[Ren]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, do bobcats actually eat cats?
I know coyotes do but…
[/quote]
I think they prefer rabbits, but yes, and small dogs too.

[Ren]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, do bobcats actually eat cats?
I know coyotes do but…
[/quote]
I think they prefer rabbits, but yes, and small dogs too.

[Ren]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, do bobcats actually eat cats?
I know coyotes do but…
[/quote]
I think they prefer rabbits, but yes, and small dogs too.

[Ren]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, do bobcats actually eat cats?
I know coyotes do but…
[/quote]
I think they prefer rabbits, but yes, and small dogs too.

[Ren]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also, do bobcats actually eat cats?
I know coyotes do but…
[/quote]
I think they prefer rabbits, but yes, and small dogs too.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, the coast has been in decline for at least 2 years it just has been alot more orderly. Personally, my home is down just over 20% which amounts to about 200K from its peak potential. That’s not just getting started.
[/quote]
In terms of time, I believe it is just getting started. I don’t think it will be as steep a decline as it has been, and I don’t think it will be more than another 20%, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

[quote]
Lastly, you are backpeddling. Here’s your original quote.

“I just can’t see any reason why they won’t end up at $400-500k.”

To me that says $450,000. Now you are trying to say they’ll go down to the 500’s which while I feel is very unlikely, I certainly wouldnt rule out as impossible. One again the difference between 575 and 450 is HUUUGGEEE!
[/quote]
I believe what I said was this – homes that were going for $300-400k (I’m referring to homes that actually cost that much in a finished state) in the late 90’s will end up at $400-500k. I stand by that, and I can see $400-$500k homes reaching the $500’s again. To use percentages instead, maybe another 15-20% on the coast, in the next 2-3 years.

For posterity, what’s your prediction?

[quote]
I’d add real data not made up manipulated data.
[/quote]
I hope you weren’t referring to my posts – I’ve posted only actual sales, comps, and my own predictions. Nothing more.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, the coast has been in decline for at least 2 years it just has been alot more orderly. Personally, my home is down just over 20% which amounts to about 200K from its peak potential. That’s not just getting started.
[/quote]
In terms of time, I believe it is just getting started. I don’t think it will be as steep a decline as it has been, and I don’t think it will be more than another 20%, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

[quote]
Lastly, you are backpeddling. Here’s your original quote.

“I just can’t see any reason why they won’t end up at $400-500k.”

To me that says $450,000. Now you are trying to say they’ll go down to the 500’s which while I feel is very unlikely, I certainly wouldnt rule out as impossible. One again the difference between 575 and 450 is HUUUGGEEE!
[/quote]
I believe what I said was this – homes that were going for $300-400k (I’m referring to homes that actually cost that much in a finished state) in the late 90’s will end up at $400-500k. I stand by that, and I can see $400-$500k homes reaching the $500’s again. To use percentages instead, maybe another 15-20% on the coast, in the next 2-3 years.

For posterity, what’s your prediction?

[quote]
I’d add real data not made up manipulated data.
[/quote]
I hope you weren’t referring to my posts – I’ve posted only actual sales, comps, and my own predictions. Nothing more.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, the coast has been in decline for at least 2 years it just has been alot more orderly. Personally, my home is down just over 20% which amounts to about 200K from its peak potential. That’s not just getting started.
[/quote]
In terms of time, I believe it is just getting started. I don’t think it will be as steep a decline as it has been, and I don’t think it will be more than another 20%, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

[quote]
Lastly, you are backpeddling. Here’s your original quote.

“I just can’t see any reason why they won’t end up at $400-500k.”

To me that says $450,000. Now you are trying to say they’ll go down to the 500’s which while I feel is very unlikely, I certainly wouldnt rule out as impossible. One again the difference between 575 and 450 is HUUUGGEEE!
[/quote]
I believe what I said was this – homes that were going for $300-400k (I’m referring to homes that actually cost that much in a finished state) in the late 90’s will end up at $400-500k. I stand by that, and I can see $400-$500k homes reaching the $500’s again. To use percentages instead, maybe another 15-20% on the coast, in the next 2-3 years.

For posterity, what’s your prediction?

[quote]
I’d add real data not made up manipulated data.
[/quote]
I hope you weren’t referring to my posts – I’ve posted only actual sales, comps, and my own predictions. Nothing more.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, the coast has been in decline for at least 2 years it just has been alot more orderly. Personally, my home is down just over 20% which amounts to about 200K from its peak potential. That’s not just getting started.
[/quote]
In terms of time, I believe it is just getting started. I don’t think it will be as steep a decline as it has been, and I don’t think it will be more than another 20%, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

[quote]
Lastly, you are backpeddling. Here’s your original quote.

“I just can’t see any reason why they won’t end up at $400-500k.”

To me that says $450,000. Now you are trying to say they’ll go down to the 500’s which while I feel is very unlikely, I certainly wouldnt rule out as impossible. One again the difference between 575 and 450 is HUUUGGEEE!
[/quote]
I believe what I said was this – homes that were going for $300-400k (I’m referring to homes that actually cost that much in a finished state) in the late 90’s will end up at $400-500k. I stand by that, and I can see $400-$500k homes reaching the $500’s again. To use percentages instead, maybe another 15-20% on the coast, in the next 2-3 years.

For posterity, what’s your prediction?

[quote]
I’d add real data not made up manipulated data.
[/quote]
I hope you weren’t referring to my posts – I’ve posted only actual sales, comps, and my own predictions. Nothing more.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, the coast has been in decline for at least 2 years it just has been alot more orderly. Personally, my home is down just over 20% which amounts to about 200K from its peak potential. That’s not just getting started.
[/quote]
In terms of time, I believe it is just getting started. I don’t think it will be as steep a decline as it has been, and I don’t think it will be more than another 20%, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

[quote]
Lastly, you are backpeddling. Here’s your original quote.

“I just can’t see any reason why they won’t end up at $400-500k.”

To me that says $450,000. Now you are trying to say they’ll go down to the 500’s which while I feel is very unlikely, I certainly wouldnt rule out as impossible. One again the difference between 575 and 450 is HUUUGGEEE!
[/quote]
I believe what I said was this – homes that were going for $300-400k (I’m referring to homes that actually cost that much in a finished state) in the late 90’s will end up at $400-500k. I stand by that, and I can see $400-$500k homes reaching the $500’s again. To use percentages instead, maybe another 15-20% on the coast, in the next 2-3 years.

For posterity, what’s your prediction?

[quote]
I’d add real data not made up manipulated data.
[/quote]
I hope you weren’t referring to my posts – I’ve posted only actual sales, comps, and my own predictions. Nothing more.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Author]

Posts