[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, I have to agree with UCGal that Del Mar is boring. But I love it anyway. You can live right on top of the beach and unlike most beach places, it’s very convenient to get in and out of (I used to live in LJ and it was too much of a pain to get in and out of — I realize that DM is much farther north but those interminable LJ traffic lights drove me nuts). Maybe that consideration isn’t so important to you if you are retired and spend most of your time in your local hood.

But yeah, Del Mar is boring. I live within walking distance to this theoretically great downtown area, and I NEVER go there because it’s all useless to me (super-spendy restaurants, boutiques, new age bookstores, pet treat bakeries, and one overpriced market — and yes I know about Board and Brew, sandwiches aren’t really my thing). It seems like the whole town was designed to exclusively serve elderly heiresses.

You can drive east a bit to find good grocery shopping etc in the Evil Empire (Carmel Valley) but that’s the last place in the world where you will solve your “boring” problem.

But in the end I can recommend Del Mar anyway… not the most exciting town on earth but a great place nonetheless. I can walk out my door and be on top of the bluffs overlooking the ocean, or be on the freeway in 2 minutes. LJ is great too — more dense, trafficky, and expensive, but with a lot more interesting stuff to do (which in my vocabulary means “places to eat and drink).

Oh, one more thing I thought of, this one in favor of DM. This is actually a big one. Because it’s up on cliffs you can get better ocean views and still be in walking distance to the beach.

So they’ve each got their pros and cons, as you’d expect… in the end it will depend on your priorities. But if being walking distance to town is important — make sure to explore the actual town. Unless you are an elderly heiress — then you’re good.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, I have to agree with UCGal that Del Mar is boring. But I love it anyway. You can live right on top of the beach and unlike most beach places, it’s very convenient to get in and out of (I used to live in LJ and it was too much of a pain to get in and out of — I realize that DM is much farther north but those interminable LJ traffic lights drove me nuts). Maybe that consideration isn’t so important to you if you are retired and spend most of your time in your local hood.

But yeah, Del Mar is boring. I live within walking distance to this theoretically great downtown area, and I NEVER go there because it’s all useless to me (super-spendy restaurants, boutiques, new age bookstores, pet treat bakeries, and one overpriced market — and yes I know about Board and Brew, sandwiches aren’t really my thing). It seems like the whole town was designed to exclusively serve elderly heiresses.

You can drive east a bit to find good grocery shopping etc in the Evil Empire (Carmel Valley) but that’s the last place in the world where you will solve your “boring” problem.

But in the end I can recommend Del Mar anyway… not the most exciting town on earth but a great place nonetheless. I can walk out my door and be on top of the bluffs overlooking the ocean, or be on the freeway in 2 minutes. LJ is great too — more dense, trafficky, and expensive, but with a lot more interesting stuff to do (which in my vocabulary means “places to eat and drink).

Oh, one more thing I thought of, this one in favor of DM. This is actually a big one. Because it’s up on cliffs you can get better ocean views and still be in walking distance to the beach.

So they’ve each got their pros and cons, as you’d expect… in the end it will depend on your priorities. But if being walking distance to town is important — make sure to explore the actual town. Unless you are an elderly heiress — then you’re good.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, I have to agree with UCGal that Del Mar is boring. But I love it anyway. You can live right on top of the beach and unlike most beach places, it’s very convenient to get in and out of (I used to live in LJ and it was too much of a pain to get in and out of — I realize that DM is much farther north but those interminable LJ traffic lights drove me nuts). Maybe that consideration isn’t so important to you if you are retired and spend most of your time in your local hood.

But yeah, Del Mar is boring. I live within walking distance to this theoretically great downtown area, and I NEVER go there because it’s all useless to me (super-spendy restaurants, boutiques, new age bookstores, pet treat bakeries, and one overpriced market — and yes I know about Board and Brew, sandwiches aren’t really my thing). It seems like the whole town was designed to exclusively serve elderly heiresses.

You can drive east a bit to find good grocery shopping etc in the Evil Empire (Carmel Valley) but that’s the last place in the world where you will solve your “boring” problem.

But in the end I can recommend Del Mar anyway… not the most exciting town on earth but a great place nonetheless. I can walk out my door and be on top of the bluffs overlooking the ocean, or be on the freeway in 2 minutes. LJ is great too — more dense, trafficky, and expensive, but with a lot more interesting stuff to do (which in my vocabulary means “places to eat and drink).

Oh, one more thing I thought of, this one in favor of DM. This is actually a big one. Because it’s up on cliffs you can get better ocean views and still be in walking distance to the beach.

