Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=mike92104]He only switched because he knows he’ll get his ass beat by any other republican in his next race. I hope he loses either way.[/quote]
This is, of course, the GOP party line. But considering how Spector has been treated (and moderate Republicans in general), why would any of them stay? He votes more often with the Democrats than the GOP anyway, so it seems to me that his assertion that he’s switching because the GOP has moved further to the right of where he’s comfortable with seems pretty reasonable.
In any case, given his district, he’s unlikely to lose. His moderate views are the only reason the GOP has held that district. A hard-right conservative would get shellacked in his district.
There’s a reason the only statewide elected GOP officials are moderates in the Northeast (or, for that matter, the West coast). There may be pockets of conservatism up there, so a hard right conservative still has a chance of being elected to the House, but those states, by and large, are pretty socially liberal, and in a statewide election, a hard right conservative is unlikely to win.
Same reason why most southern democrats are socially conservative. The difference appears to be in how the party leadership treats those outside of the mainstream of the party.
Participant[quote=mike92104]He only switched because he knows he’ll get his ass beat by any other republican in his next race. I hope he loses either way.[/quote]
This is, of course, the GOP party line. But considering how Spector has been treated (and moderate Republicans in general), why would any of them stay? He votes more often with the Democrats than the GOP anyway, so it seems to me that his assertion that he’s switching because the GOP has moved further to the right of where he’s comfortable with seems pretty reasonable.
In any case, given his district, he’s unlikely to lose. His moderate views are the only reason the GOP has held that district. A hard-right conservative would get shellacked in his district.
There’s a reason the only statewide elected GOP officials are moderates in the Northeast (or, for that matter, the West coast). There may be pockets of conservatism up there, so a hard right conservative still has a chance of being elected to the House, but those states, by and large, are pretty socially liberal, and in a statewide election, a hard right conservative is unlikely to win.
Same reason why most southern democrats are socially conservative. The difference appears to be in how the party leadership treats those outside of the mainstream of the party.
Participant[quote=mike92104]He only switched because he knows he’ll get his ass beat by any other republican in his next race. I hope he loses either way.[/quote]
This is, of course, the GOP party line. But considering how Spector has been treated (and moderate Republicans in general), why would any of them stay? He votes more often with the Democrats than the GOP anyway, so it seems to me that his assertion that he’s switching because the GOP has moved further to the right of where he’s comfortable with seems pretty reasonable.
In any case, given his district, he’s unlikely to lose. His moderate views are the only reason the GOP has held that district. A hard-right conservative would get shellacked in his district.
There’s a reason the only statewide elected GOP officials are moderates in the Northeast (or, for that matter, the West coast). There may be pockets of conservatism up there, so a hard right conservative still has a chance of being elected to the House, but those states, by and large, are pretty socially liberal, and in a statewide election, a hard right conservative is unlikely to win.
Same reason why most southern democrats are socially conservative. The difference appears to be in how the party leadership treats those outside of the mainstream of the party.
Participant[quote=mike92104]He only switched because he knows he’ll get his ass beat by any other republican in his next race. I hope he loses either way.[/quote]
This is, of course, the GOP party line. But considering how Spector has been treated (and moderate Republicans in general), why would any of them stay? He votes more often with the Democrats than the GOP anyway, so it seems to me that his assertion that he’s switching because the GOP has moved further to the right of where he’s comfortable with seems pretty reasonable.
In any case, given his district, he’s unlikely to lose. His moderate views are the only reason the GOP has held that district. A hard-right conservative would get shellacked in his district.
There’s a reason the only statewide elected GOP officials are moderates in the Northeast (or, for that matter, the West coast). There may be pockets of conservatism up there, so a hard right conservative still has a chance of being elected to the House, but those states, by and large, are pretty socially liberal, and in a statewide election, a hard right conservative is unlikely to win.
Same reason why most southern democrats are socially conservative. The difference appears to be in how the party leadership treats those outside of the mainstream of the party.
