Nominal San Diego prices Nominal San Diego prices declined after the big bubble burst, but wasn’t that just about the only time since records were kept?
The early to mid 90’s were flat with inflation eroding the value of RE, but no one-year nominal declines.
FlyerInHi
January 2, 2017 @
8:56 PM
gzz wrote:Nominal San Diego [quote=gzz]Nominal San Diego prices declined after the big bubble burst, but wasn’t that just about the only time since records were kept?
The early to mid 90’s were flat with inflation eroding the value of RE, but no one-year nominal declines.[/quote]
Oh there were nominal decreases around 1990. I was a young chap buy I remember. People who camped out to buy new construction were really mad developers lowered prices.
flyer
January 2, 2017 @
11:03 PM
We’ve seen the ups and downs We’ve seen the ups and downs over the past 25 years, but have held our properties through it all, and I’m betting on more increases going forward. Great for those who are in, but definitely challenging for future buyers.
spdrun
January 3, 2017 @
5:49 AM
gzz: there also wasn’t such a gzz: there also wasn’t such a steep run up in inflation-adjusted prices prior to the 1990s. (As there was in the mid 2000s and 2012-2016.)
BTW, nominal price did fall through the 1990s, but not severely.
gzz
January 3, 2017 @
2:54 PM
Interesting. 1990 was a Interesting. 1990 was a really bad year to buy.
I was looking at the case shiller data on total housing units per market, and noticed San Diego had one of the largest percentage changes in the USA. We added more housing units from 1990 to 2010 than in the much larger SF market. Buyers in 1990 who wanted to resell had to compete with brand new places in good locations like Carmel Valley. Many of those big complexes by UCSD look like they were built in that period too, and the second half of that period saw a big construction boom downtown.
Housing unit growth went from about 1.5% a year to about 0.2% a year now.
flyer
January 3, 2017 @
4:29 PM
We’ve seen appreciation in We’ve seen appreciation in the 200-400%+ range wrt the properties we purchased and held since the 90’s, so I think you really have to look at it on a case by case basis.
poorgradstudent
January 9, 2017 @
2:48 PM
gzz wrote:Interesting. 1990 [quote=gzz]Interesting. 1990 was a really bad year to buy.
[/quote]
I dunno, if you bought in 1990 and sold in 2003 you did pretty well.
no_such_reality
January 9, 2017 @
3:24 PM
I’d have to analyse in I’d have to analyse in greater detail, but I don’t think rising mortgage rates will have any impact other than to temper the rate of increase.
I don’t foresee a major recession repeat in the next 6 months which will carry us through the spring selling season and following panic at the continued shortage of housing.
In a nutshell we will continue to see the bayification of San Angeles with high achieving drudgers continuing to decrease their expectations and raise prices on the badly dated and poorly constructed stock. Driven further by the purchases of glossed over ‘rehabs’.
But I’m jaded. There’s a limited amount of housing within ‘X’ mile of the ocean and the population keeps growing.
spdrun
January 9, 2017 @
3:43 PM
What has fundamentally What has fundamentally changed in the last five years (since Jan 2012, say) to make homes in San Diego worth 80% more on average? Neither population increase nor number of jobs changed so much as to justify that sort of increase.
The majority of that rise happened over a 12-month period between early 2012 and 2013, BTW.
The-Shoveler
January 9, 2017 @
4:17 PM
Maybe the decrease from 2008 Maybe the decrease from 2008 to 2012 was an overshoot?
Just saying.
gzz
January 9, 2017 @
4:14 PM
“In a nutshell we will “In a nutshell we will continue to see the bayification of San Angeles”
The process was delayed by the tons of new construction in San Diego until about 2007. As I posted before, that did not happen in the Case Shiller “San Francisco” region, which is much bigger but actually had fewer total units added.
Here’s the metro area new single family graph by month:
Notice that even as prices rose from 2011, new permits simply did not. We are all full up now.
“badly dated and poorly constructed stock … glossed over ‘rehabs'”
I don’t see this as a real issue. People who really care about something new and modern have plenty of options in San Diego, from nearly everything in some suburban areas plus lots of infill and tear-down replacements. The renovated housing I’ve seen looks to all be just fine in quality.
