Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Ren
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Problem is we dont have the rental data for those areas and cant assume rents in those areas behaved the same. Based upon where prices have been strongest my guess is rents are up more in those areas also. Of course thats just a guess.
The point is that this calculation puts up a good case that the worst of the carnage is past. It does not say that there isnt potential for more downside but rather things look alot closer to “normal” then the staunchest housing bears are willing to beleive.[/quote]
Unfortunately, a guess is all we have, but I can tell you from personal experience that rents aren’t that much higher in Carmel Valley than they are inland, not anywhere close to the degree that prices are. We paid $1,700 for an 80’s 1,200sf 2/2.5 townhome in CV, compared to $1,600 for an additional 300sf 3/2 in an 80’s area of Vista. This is where historical data would come in handy. The prices of similar properties are so far apart it’s laughable, and I still think Vista is a little overpriced. When the CV condo drops $100k, I’ll stop laughing so much, and it will still be FAR above the inland price.
Because different areas rise and fall at differet rates and different times, I think it’s misleading to include the entire county. You might very well be right, but IMO the calculation is meaningless for individual areas.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Problem is we dont have the rental data for those areas and cant assume rents in those areas behaved the same. Based upon where prices have been strongest my guess is rents are up more in those areas also. Of course thats just a guess.
The point is that this calculation puts up a good case that the worst of the carnage is past. It does not say that there isnt potential for more downside but rather things look alot closer to “normal” then the staunchest housing bears are willing to beleive.[/quote]
Unfortunately, a guess is all we have, but I can tell you from personal experience that rents aren’t that much higher in Carmel Valley than they are inland, not anywhere close to the degree that prices are. We paid $1,700 for an 80’s 1,200sf 2/2.5 townhome in CV, compared to $1,600 for an additional 300sf 3/2 in an 80’s area of Vista. This is where historical data would come in handy. The prices of similar properties are so far apart it’s laughable, and I still think Vista is a little overpriced. When the CV condo drops $100k, I’ll stop laughing so much, and it will still be FAR above the inland price.
Because different areas rise and fall at differet rates and different times, I think it’s misleading to include the entire county. You might very well be right, but IMO the calculation is meaningless for individual areas.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Problem is we dont have the rental data for those areas and cant assume rents in those areas behaved the same. Based upon where prices have been strongest my guess is rents are up more in those areas also. Of course thats just a guess.
The point is that this calculation puts up a good case that the worst of the carnage is past. It does not say that there isnt potential for more downside but rather things look alot closer to “normal” then the staunchest housing bears are willing to beleive.[/quote]
Unfortunately, a guess is all we have, but I can tell you from personal experience that rents aren’t that much higher in Carmel Valley than they are inland, not anywhere close to the degree that prices are. We paid $1,700 for an 80’s 1,200sf 2/2.5 townhome in CV, compared to $1,600 for an additional 300sf 3/2 in an 80’s area of Vista. This is where historical data would come in handy. The prices of similar properties are so far apart it’s laughable, and I still think Vista is a little overpriced. When the CV condo drops $100k, I’ll stop laughing so much, and it will still be FAR above the inland price.
Because different areas rise and fall at differet rates and different times, I think it’s misleading to include the entire county. You might very well be right, but IMO the calculation is meaningless for individual areas.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Problem is we dont have the rental data for those areas and cant assume rents in those areas behaved the same. Based upon where prices have been strongest my guess is rents are up more in those areas also. Of course thats just a guess.
The point is that this calculation puts up a good case that the worst of the carnage is past. It does not say that there isnt potential for more downside but rather things look alot closer to “normal” then the staunchest housing bears are willing to beleive.[/quote]
Unfortunately, a guess is all we have, but I can tell you from personal experience that rents aren’t that much higher in Carmel Valley than they are inland, not anywhere close to the degree that prices are. We paid $1,700 for an 80’s 1,200sf 2/2.5 townhome in CV, compared to $1,600 for an additional 300sf 3/2 in an 80’s area of Vista. This is where historical data would come in handy. The prices of similar properties are so far apart it’s laughable, and I still think Vista is a little overpriced. When the CV condo drops $100k, I’ll stop laughing so much, and it will still be FAR above the inland price.
Because different areas rise and fall at differet rates and different times, I think it’s misleading to include the entire county. You might very well be right, but IMO the calculation is meaningless for individual areas.
Participant[quote=davelj]Having said that, I’ll take a quick, crude stab at this. The median home price (sold) in SD County was $171,600 for all of 1995. In July 2010 the median home price in SD County was $332,000. 3% inflation between 1995 and 2010 would get you to $267,300. Add in that 23% premium and you get to $328,800, or about 1% below the actual median.
[/quote]This is a great idea, but I think we would need to look at individual areas, as the county median is seriously skewed by the sheer volume of low-priced areas that many of us wouldn’t even consider (I wouldn’t look at 90% of SD when shopping for a home there). Use that same calculation on South Carlsbad, Encinitas, Carmel Valley, etc. and then I think we’ll have something.
