Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
WaitingToExhale
ParticipantI’ve been watching this market carefully for some time, and inventory has fallen off a cliff in the past few weeks. I thought we’d be at a reasonable price-rent ratio soon, but now I have my doubts.
Let’s see: the median household income for Rancho Penasquitos is $97,000 (according to some website called point2homes; I assume it’s as good as any other census data). DQNews reports the average single-family residence for RP to have sold for $512,000 in March 2009. That’s a ratio of 5.3.
Hmm, that sounds like it’s right in line with San Diego historic levels, I suppose. Should I start looking?
ParticipantI’ve been watching this market carefully for some time, and inventory has fallen off a cliff in the past few weeks. I thought we’d be at a reasonable price-rent ratio soon, but now I have my doubts.
Let’s see: the median household income for Rancho Penasquitos is $97,000 (according to some website called point2homes; I assume it’s as good as any other census data). DQNews reports the average single-family residence for RP to have sold for $512,000 in March 2009. That’s a ratio of 5.3.
Hmm, that sounds like it’s right in line with San Diego historic levels, I suppose. Should I start looking?
ParticipantAs a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.
Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.
Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.
Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.
ParticipantAs a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.
Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.
Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.
Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.
ParticipantAs a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.
Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.
Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.
Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.
ParticipantAs a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.
Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.
Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.
Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.
ParticipantAs a holdout renter waiting for the market to become reasonable; I’ve been thinking about the whole ethics in walking away questions quite a bit. I think there is a fundamental inequality in arguing that someone who can afford a house should stay in it regardless of the market.
Let’s take away the group of folks who can’t make payments because of unexpected troubles (job loss, medical problems, etc, as a group for which most would agree that losing a home is an unfortunate by probably necessary outcome. That leaves us with folks who took out loans that would reset into payments they couldn’t afford, and those that took out loans they could afford. If you argue that anyone who can make a payment should stay in their house regardless of the value, then only those who made foolish choices can walk away… which can be a benefit in the current market. How in the world is that fair? This perpetuates the problem of punishing those who were making (at least somewhat) financially sound decisions compared to the folks who were entirely out of touch with reality.
Loans are business agreements. The banks (supposedly) lent loans under conditions where they understood the risks and with significant consequences to default. There are credit consequences to walking away that still serve as a downside; it just competes with a stronger upside these days.
Besides, the more folks walk away, the more foreclosures and the more rapidly the market corrects.
ParticipantParticipantParticipantParticipantParticipantParticipantI’ve rented two houses in PQ over the last 5 years. The first house was in the Salmon River area south of the 56 and east of Black Mountain. We were on La Tortola, and liked the area very much, although the part of La Tortola we were on was somewhat highly traveled for a residential street. I would be happy to live on Tortola or west of there; the houses get a bit older going east from there.
The owners decided to sell in 2005/6 (wisely, as it turned out, and I’m happy we restrained ourselves from buying) and we rented a house north of the 56 on the hill overlooking the 15 off of Carmel Mountain Road. The view is great, the houses a little older but with decent yards. It’s quieter than Salmon River area, but there is low income housing nearby. The public school is one of the most diverse in the PUSD with significant numbers of low income kids, but they appear to very highly rated.
The commute to the UCSD area is 20-40 minutes depending on traffic.
ParticipantI’ve rented two houses in PQ over the last 5 years. The first house was in the Salmon River area south of the 56 and east of Black Mountain. We were on La Tortola, and liked the area very much, although the part of La Tortola we were on was somewhat highly traveled for a residential street. I would be happy to live on Tortola or west of there; the houses get a bit older going east from there.
The owners decided to sell in 2005/6 (wisely, as it turned out, and I’m happy we restrained ourselves from buying) and we rented a house north of the 56 on the hill overlooking the 15 off of Carmel Mountain Road. The view is great, the houses a little older but with decent yards. It’s quieter than Salmon River area, but there is low income housing nearby. The public school is one of the most diverse in the PUSD with significant numbers of low income kids, but they appear to very highly rated.
The commute to the UCSD area is 20-40 minutes depending on traffic.
-
AuthorPosts