“There’s a limited amount of housing within ‘X’ mile of the ocean and the population keeps growing.”
Population growth help prices of course, but is a pretty minor factor compared to low rates causing historically low monthly payment to income/rent ratios.
When it is this low, keeping the old house as a rental makes a lot of sense for move-up buyers, buying makes a lot of sense for high-income renters, and investment properties can be cash-flow positive on day one, or at worst cash-even with the rent going to pay down mortgage principal.
It is surprising we have any population growth at all with new construction so low plus the long-term trend toward smaller households as the population ages and has fewer children.
The-Shoveler
January 9, 2017 @
4:27 PM
I am not in the camp that I am not in the camp that believes that fewer babies are being born (seems like all the millennials I know have a new baby in tow).
Plus I think “the raise of the millennials” (biggest chunk of the population now) is enough to keep housing going for a few more years any way.
“the raise of the millennials” ( I think that is one I should patent LOL).
I missed “the automation economy” (I am sure I said it first).
Anyway I don’t think the long term average population growth will slow down (about 1500 people per day).
spdrun
January 9, 2017 @
5:25 PM
Clearly, we need more Zika Clearly, we need more Zika scares 🙂
I wonder if we’ll also see a temporary population implosion if/when The Donald implements his illegal immigration plans. With 5% of SD County not being in the US legally and all.
Not that I’m rooting for it — never liked police-state type measures.
The-Shoveler
January 10, 2017 @
7:25 AM
spdrun wrote:
I wonder if [quote=spdrun]
I wonder if we’ll also see a temporary population implosion if/when The Donald implements his illegal immigration plans. With 5% of SD County not being in the US legally and all.
Not that I’m rooting for it — never liked police-state type measures.[/quote]
I think the states/cities are more in control of this than the fed-gov.
spdrun
January 10, 2017 @
8:27 AM
It’s both…
Feds could It’s both…
Feds could relatively easily do …
(1) Mandatory e-Verify with steep fines for employers (enforced via the banking system)
(2) Making travel difficult via more un-Constitutional checkpoints
(3) Jailing illegal immigrants to make an example vs just deporting them
gzz
January 11, 2017 @
2:48 PM
Trump may restrict future Trump may restrict future legal and illegal immigration, but there is not much he can do without the support of Congress to reduce the current undocumented population. Deportation is a slow and expensive process.
“(1) Mandatory e-Verify with steep fines for employers (enforced via the banking system)”
Would never pass the Senate.
“(2) Making travel difficult via more un-Constitutional checkpoints”
They are constitutional near the border. I think the rule is within 80 miles or something like that. Again the issue is funding and lack of support in Congress.
“(3) Jailing illegal immigrants to make an example vs just deporting them”
This is already done to those who reenter after an initial order of deportation, especially repeat offenders or those who illegally reenter and commit a crime.
Asylum applicants and people appealing a deportation order can be put in civil detention space permitting, but there is no extra space now.
spdrun
January 11, 2017 @
3:14 PM
(2) Thank G-d for small (2) Thank G-d for small things — lack of funding and support. No need to have more Border Patrol dirtbags harassing people traveling in their own country than there already are.
The fact that you need to “show papers” and submit to search and seizure to travel within the US is disgusting. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld this invasion of privacy is even more disgusting.
FlyerInHi
January 12, 2017 @
1:38 AM
Asset forfeiture when the Asset forfeiture when the police stop you on highways. Don’t drive through deplorable states. Not worth it.
FlyerInHi wrote:Asset [quote=FlyerInHi]Asset forfeiture when the police stop you on highways.[/quote]
Outright theft that has been going on for years. The fact that it happens is not especially surprising – the fact that nothing is being done about it is astonishing. A few years ago I traveled with a handful of gold coins (a surprise gift from a dying relative, did not have time to appropriately ship them), and did so in fear of authority figures. What country is this again?
spdrun
January 2, 2017 @
4:12 PM
^^^
Looking on the flip side ^^^
Looking on the flip side of this, the 2008 housing bubble was mostly in metro areas. There was no runup and subsequent decrease in Olathe, KS or Blackduck, MN.