So they’ve each got their pros and cons, as you’d expect… in the end it will depend on your priorities. But if being walking distance to town is important — make sure to explore the actual town. Unless you are an elderly heiress — then you’re good.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ha ha, I have to agree with UCGal that Del Mar is boring. But I love it anyway. You can live right on top of the beach and unlike most beach places, it’s very convenient to get in and out of (I used to live in LJ and it was too much of a pain to get in and out of — I realize that DM is much farther north but those interminable LJ traffic lights drove me nuts). Maybe that consideration isn’t so important to you if you are retired and spend most of your time in your local hood.

But yeah, Del Mar is boring. I live within walking distance to this theoretically great downtown area, and I NEVER go there because it’s all useless to me (super-spendy restaurants, boutiques, new age bookstores, pet treat bakeries, and one overpriced market — and yes I know about Board and Brew, sandwiches aren’t really my thing). It seems like the whole town was designed to exclusively serve elderly heiresses.

You can drive east a bit to find good grocery shopping etc in the Evil Empire (Carmel Valley) but that’s the last place in the world where you will solve your “boring” problem.

But in the end I can recommend Del Mar anyway… not the most exciting town on earth but a great place nonetheless. I can walk out my door and be on top of the bluffs overlooking the ocean, or be on the freeway in 2 minutes. LJ is great too — more dense, trafficky, and expensive, but with a lot more interesting stuff to do (which in my vocabulary means “places to eat and drink).

Oh, one more thing I thought of, this one in favor of DM. This is actually a big one. Because it’s up on cliffs you can get better ocean views and still be in walking distance to the beach.

So they’ve each got their pros and cons, as you’d expect… in the end it will depend on your priorities. But if being walking distance to town is important — make sure to explore the actual town. Unless you are an elderly heiress — then you’re good.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Yes, as I mentioned there are other bearish factors for housing that were not in place back then. But this doesn’t nullify my argument that there is not a dependable link between rising rates and lower prices. What I’m trying to argue against is the seeming tautology that some people cite wherein rising rates will exactly be offset by lower prices.

CAR’s item #4 notes a compelling distinction, though… in the 80s, people wages were rising to at least somewhat keep up with rising monthly payments. Home prices stayed flat nominally, but real home prices fell. In an environment of lower wage growth perhaps nominal prices would not be able to hang in there so well if rates were rising.

Anyway, in my second post I cited what I think is the biggest risk factor, which is the existence of forced sellers in a high rate environment. I think that would push prices down. (But I don’t think that’s dependable either).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Yes, as I mentioned there are other bearish factors for housing that were not in place back then. But this doesn’t nullify my argument that there is not a dependable link between rising rates and lower prices. What I’m trying to argue against is the seeming tautology that some people cite wherein rising rates will exactly be offset by lower prices.

CAR’s item #4 notes a compelling distinction, though… in the 80s, people wages were rising to at least somewhat keep up with rising monthly payments. Home prices stayed flat nominally, but real home prices fell. In an environment of lower wage growth perhaps nominal prices would not be able to hang in there so well if rates were rising.

Anyway, in my second post I cited what I think is the biggest risk factor, which is the existence of forced sellers in a high rate environment. I think that would push prices down. (But I don’t think that’s dependable either).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Yes, as I mentioned there are other bearish factors for housing that were not in place back then. But this doesn’t nullify my argument that there is not a dependable link between rising rates and lower prices. What I’m trying to argue against is the seeming tautology that some people cite wherein rising rates will exactly be offset by lower prices.

CAR’s item #4 notes a compelling distinction, though… in the 80s, people wages were rising to at least somewhat keep up with rising monthly payments. Home prices stayed flat nominally, but real home prices fell. In an environment of lower wage growth perhaps nominal prices would not be able to hang in there so well if rates were rising.

Anyway, in my second post I cited what I think is the biggest risk factor, which is the existence of forced sellers in a high rate environment. I think that would push prices down. (But I don’t think that’s dependable either).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Yes, as I mentioned there are other bearish factors for housing that were not in place back then. But this doesn’t nullify my argument that there is not a dependable link between rising rates and lower prices. What I’m trying to argue against is the seeming tautology that some people cite wherein rising rates will exactly be offset by lower prices.

CAR’s item #4 notes a compelling distinction, though… in the 80s, people wages were rising to at least somewhat keep up with rising monthly payments. Home prices stayed flat nominally, but real home prices fell. In an environment of lower wage growth perhaps nominal prices would not be able to hang in there so well if rates were rising.

