median house price at 325k. So I don’t see how you can get anywhere near 2001 price.
[/quote]
I see 2001 prices and $100/sq quite a bit in Temecula. They’ll be at 1999 prices by winter of 2009, in my opinion. Don’t look at the median, look at actual sales and current listings. It took me a few seconds to find these:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/44528-Love-Ct-92592/home/12511955

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/43990-Cindy-Cir-92592/home/12506691

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Temecula/33913-Turtle-Creek-St-92592/home/12275285

There are also smaller ones (2k), newer construction, showing up at close to $100/sq.

[Ren]

Even if it goes down another 15-20% in the next year in Temecula (I’m counting on it), $100/sq is a good deal. If you’re making even halfway decent money, the difference between a $1,500 mortgage and a $1,300 mortgage is negligible. And it wouldn’t take much of a rise in interest rates to negate that difference anyway. If I worked in Temecula, I would probably be looking at the same property today.

[Ren]

Even if it goes down another 15-20% in the next year in Temecula (I’m counting on it), $100/sq is a good deal. If you’re making even halfway decent money, the difference between a $1,500 mortgage and a $1,300 mortgage is negligible. And it wouldn’t take much of a rise in interest rates to negate that difference anyway. If I worked in Temecula, I would probably be looking at the same property today.

[Ren]

Even if it goes down another 15-20% in the next year in Temecula (I’m counting on it), $100/sq is a good deal. If you’re making even halfway decent money, the difference between a $1,500 mortgage and a $1,300 mortgage is negligible. And it wouldn’t take much of a rise in interest rates to negate that difference anyway. If I worked in Temecula, I would probably be looking at the same property today.

[Ren]

Even if it goes down another 15-20% in the next year in Temecula (I’m counting on it), $100/sq is a good deal. If you’re making even halfway decent money, the difference between a $1,500 mortgage and a $1,300 mortgage is negligible. And it wouldn’t take much of a rise in interest rates to negate that difference anyway. If I worked in Temecula, I would probably be looking at the same property today.

[Ren]

Even if it goes down another 15-20% in the next year in Temecula (I’m counting on it), $100/sq is a good deal. If you’re making even halfway decent money, the difference between a $1,500 mortgage and a $1,300 mortgage is negligible. And it wouldn’t take much of a rise in interest rates to negate that difference anyway. If I worked in Temecula, I would probably be looking at the same property today.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
The problem with your posts are they are too loosy goosy for me. The difference between 300K and 400K in the late 90’s was huge. Probably two steps up in size, location and desirability. Throw on 200% gains and you are comparing 900K homes in the same class as 1.2M homes. It’s like comparing a basic Santa Fe Trails home with a very nice Arroyo Vista home. Its too big a spread.
[/quote]
I have no doubt the difference between a 300k and 400k house was huge. I’m not saying that a 300k house had the same gain or will eventually have the same loss as a 400k house. I only use the ranges because it can be more visual than percentages.

Nevermind, let’s just move on and bump this in a few years…

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
The problem with your posts are they are too loosy goosy for me. The difference between 300K and 400K in the late 90’s was huge. Probably two steps up in size, location and desirability. Throw on 200% gains and you are comparing 900K homes in the same class as 1.2M homes. It’s like comparing a basic Santa Fe Trails home with a very nice Arroyo Vista home. Its too big a spread.
[/quote]
I have no doubt the difference between a 300k and 400k house was huge. I’m not saying that a 300k house had the same gain or will eventually have the same loss as a 400k house. I only use the ranges because it can be more visual than percentages.

Nevermind, let’s just move on and bump this in a few years…

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
The problem with your posts are they are too loosy goosy for me. The difference between 300K and 400K in the late 90’s was huge. Probably two steps up in size, location and desirability. Throw on 200% gains and you are comparing 900K homes in the same class as 1.2M homes. It’s like comparing a basic Santa Fe Trails home with a very nice Arroyo Vista home. Its too big a spread.
[/quote]
I have no doubt the difference between a 300k and 400k house was huge. I’m not saying that a 300k house had the same gain or will eventually have the same loss as a 400k house. I only use the ranges because it can be more visual than percentages.

Nevermind, let’s just move on and bump this in a few years…

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
The problem with your posts are they are too loosy goosy for me. The difference between 300K and 400K in the late 90’s was huge. Probably two steps up in size, location and desirability. Throw on 200% gains and you are comparing 900K homes in the same class as 1.2M homes. It’s like comparing a basic Santa Fe Trails home with a very nice Arroyo Vista home. Its too big a spread.
[/quote]
I have no doubt the difference between a 300k and 400k house was huge. I’m not saying that a 300k house had the same gain or will eventually have the same loss as a 400k house. I only use the ranges because it can be more visual than percentages.

Nevermind, let’s just move on and bump this in a few years…

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
The problem with your posts are they are too loosy goosy for me. The difference between 300K and 400K in the late 90’s was huge. Probably two steps up in size, location and desirability. Throw on 200% gains and you are comparing 900K homes in the same class as 1.2M homes. It’s like comparing a basic Santa Fe Trails home with a very nice Arroyo Vista home. Its too big a spread.
[/quote]
I have no doubt the difference between a 300k and 400k house was huge. I’m not saying that a 300k house had the same gain or will eventually have the same loss as a 400k house. I only use the ranges because it can be more visual than percentages.

Nevermind, let’s just move on and bump this in a few years…

[Author]

Posts