Available money increases volatility.
mixxalot
January 6, 2017 @
10:21 AM
Hopefully decrease. If Hopefully decrease. If interest rates rise a lot then can impact rents and RE prices. San Diego is way overpriced.
ltsddd
January 8, 2017 @
2:39 PM
Will not go up as much as it Will not go up as much as it did in 2016, which was about 5+%. Here’s hoping that the steady rise in interest rates will lead to a drop in prices starting in late 2017.
pluto
January 25, 2017 @
8:23 PM
I think this may add to the I think this may add to the discussion.
What caused the last crash was crazy financing (it was a crazy finance bubble way more than a housing bubble).
Anyway IMO.
IMO the reason there is an inventory shortage is simply they are not building enough new homes to keep up with population growth.
If the general/local economy crashes then yes it could happen, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon but that is just my opinion.
pluto
January 26, 2017 @
12:01 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Nope IMO,
[quote=The-Shoveler]Nope IMO,
IMO the reason there is an inventory shortage is simply they are not building enough new homes to keep up with population growth.
If the general/local economy crashes then yes it could happen, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon but that is just my opinion.[/quote]
IMO the inventory shortage is because of people who plan to move up, but don’t sell their home because they can rent it out and still cover the mortgage and pocket the difference. That will keep supply low because the move up home owner will not sell their previous home because they can rent it out for a profit. If building homes were an issue now we would have larger average household size. IMO if you combine the baby boomer who is renting out there previous home and the absentee homeowner that uses AirBnB that will create an artifical supply shortage. If building homes will solve the problem that means people don’t have a place to live now and need the structures built. If someone is looking they can find a home, just not in their price range. Now its the prices of homes and rents not an overpopulation. In the past two years we have lost over 20,000 to domestic migration. Our increases have mainly come from births.
15 minutes is a bit long to make a point. I lost interest after 2 minutes. This guy needs an editor.
The-Shoveler
January 26, 2017 @
1:24 PM
In 2010, the next RHNA states In 2010, the next RHNA states that the City of San Diego needs to build an additional 88,096 units by the end of 2020, or 8,009 units per year over 11 years, to keep pace with growth. Between 2010 and 2015, we built only 11,336 units when we needed 40,045 units. Adding this shortage to the shortage from 2005-2010, we are currently short 48,614 units just to keep pace with population growth. Add in the future units needed, and we need 96,668 new units in the City of San Diego by the end of 2020. That means about 19,000 units per year. Over the past five years, we built an average of 2,267 units per year. We gotta up our game.
Using SANDAG estimates on
Using SANDAG estimates on table 12 that would mean the population would have to grow between now and 2020 by 300K people. Using table 16 its showing a housing density remaining relatively the same their projections, 2.84. If we up our game that means a surplus and housing prices drop. Then table 14 SANDAG says there will be 1.6 million jobs in 2020. BLS says we have 1.35 million workers in 2015. 300K more jobs in one city is a lot in 5 years. I don’t think building is the problem its LL’s who keep upping the rent.
December 31, 2016 @ 7:25 PM
Prices up 5-7%.
Rents up
Prices up 5-7%.
Rents up 3.5%.
January 2, 2017 @ 2:04 PM
this article suggests if
this article suggests if housing prices decline in our area, it won’t be by much:
http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/12/a-tale-of-two-housing-markets-hot-and-not-so-hot/#more-81801
January 2, 2017 @ 8:03 PM
Nominal San Diego prices
Nominal San Diego prices declined after the big bubble burst, but wasn’t that just about the only time since records were kept?
The early to mid 90’s were flat with inflation eroding the value of RE, but no one-year nominal declines.
January 2, 2017 @ 8:56 PM
gzz wrote:Nominal San Diego
[quote=gzz]Nominal San Diego prices declined after the big bubble burst, but wasn’t that just about the only time since records were kept?