Participant[quote=mike92104]He only switched because he knows he’ll get his ass beat by any other republican in his next race. I hope he loses either way.[/quote]
This is, of course, the GOP party line. But considering how Spector has been treated (and moderate Republicans in general), why would any of them stay? He votes more often with the Democrats than the GOP anyway, so it seems to me that his assertion that he’s switching because the GOP has moved further to the right of where he’s comfortable with seems pretty reasonable.
In any case, given his district, he’s unlikely to lose. His moderate views are the only reason the GOP has held that district. A hard-right conservative would get shellacked in his district.
There’s a reason the only statewide elected GOP officials are moderates in the Northeast (or, for that matter, the West coast). There may be pockets of conservatism up there, so a hard right conservative still has a chance of being elected to the House, but those states, by and large, are pretty socially liberal, and in a statewide election, a hard right conservative is unlikely to win.
Same reason why most southern democrats are socially conservative. The difference appears to be in how the party leadership treats those outside of the mainstream of the party.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]This just in:
Fly-over country can’t fall to 1 x earnings (Detroit at 2.5 MONTHS x earnings right now)
Investors can always cash flow if they purchase at 2.5 x earnings or less.
Lot prices and building costs can’t come down.
It’s different here.
LJ and Carlsbad are no longer coastal.
SDEngineer has not seen ANY sign of the shadow inventory hitting the market. Its now safe to assume it never will and must simply evaporate into thin air leaving housing values un-affected by the magnitude of its enormity.[/quote]
Detroit is not typical of flyover country, and by suggesting that it is you clearly don’t understand WHY Detroit’s home prices are so low. It is NOT because Detroit was bubble territory (it’s housing prices did NOT experience a bubble during the last 8 years).
The reason why Detroit can drop so low is that it’s been hemmorhaging residents at an unbelieveable pace. The population of the City of Detroit has fallen by half over the past 50 years. There’s a lot less demand for housing there because Detroit only has a population of 900,000 in a city that had enough housing for 1.8 million. There is NO DEMAND for housing. Unless you’ve noticed the population of the U.S. doing the same, you can’t draw a similar conclusion about the rest of the country.
And I’m certainly not assuming the shadow inventory will just disappear – but if they were going to flood the market, they WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. They clearly have either decided not to, or are simply unable to. And frankly, with the bailouts they’re getting, they have no motive to – they CAN just hold properties and meter them out.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]This just in:
Fly-over country can’t fall to 1 x earnings (Detroit at 2.5 MONTHS x earnings right now)
Investors can always cash flow if they purchase at 2.5 x earnings or less.
Lot prices and building costs can’t come down.
It’s different here.
LJ and Carlsbad are no longer coastal.
SDEngineer has not seen ANY sign of the shadow inventory hitting the market. Its now safe to assume it never will and must simply evaporate into thin air leaving housing values un-affected by the magnitude of its enormity.[/quote]
Detroit is not typical of flyover country, and by suggesting that it is you clearly don’t understand WHY Detroit’s home prices are so low. It is NOT because Detroit was bubble territory (it’s housing prices did NOT experience a bubble during the last 8 years).
The reason why Detroit can drop so low is that it’s been hemmorhaging residents at an unbelieveable pace. The population of the City of Detroit has fallen by half over the past 50 years. There’s a lot less demand for housing there because Detroit only has a population of 900,000 in a city that had enough housing for 1.8 million. There is NO DEMAND for housing. Unless you’ve noticed the population of the U.S. doing the same, you can’t draw a similar conclusion about the rest of the country.
And I’m certainly not assuming the shadow inventory will just disappear – but if they were going to flood the market, they WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. They clearly have either decided not to, or are simply unable to. And frankly, with the bailouts they’re getting, they have no motive to – they CAN just hold properties and meter them out.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]This just in:
Fly-over country can’t fall to 1 x earnings (Detroit at 2.5 MONTHS x earnings right now)
Investors can always cash flow if they purchase at 2.5 x earnings or less.
Lot prices and building costs can’t come down.
It’s different here.