Anyway, in my second post I cited what I think is the biggest risk factor, which is the existence of forced sellers in a high rate environment. I think that would push prices down. (But I don’t think that’s dependable either).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Yes, as I mentioned there are other bearish factors for housing that were not in place back then. But this doesn’t nullify my argument that there is not a dependable link between rising rates and lower prices. What I’m trying to argue against is the seeming tautology that some people cite wherein rising rates will exactly be offset by lower prices.

CAR’s item #4 notes a compelling distinction, though… in the 80s, people wages were rising to at least somewhat keep up with rising monthly payments. Home prices stayed flat nominally, but real home prices fell. In an environment of lower wage growth perhaps nominal prices would not be able to hang in there so well if rates were rising.

Anyway, in my second post I cited what I think is the biggest risk factor, which is the existence of forced sellers in a high rate environment. I think that would push prices down. (But I don’t think that’s dependable either).

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I like sdduuuude’s answer, but I have to put Greenspam first and the ratings agencies second.

The agencies were the lynchpin to the whole mortgage crisis, so they bear huge responsibility there. However, Greenspam was asleep at the wheel for not one but two world-beating asset bubbles. No, scratch that — he wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, he was a cheerleader for both bubbles. And the mop-up from the first bubble basically created the environment that allowed the second and much worse bubble.

His “reign” was truly catastrophic and I just hope he clings to life for long enough to witness the final outcome of his legacy (the nigh-inevitable US govt funding crisis) and, if there is any justice, the resulting complete destruction of his reputation as a central banker.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I like sdduuuude’s answer, but I have to put Greenspam first and the ratings agencies second.

The agencies were the lynchpin to the whole mortgage crisis, so they bear huge responsibility there. However, Greenspam was asleep at the wheel for not one but two world-beating asset bubbles. No, scratch that — he wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, he was a cheerleader for both bubbles. And the mop-up from the first bubble basically created the environment that allowed the second and much worse bubble.

His “reign” was truly catastrophic and I just hope he clings to life for long enough to witness the final outcome of his legacy (the nigh-inevitable US govt funding crisis) and, if there is any justice, the resulting complete destruction of his reputation as a central banker.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I like sdduuuude’s answer, but I have to put Greenspam first and the ratings agencies second.

The agencies were the lynchpin to the whole mortgage crisis, so they bear huge responsibility there. However, Greenspam was asleep at the wheel for not one but two world-beating asset bubbles. No, scratch that — he wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, he was a cheerleader for both bubbles. And the mop-up from the first bubble basically created the environment that allowed the second and much worse bubble.

His “reign” was truly catastrophic and I just hope he clings to life for long enough to witness the final outcome of his legacy (the nigh-inevitable US govt funding crisis) and, if there is any justice, the resulting complete destruction of his reputation as a central banker.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I like sdduuuude’s answer, but I have to put Greenspam first and the ratings agencies second.

The agencies were the lynchpin to the whole mortgage crisis, so they bear huge responsibility there. However, Greenspam was asleep at the wheel for not one but two world-beating asset bubbles. No, scratch that — he wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, he was a cheerleader for both bubbles. And the mop-up from the first bubble basically created the environment that allowed the second and much worse bubble.

His “reign” was truly catastrophic and I just hope he clings to life for long enough to witness the final outcome of his legacy (the nigh-inevitable US govt funding crisis) and, if there is any justice, the resulting complete destruction of his reputation as a central banker.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I like sdduuuude’s answer, but I have to put Greenspam first and the ratings agencies second.

The agencies were the lynchpin to the whole mortgage crisis, so they bear huge responsibility there. However, Greenspam was asleep at the wheel for not one but two world-beating asset bubbles. No, scratch that — he wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, he was a cheerleader for both bubbles. And the mop-up from the first bubble basically created the environment that allowed the second and much worse bubble.

His “reign” was truly catastrophic and I just hope he clings to life for long enough to witness the final outcome of his legacy (the nigh-inevitable US govt funding crisis) and, if there is any justice, the resulting complete destruction of his reputation as a central banker.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Brian, that is a good explanation I think. Taking it a step further: maybe rising interest rates didn’t drop prices in the 80s because there wasn’t much forced selling, and so everything just kind of came to a standstill. But perhaps rising interest rates in an environment of forced selling would have very different results… ie, in that situation the rising rates could lead to lower purchase prices.

So I think we’ve identified why this time could be different — how a rate increase could lead to falling prices even though that hasn’t really happened previously. But I still don’t think that this is a given, because the govt can do a lot to halt the forced selling (as we’ve seen).

Rich

[Author]

Posts