The early to mid 90’s were flat with inflation eroding the value of RE, but no one-year nominal declines.[/quote]
Oh there were nominal decreases around 1990. I was a young chap buy I remember. People who camped out to buy new construction were really mad developers lowered prices.
January 2, 2017 @ 11:03 PM
We’ve seen the ups and downs
We’ve seen the ups and downs over the past 25 years, but have held our properties through it all, and I’m betting on more increases going forward. Great for those who are in, but definitely challenging for future buyers.
January 3, 2017 @ 5:49 AM
gzz: there also wasn’t such a
gzz: there also wasn’t such a steep run up in inflation-adjusted prices prior to the 1990s. (As there was in the mid 2000s and 2012-2016.)
BTW, nominal price did fall through the 1990s, but not severely.
January 3, 2017 @ 2:54 PM
Interesting. 1990 was a
Interesting. 1990 was a really bad year to buy.
I was looking at the case shiller data on total housing units per market, and noticed San Diego had one of the largest percentage changes in the USA. We added more housing units from 1990 to 2010 than in the much larger SF market. Buyers in 1990 who wanted to resell had to compete with brand new places in good locations like Carmel Valley. Many of those big complexes by UCSD look like they were built in that period too, and the second half of that period saw a big construction boom downtown.
Housing unit growth went from about 1.5% a year to about 0.2% a year now.
January 3, 2017 @ 4:29 PM
We’ve seen appreciation in
We’ve seen appreciation in the 200-400%+ range wrt the properties we purchased and held since the 90’s, so I think you really have to look at it on a case by case basis.
January 9, 2017 @ 2:48 PM
gzz wrote:Interesting. 1990
[quote=gzz]Interesting. 1990 was a really bad year to buy.
[/quote]
I dunno, if you bought in 1990 and sold in 2003 you did pretty well.
January 9, 2017 @ 3:24 PM
I’d have to analyse in
I’d have to analyse in greater detail, but I don’t think rising mortgage rates will have any impact other than to temper the rate of increase.
I don’t foresee a major recession repeat in the next 6 months which will carry us through the spring selling season and following panic at the continued shortage of housing.
In a nutshell we will continue to see the bayification of San Angeles with high achieving drudgers continuing to decrease their expectations and raise prices on the badly dated and poorly constructed stock. Driven further by the purchases of glossed over ‘rehabs’.
But I’m jaded. There’s a limited amount of housing within ‘X’ mile of the ocean and the population keeps growing.
January 9, 2017 @ 3:43 PM
What has fundamentally
What has fundamentally changed in the last five years (since Jan 2012, say) to make homes in San Diego worth 80% more on average? Neither population increase nor number of jobs changed so much as to justify that sort of increase.
The majority of that rise happened over a 12-month period between early 2012 and 2013, BTW.
January 9, 2017 @ 4:17 PM
Maybe the decrease from 2008
Maybe the decrease from 2008 to 2012 was an overshoot?
Just saying.
January 9, 2017 @ 4:14 PM
“In a nutshell we will
“In a nutshell we will continue to see the bayification of San Angeles”
The process was delayed by the tons of new construction in San Diego until about 2007. As I posted before, that did not happen in the Case Shiller “San Francisco” region, which is much bigger but actually had fewer total units added.
Here’s the metro area new single family graph by month:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAND706BP1FH
Notice that even as prices rose from 2011, new permits simply did not. We are all full up now.
“badly dated and poorly constructed stock … glossed over ‘rehabs'”
I don’t see this as a real issue. People who really care about something new and modern have plenty of options in San Diego, from nearly everything in some suburban areas plus lots of infill and tear-down replacements. The renovated housing I’ve seen looks to all be just fine in quality.
“There’s a limited amount of housing within ‘X’ mile of the ocean and the population keeps growing.”
Population growth help prices of course, but is a pretty minor factor compared to low rates causing historically low monthly payment to income/rent ratios.