LJ and Carlsbad are no longer coastal.
SDEngineer has not seen ANY sign of the shadow inventory hitting the market. Its now safe to assume it never will and must simply evaporate into thin air leaving housing values un-affected by the magnitude of its enormity.[/quote]
Detroit is not typical of flyover country, and by suggesting that it is you clearly don’t understand WHY Detroit’s home prices are so low. It is NOT because Detroit was bubble territory (it’s housing prices did NOT experience a bubble during the last 8 years).
The reason why Detroit can drop so low is that it’s been hemmorhaging residents at an unbelieveable pace. The population of the City of Detroit has fallen by half over the past 50 years. There’s a lot less demand for housing there because Detroit only has a population of 900,000 in a city that had enough housing for 1.8 million. There is NO DEMAND for housing. Unless you’ve noticed the population of the U.S. doing the same, you can’t draw a similar conclusion about the rest of the country.
And I’m certainly not assuming the shadow inventory will just disappear – but if they were going to flood the market, they WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. They clearly have either decided not to, or are simply unable to. And frankly, with the bailouts they’re getting, they have no motive to – they CAN just hold properties and meter them out.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]This just in:
Fly-over country can’t fall to 1 x earnings (Detroit at 2.5 MONTHS x earnings right now)
Investors can always cash flow if they purchase at 2.5 x earnings or less.
Lot prices and building costs can’t come down.
It’s different here.
LJ and Carlsbad are no longer coastal.
SDEngineer has not seen ANY sign of the shadow inventory hitting the market. Its now safe to assume it never will and must simply evaporate into thin air leaving housing values un-affected by the magnitude of its enormity.[/quote]
Detroit is not typical of flyover country, and by suggesting that it is you clearly don’t understand WHY Detroit’s home prices are so low. It is NOT because Detroit was bubble territory (it’s housing prices did NOT experience a bubble during the last 8 years).
The reason why Detroit can drop so low is that it’s been hemmorhaging residents at an unbelieveable pace. The population of the City of Detroit has fallen by half over the past 50 years. There’s a lot less demand for housing there because Detroit only has a population of 900,000 in a city that had enough housing for 1.8 million. There is NO DEMAND for housing. Unless you’ve noticed the population of the U.S. doing the same, you can’t draw a similar conclusion about the rest of the country.
And I’m certainly not assuming the shadow inventory will just disappear – but if they were going to flood the market, they WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. They clearly have either decided not to, or are simply unable to. And frankly, with the bailouts they’re getting, they have no motive to – they CAN just hold properties and meter them out.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]This just in:
Fly-over country can’t fall to 1 x earnings (Detroit at 2.5 MONTHS x earnings right now)
Investors can always cash flow if they purchase at 2.5 x earnings or less.
Lot prices and building costs can’t come down.
It’s different here.
LJ and Carlsbad are no longer coastal.
SDEngineer has not seen ANY sign of the shadow inventory hitting the market. Its now safe to assume it never will and must simply evaporate into thin air leaving housing values un-affected by the magnitude of its enormity.[/quote]
Detroit is not typical of flyover country, and by suggesting that it is you clearly don’t understand WHY Detroit’s home prices are so low. It is NOT because Detroit was bubble territory (it’s housing prices did NOT experience a bubble during the last 8 years).
The reason why Detroit can drop so low is that it’s been hemmorhaging residents at an unbelieveable pace. The population of the City of Detroit has fallen by half over the past 50 years. There’s a lot less demand for housing there because Detroit only has a population of 900,000 in a city that had enough housing for 1.8 million. There is NO DEMAND for housing. Unless you’ve noticed the population of the U.S. doing the same, you can’t draw a similar conclusion about the rest of the country.
And I’m certainly not assuming the shadow inventory will just disappear – but if they were going to flood the market, they WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE IT. They clearly have either decided not to, or are simply unable to. And frankly, with the bailouts they’re getting, they have no motive to – they CAN just hold properties and meter them out.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]“Those that purchased recently, are hoping for a fairy tale market turn around to restore their equity or those just too antsy to remain on the fence will try like the devil to convince themselves and others that this is somehow not just getting started and somehow will avoid getting much worse.”