Participant[quote=davelj]Having said that, I’ll take a quick, crude stab at this. The median home price (sold) in SD County was $171,600 for all of 1995. In July 2010 the median home price in SD County was $332,000. 3% inflation between 1995 and 2010 would get you to $267,300. Add in that 23% premium and you get to $328,800, or about 1% below the actual median.
[/quote]This is a great idea, but I think we would need to look at individual areas, as the county median is seriously skewed by the sheer volume of low-priced areas that many of us wouldn’t even consider (I wouldn’t look at 90% of SD when shopping for a home there). Use that same calculation on South Carlsbad, Encinitas, Carmel Valley, etc. and then I think we’ll have something.
Participant[quote=davelj]Having said that, I’ll take a quick, crude stab at this. The median home price (sold) in SD County was $171,600 for all of 1995. In July 2010 the median home price in SD County was $332,000. 3% inflation between 1995 and 2010 would get you to $267,300. Add in that 23% premium and you get to $328,800, or about 1% below the actual median.
[/quote]This is a great idea, but I think we would need to look at individual areas, as the county median is seriously skewed by the sheer volume of low-priced areas that many of us wouldn’t even consider (I wouldn’t look at 90% of SD when shopping for a home there). Use that same calculation on South Carlsbad, Encinitas, Carmel Valley, etc. and then I think we’ll have something.
Participant[quote=davelj]Having said that, I’ll take a quick, crude stab at this. The median home price (sold) in SD County was $171,600 for all of 1995. In July 2010 the median home price in SD County was $332,000. 3% inflation between 1995 and 2010 would get you to $267,300. Add in that 23% premium and you get to $328,800, or about 1% below the actual median.
[/quote]This is a great idea, but I think we would need to look at individual areas, as the county median is seriously skewed by the sheer volume of low-priced areas that many of us wouldn’t even consider (I wouldn’t look at 90% of SD when shopping for a home there). Use that same calculation on South Carlsbad, Encinitas, Carmel Valley, etc. and then I think we’ll have something.
Participant[quote=davelj]Having said that, I’ll take a quick, crude stab at this. The median home price (sold) in SD County was $171,600 for all of 1995. In July 2010 the median home price in SD County was $332,000. 3% inflation between 1995 and 2010 would get you to $267,300. Add in that 23% premium and you get to $328,800, or about 1% below the actual median.
[/quote]This is a great idea, but I think we would need to look at individual areas, as the county median is seriously skewed by the sheer volume of low-priced areas that many of us wouldn’t even consider (I wouldn’t look at 90% of SD when shopping for a home there). Use that same calculation on South Carlsbad, Encinitas, Carmel Valley, etc. and then I think we’ll have something.
Participant[quote=smshorttimer]Sounds like you have it all pretty figured out. Only thing I will say is kids walking downtown where? Temecula?
This isn’t for you, but from what I can see, even if poorly zoned, San Marcos seems better off right now than Vista or Escondido. Ren is right — retail in Vista is pretty piss poor overall. Vista Village ain’t bad for what it is, but much of Escondido Ave/Santa Fe corridor is a joke. I’d say the housing stock isn’t as bad as some might say, but I’m not a Shadowridge guy.[/quote]
I just meant they should be able to walk around any retail district, day or evening, without fear. When I was a kid, we would walk/ride bikes all over Escondido, 5-10 miles/day on the weekends, and never felt a drop of anxiety. That’s how it should be.
I actually like much of San Marcos. There’s some nice older neighborhoods north of the 78 along Twin Oaks. SEH would be on my list, if not for the crazy fees.
[quote=CA renter]Nice job, Ren.
You’re right about Vista, too. Years ago, we used to track Vista closely because we love the houses and lots (esp. the Foothill area), but couldn’t get past the fact that we had to shop in the same places as if we lived in the “bad” parts of town. Some might not mind that, but many do — it’s just a reality of living there.[/quote]
Thanks. My wife grew up in Vista, loved it back then (teenager in the 80’s), says it’s sad how much it has declined. Her parents still live there and no longer feel any attachment to it.
Participant[quote=smshorttimer]Sounds like you have it all pretty figured out. Only thing I will say is kids walking downtown where? Temecula?
This isn’t for you, but from what I can see, even if poorly zoned, San Marcos seems better off right now than Vista or Escondido. Ren is right — retail in Vista is pretty piss poor overall. Vista Village ain’t bad for what it is, but much of Escondido Ave/Santa Fe corridor is a joke. I’d say the housing stock isn’t as bad as some might say, but I’m not a Shadowridge guy.[/quote]
I just meant they should be able to walk around any retail district, day or evening, without fear. When I was a kid, we would walk/ride bikes all over Escondido, 5-10 miles/day on the weekends, and never felt a drop of anxiety. That’s how it should be.