I think this is the key graph:
https://piggington.com/images/pmt_valuation_index_8_16.jpg
When it is this low, keeping the old house as a rental makes a lot of sense for move-up buyers, buying makes a lot of sense for high-income renters, and investment properties can be cash-flow positive on day one, or at worst cash-even with the rent going to pay down mortgage principal.
It is surprising we have any population growth at all with new construction so low plus the long-term trend toward smaller households as the population ages and has fewer children.
January 9, 2017 @ 4:27 PM
I am not in the camp that
I am not in the camp that believes that fewer babies are being born (seems like all the millennials I know have a new baby in tow).
Plus I think “the raise of the millennials” (biggest chunk of the population now) is enough to keep housing going for a few more years any way.
“the raise of the millennials” ( I think that is one I should patent LOL).
I missed “the automation economy” (I am sure I said it first).
Anyway I don’t think the long term average population growth will slow down (about 1500 people per day).
January 9, 2017 @ 5:25 PM
Clearly, we need more Zika
Clearly, we need more Zika scares 🙂
I wonder if we’ll also see a temporary population implosion if/when The Donald implements his illegal immigration plans. With 5% of SD County not being in the US legally and all.
Not that I’m rooting for it — never liked police-state type measures.
January 10, 2017 @ 7:25 AM
spdrun wrote:
I wonder if
[quote=spdrun]
I wonder if we’ll also see a temporary population implosion if/when The Donald implements his illegal immigration plans. With 5% of SD County not being in the US legally and all.
Not that I’m rooting for it — never liked police-state type measures.[/quote]
I think the states/cities are more in control of this than the fed-gov.
January 10, 2017 @ 8:27 AM
It’s both…
Feds could
It’s both…
Feds could relatively easily do …
(1) Mandatory e-Verify with steep fines for employers (enforced via the banking system)
(2) Making travel difficult via more un-Constitutional checkpoints
(3) Jailing illegal immigrants to make an example vs just deporting them
January 11, 2017 @ 2:48 PM
Trump may restrict future
Trump may restrict future legal and illegal immigration, but there is not much he can do without the support of Congress to reduce the current undocumented population. Deportation is a slow and expensive process.
“(1) Mandatory e-Verify with steep fines for employers (enforced via the banking system)”
Would never pass the Senate.
“(2) Making travel difficult via more un-Constitutional checkpoints”
They are constitutional near the border. I think the rule is within 80 miles or something like that. Again the issue is funding and lack of support in Congress.
“(3) Jailing illegal immigrants to make an example vs just deporting them”
This is already done to those who reenter after an initial order of deportation, especially repeat offenders or those who illegally reenter and commit a crime.
Asylum applicants and people appealing a deportation order can be put in civil detention space permitting, but there is no extra space now.
January 11, 2017 @ 3:14 PM
(2) Thank G-d for small
(2) Thank G-d for small things — lack of funding and support. No need to have more Border Patrol dirtbags harassing people traveling in their own country than there already are.
The fact that you need to “show papers” and submit to search and seizure to travel within the US is disgusting. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld this invasion of privacy is even more disgusting.
January 12, 2017 @ 1:38 AM
Asset forfeiture when the
Asset forfeiture when the police stop you on highways. Don’t drive through deplorable states. Not worth it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-banner/erad-a-new-tool-for-highw_b_11663292.html
January 12, 2017 @ 6:25 AM
FlyerInHi wrote:Asset
[quote=FlyerInHi]Asset forfeiture when the police stop you on highways.[/quote]
Outright theft that has been going on for years. The fact that it happens is not especially surprising – the fact that nothing is being done about it is astonishing. A few years ago I traveled with a handful of gold coins (a surprise gift from a dying relative, did not have time to appropriately ship them), and did so in fear of authority figures. What country is this again?
January 2, 2017 @ 4:12 PM
^^^
Looking on the flip side
^^^
Looking on the flip side of this, the 2008 housing bubble was mostly in metro areas. There was no runup and subsequent decrease in Olathe, KS or Blackduck, MN.
Available money increases volatility.
January 6, 2017 @ 10:21 AM
Hopefully decrease. If
Hopefully decrease. If interest rates rise a lot then can impact rents and RE prices. San Diego is way overpriced.