See what I mean? Now income averages need to have the bottom 1/3 lopped off to be relevant. Renters should be excluded from any ratios? Why, because we will now get our first time buyers, from “first time buyer fantasy island”?
I was surprised at the “It’s different here” posts. 2.5 x earnings here is SD will still be a hefty sunshine tax when fly-over country is selling for 1 x earnings.Temecula Guy,
I’ll beat your $165k challenge. Hows about we start at $150k in SD?
Right now today I have 52 homes for $150k or less in SD to choose from. And that’s excluding condos! Sure at this point they are not the cream of the crop obviously. And I really should not have to explain that SD will have that crazy averages thing happening, so yes coastal SD will be higher than inland, duh.
To assume I meant La Jolla or Carlsbad would have a median of $165k when I say “SD will have a median of $165k” is just more RE Bear word games.
You RE bears are insanely humorous. The banks hold 80k CA houses in shadow inventory, NODs, preforeclosures and foreclosures are rocketing upward and you look at the dummies bidding up the price of the obviously and grossly manipulated supply and use them as some indicator of future RE values?
[/quote]Good grief! How on Earth is flyover country going to go en masse to 1x earnings?
There are fundamental floors to how far housing can fall. Housing won’t fall to 1x incomes in most of the country. It will fall to it’s long term sustainable rate of 2.5-3x incomes. Why? Because at anything below that level investors start stepping in because they can buy that home and rent it out and make enough in cash flow that it becomes a better investment than anywhere else they can put their money.
Moreover, at below that level you can’t BUILD a house any more. There are areas in So Cal like Temecula that are already at that point. Prices in those areas are being solely supported by the flow of REO’s – but there seem to be plenty of buyers that are now coming out of the woodwork and buying in those areas as well. Why? Because it makes good economic sense to – if you’re employed in Riverside or North County, you can now buy a 3K sq foot house in Temecula and pay LESS per month than you were renting a 1500 sq. ft. townhome or apartment. To a lot of people, that seems to be justifying a 45min-1hr commute.
As others here have pointed out, repeatedly, the fact is that it IS different here (just not different enough to continue the incredible bubble prices of 2003-2007).
BTW, nobody was saying that LJ or Carlsbad would have a median of 165K – you’re putting words into the other posters mouths here. But a San Diego median price of 165K would imply that prime high end territory like LJ would drop into the 400-500K area. Every poster on this board would buy a La Jolla house if that were the case.
The banks may be holding a ton of shadow inventory, but I haven’t seen ANY sign that they’re going to flood the market. It appears they don’t have to – in point of fact, they may not even be ABLE to (constraints on the number of people they have working in foreclosures). Are they manipulating supply and demand? Yup. But it appears they have the means to do that, and whether or not you like it, it appears they will continue to do so.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]“Those that purchased recently, are hoping for a fairy tale market turn around to restore their equity or those just too antsy to remain on the fence will try like the devil to convince themselves and others that this is somehow not just getting started and somehow will avoid getting much worse.”
See what I mean? Now income averages need to have the bottom 1/3 lopped off to be relevant. Renters should be excluded from any ratios? Why, because we will now get our first time buyers, from “first time buyer fantasy island”?
I was surprised at the “It’s different here” posts. 2.5 x earnings here is SD will still be a hefty sunshine tax when fly-over country is selling for 1 x earnings.Temecula Guy,
I’ll beat your $165k challenge. Hows about we start at $150k in SD?
Right now today I have 52 homes for $150k or less in SD to choose from. And that’s excluding condos! Sure at this point they are not the cream of the crop obviously. And I really should not have to explain that SD will have that crazy averages thing happening, so yes coastal SD will be higher than inland, duh.
To assume I meant La Jolla or Carlsbad would have a median of $165k when I say “SD will have a median of $165k” is just more RE Bear word games.