I actually like much of San Marcos. There’s some nice older neighborhoods north of the 78 along Twin Oaks. SEH would be on my list, if not for the crazy fees.
[quote=CA renter]Nice job, Ren.
You’re right about Vista, too. Years ago, we used to track Vista closely because we love the houses and lots (esp. the Foothill area), but couldn’t get past the fact that we had to shop in the same places as if we lived in the “bad” parts of town. Some might not mind that, but many do — it’s just a reality of living there.[/quote]
Thanks. My wife grew up in Vista, loved it back then (teenager in the 80’s), says it’s sad how much it has declined. Her parents still live there and no longer feel any attachment to it.
Participant[quote=smshorttimer]Sounds like you have it all pretty figured out. Only thing I will say is kids walking downtown where? Temecula?
This isn’t for you, but from what I can see, even if poorly zoned, San Marcos seems better off right now than Vista or Escondido. Ren is right — retail in Vista is pretty piss poor overall. Vista Village ain’t bad for what it is, but much of Escondido Ave/Santa Fe corridor is a joke. I’d say the housing stock isn’t as bad as some might say, but I’m not a Shadowridge guy.[/quote]
I just meant they should be able to walk around any retail district, day or evening, without fear. When I was a kid, we would walk/ride bikes all over Escondido, 5-10 miles/day on the weekends, and never felt a drop of anxiety. That’s how it should be.
I actually like much of San Marcos. There’s some nice older neighborhoods north of the 78 along Twin Oaks. SEH would be on my list, if not for the crazy fees.
[quote=CA renter]Nice job, Ren.
You’re right about Vista, too. Years ago, we used to track Vista closely because we love the houses and lots (esp. the Foothill area), but couldn’t get past the fact that we had to shop in the same places as if we lived in the “bad” parts of town. Some might not mind that, but many do — it’s just a reality of living there.[/quote]
Thanks. My wife grew up in Vista, loved it back then (teenager in the 80’s), says it’s sad how much it has declined. Her parents still live there and no longer feel any attachment to it.
Participant[quote=smshorttimer]Sounds like you have it all pretty figured out. Only thing I will say is kids walking downtown where? Temecula?
This isn’t for you, but from what I can see, even if poorly zoned, San Marcos seems better off right now than Vista or Escondido. Ren is right — retail in Vista is pretty piss poor overall. Vista Village ain’t bad for what it is, but much of Escondido Ave/Santa Fe corridor is a joke. I’d say the housing stock isn’t as bad as some might say, but I’m not a Shadowridge guy.[/quote]
I just meant they should be able to walk around any retail district, day or evening, without fear. When I was a kid, we would walk/ride bikes all over Escondido, 5-10 miles/day on the weekends, and never felt a drop of anxiety. That’s how it should be.
I actually like much of San Marcos. There’s some nice older neighborhoods north of the 78 along Twin Oaks. SEH would be on my list, if not for the crazy fees.
[quote=CA renter]Nice job, Ren.
You’re right about Vista, too. Years ago, we used to track Vista closely because we love the houses and lots (esp. the Foothill area), but couldn’t get past the fact that we had to shop in the same places as if we lived in the “bad” parts of town. Some might not mind that, but many do — it’s just a reality of living there.[/quote]
Thanks. My wife grew up in Vista, loved it back then (teenager in the 80’s), says it’s sad how much it has declined. Her parents still live there and no longer feel any attachment to it.
Participant[quote=smshorttimer]Sounds like you have it all pretty figured out. Only thing I will say is kids walking downtown where? Temecula?
This isn’t for you, but from what I can see, even if poorly zoned, San Marcos seems better off right now than Vista or Escondido. Ren is right — retail in Vista is pretty piss poor overall. Vista Village ain’t bad for what it is, but much of Escondido Ave/Santa Fe corridor is a joke. I’d say the housing stock isn’t as bad as some might say, but I’m not a Shadowridge guy.[/quote]
I just meant they should be able to walk around any retail district, day or evening, without fear. When I was a kid, we would walk/ride bikes all over Escondido, 5-10 miles/day on the weekends, and never felt a drop of anxiety. That’s how it should be.
I actually like much of San Marcos. There’s some nice older neighborhoods north of the 78 along Twin Oaks. SEH would be on my list, if not for the crazy fees.
[quote=CA renter]Nice job, Ren.
You’re right about Vista, too. Years ago, we used to track Vista closely because we love the houses and lots (esp. the Foothill area), but couldn’t get past the fact that we had to shop in the same places as if we lived in the “bad” parts of town. Some might not mind that, but many do — it’s just a reality of living there.[/quote]
Thanks. My wife grew up in Vista, loved it back then (teenager in the 80’s), says it’s sad how much it has declined. Her parents still live there and no longer feel any attachment to it.
-
AuthorPosts