January 8, 2017 @ 2:39 PM
Will not go up as much as it
Will not go up as much as it did in 2016, which was about 5+%. Here’s hoping that the steady rise in interest rates will lead to a drop in prices starting in late 2017.
January 25, 2017 @ 8:23 PM
I think this may add to the
I think this may add to the discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quA7Aljgrw0
January 26, 2017 @ 8:48 AM
Nope IMO,
I don’t agree with
Nope IMO,
I don’t agree with what he said.
What caused the last crash was crazy financing (it was a crazy finance bubble way more than a housing bubble).
Anyway IMO.
IMO the reason there is an inventory shortage is simply they are not building enough new homes to keep up with population growth.
If the general/local economy crashes then yes it could happen, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon but that is just my opinion.
January 26, 2017 @ 12:01 PM
The-Shoveler wrote:Nope IMO,
[quote=The-Shoveler]Nope IMO,
IMO the reason there is an inventory shortage is simply they are not building enough new homes to keep up with population growth.
If the general/local economy crashes then yes it could happen, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon but that is just my opinion.[/quote]
IMO the inventory shortage is because of people who plan to move up, but don’t sell their home because they can rent it out and still cover the mortgage and pocket the difference. That will keep supply low because the move up home owner will not sell their previous home because they can rent it out for a profit. If building homes were an issue now we would have larger average household size. IMO if you combine the baby boomer who is renting out there previous home and the absentee homeowner that uses AirBnB that will create an artifical supply shortage. If building homes will solve the problem that means people don’t have a place to live now and need the structures built. If someone is looking they can find a home, just not in their price range. Now its the prices of homes and rents not an overpopulation. In the past two years we have lost over 20,000 to domestic migration. Our increases have mainly come from births.
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/12/19/san-diego-county-population-balloons-to-3-3-million/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/data-watch/sdut-net-migration-census-2016mar24-story.html
January 26, 2017 @ 6:06 PM
pluto wrote:I think this may
[quote=pluto]I think this may add to the discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quA7Aljgrw0%5B/quote%5D
15 minutes is a bit long to make a point. I lost interest after 2 minutes. This guy needs an editor.
January 26, 2017 @ 1:24 PM
In 2010, the next RHNA states
In 2010, the next RHNA states that the City of San Diego needs to build an additional 88,096 units by the end of 2020, or 8,009 units per year over 11 years, to keep pace with growth. Between 2010 and 2015, we built only 11,336 units when we needed 40,045 units. Adding this shortage to the shortage from 2005-2010, we are currently short 48,614 units just to keep pace with population growth. Add in the future units needed, and we need 96,668 new units in the City of San Diego by the end of 2020. That means about 19,000 units per year. Over the past five years, we built an average of 2,267 units per year. We gotta up our game.
http://www.sdyimby.net/blog/2016/7/1/how-many-new-housing-units-does-san-diego-need-part-one
January 26, 2017 @ 7:19 PM
Using SANDAG estimates on
Using SANDAG estimates on table 12 that would mean the population would have to grow between now and 2020 by 300K people. Using table 16 its showing a housing density remaining relatively the same their projections, 2.84. If we up our game that means a surplus and housing prices drop. Then table 14 SANDAG says there will be 1.6 million jobs in 2020. BLS says we have 1.35 million workers in 2015. 300K more jobs in one city is a lot in 5 years. I don’t think building is the problem its LL’s who keep upping the rent.
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1490_11298.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/OES/Current/oes_41740.htm#00-0000
January 26, 2017 @ 9:23 PM
Landlords would not be able
Landlords would not be able to raise rents if there were plenty of supply.
January 27, 2017 @ 2:38 PM
I think some areas have
I think some areas have probably peaked , plateaued and maybe will be in decline soon.
There are always zip codes, or areas, that lag and lead.
I don’t look at sub markets currently and it doesn’t seem like other pigg posters are either.
Maybe Temecula, East County some Ghetto areas have plateaued, or did a while ago. Just naming these places for example. Haven’t studied it.