You RE bears are insanely humorous. The banks hold 80k CA houses in shadow inventory, NODs, preforeclosures and foreclosures are rocketing upward and you look at the dummies bidding up the price of the obviously and grossly manipulated supply and use them as some indicator of future RE values?
[/quote]Good grief! How on Earth is flyover country going to go en masse to 1x earnings?
There are fundamental floors to how far housing can fall. Housing won’t fall to 1x incomes in most of the country. It will fall to it’s long term sustainable rate of 2.5-3x incomes. Why? Because at anything below that level investors start stepping in because they can buy that home and rent it out and make enough in cash flow that it becomes a better investment than anywhere else they can put their money.
Moreover, at below that level you can’t BUILD a house any more. There are areas in So Cal like Temecula that are already at that point. Prices in those areas are being solely supported by the flow of REO’s – but there seem to be plenty of buyers that are now coming out of the woodwork and buying in those areas as well. Why? Because it makes good economic sense to – if you’re employed in Riverside or North County, you can now buy a 3K sq foot house in Temecula and pay LESS per month than you were renting a 1500 sq. ft. townhome or apartment. To a lot of people, that seems to be justifying a 45min-1hr commute.
As others here have pointed out, repeatedly, the fact is that it IS different here (just not different enough to continue the incredible bubble prices of 2003-2007).
BTW, nobody was saying that LJ or Carlsbad would have a median of 165K – you’re putting words into the other posters mouths here. But a San Diego median price of 165K would imply that prime high end territory like LJ would drop into the 400-500K area. Every poster on this board would buy a La Jolla house if that were the case.
The banks may be holding a ton of shadow inventory, but I haven’t seen ANY sign that they’re going to flood the market. It appears they don’t have to – in point of fact, they may not even be ABLE to (constraints on the number of people they have working in foreclosures). Are they manipulating supply and demand? Yup. But it appears they have the means to do that, and whether or not you like it, it appears they will continue to do so.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]“Those that purchased recently, are hoping for a fairy tale market turn around to restore their equity or those just too antsy to remain on the fence will try like the devil to convince themselves and others that this is somehow not just getting started and somehow will avoid getting much worse.”
See what I mean? Now income averages need to have the bottom 1/3 lopped off to be relevant. Renters should be excluded from any ratios? Why, because we will now get our first time buyers, from “first time buyer fantasy island”?
I was surprised at the “It’s different here” posts. 2.5 x earnings here is SD will still be a hefty sunshine tax when fly-over country is selling for 1 x earnings.Temecula Guy,
I’ll beat your $165k challenge. Hows about we start at $150k in SD?
Right now today I have 52 homes for $150k or less in SD to choose from. And that’s excluding condos! Sure at this point they are not the cream of the crop obviously. And I really should not have to explain that SD will have that crazy averages thing happening, so yes coastal SD will be higher than inland, duh.
To assume I meant La Jolla or Carlsbad would have a median of $165k when I say “SD will have a median of $165k” is just more RE Bear word games.
You RE bears are insanely humorous. The banks hold 80k CA houses in shadow inventory, NODs, preforeclosures and foreclosures are rocketing upward and you look at the dummies bidding up the price of the obviously and grossly manipulated supply and use them as some indicator of future RE values?
[/quote]Good grief! How on Earth is flyover country going to go en masse to 1x earnings?
There are fundamental floors to how far housing can fall. Housing won’t fall to 1x incomes in most of the country. It will fall to it’s long term sustainable rate of 2.5-3x incomes. Why? Because at anything below that level investors start stepping in because they can buy that home and rent it out and make enough in cash flow that it becomes a better investment than anywhere else they can put their money.
Moreover, at below that level you can’t BUILD a house any more. There are areas in So Cal like Temecula that are already at that point. Prices in those areas are being solely supported by the flow of REO’s – but there seem to be plenty of buyers that are now coming out of the woodwork and buying in those areas as well. Why? Because it makes good economic sense to – if you’re employed in Riverside or North County, you can now buy a 3K sq foot house in Temecula and pay LESS per month than you were renting a 1500 sq. ft. townhome or apartment. To a lot of people, that seems to be justifying a 45min-1hr commute.
As others here have pointed out, repeatedly, the fact is that it IS different here (just not different enough to continue the incredible bubble prices of 2003-2007).
BTW, nobody was saying that LJ or Carlsbad would have a median of 165K – you’re putting words into the other posters mouths here. But a San Diego median price of 165K would imply that prime high end territory like LJ would drop into the 400-500K area. Every poster on this board would buy a La Jolla house if that were the case.
The banks may be holding a ton of shadow inventory, but I haven’t seen ANY sign that they’re going to flood the market. It appears they don’t have to – in point of fact, they may not even be ABLE to (constraints on the number of people they have working in foreclosures). Are they manipulating supply and demand? Yup. But it appears they have the means to do that, and whether or not you like it, it appears they will continue to do so.
Participant[quote=Rt.66]“Those that purchased recently, are hoping for a fairy tale market turn around to restore their equity or those just too antsy to remain on the fence will try like the devil to convince themselves and others that this is somehow not just getting started and somehow will avoid getting much worse.”
See what I mean? Now income averages need to have the bottom 1/3 lopped off to be relevant. Renters should be excluded from any ratios? Why, because we will now get our first time buyers, from “first time buyer fantasy island”?
I was surprised at the “It’s different here” posts. 2.5 x earnings here is SD will still be a hefty sunshine tax when fly-over country is selling for 1 x earnings.Temecula Guy,
I’ll beat your $165k challenge. Hows about we start at $150k in SD?
Right now today I have 52 homes for $150k or less in SD to choose from. And that’s excluding condos! Sure at this point they are not the cream of the crop obviously. And I really should not have to explain that SD will have that crazy averages thing happening, so yes coastal SD will be higher than inland, duh.
To assume I meant La Jolla or Carlsbad would have a median of $165k when I say “SD will have a median of $165k” is just more RE Bear word games.
You RE bears are insanely humorous. The banks hold 80k CA houses in shadow inventory, NODs, preforeclosures and foreclosures are rocketing upward and you look at the dummies bidding up the price of the obviously and grossly manipulated supply and use them as some indicator of future RE values?
[/quote]Good grief! How on Earth is flyover country going to go en masse to 1x earnings?
There are fundamental floors to how far housing can fall. Housing won’t fall to 1x incomes in most of the country. It will fall to it’s long term sustainable rate of 2.5-3x incomes. Why? Because at anything below that level investors start stepping in because they can buy that home and rent it out and make enough in cash flow that it becomes a better investment than anywhere else they can put their money.
Moreover, at below that level you can’t BUILD a house any more. There are areas in So Cal like Temecula that are already at that point. Prices in those areas are being solely supported by the flow of REO’s – but there seem to be plenty of buyers that are now coming out of the woodwork and buying in those areas as well. Why? Because it makes good economic sense to – if you’re employed in Riverside or North County, you can now buy a 3K sq foot house in Temecula and pay LESS per month than you were renting a 1500 sq. ft. townhome or apartment. To a lot of people, that seems to be justifying a 45min-1hr commute.
As others here have pointed out, repeatedly, the fact is that it IS different here (just not different enough to continue the incredible bubble prices of 2003-2007).
BTW, nobody was saying that LJ or Carlsbad would have a median of 165K – you’re putting words into the other posters mouths here. But a San Diego median price of 165K would imply that prime high end territory like LJ would drop into the 400-500K area. Every poster on this board would buy a La Jolla house if that were the case.
The banks may be holding a ton of shadow inventory, but I haven’t seen ANY sign that they’re going to flood the market. It appears they don’t have to – in point of fact, they may not even be ABLE to (constraints on the number of people they have working in foreclosures). Are they manipulating supply and demand? Yup. But it appears they have the means to do that, and whether or not you like it, it appears they will continue to do so.
-
AuthorPosts
