patrick.net

nosf41 says

Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district.

Right, there is higher demand to live within CUSD. However, many SFRs listed within the district are less $/sqft.
I suppose you could raise a couple kids in that 926sqft 2BR, although this property is not located within the district map from what I see:

Let's see if I have this right. People willing to pay overinflated prices and even bid them higher and get hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt so that their kids can go to good schools and then get into college (if they can) and borrow outrageous tuition so that they too will be heavily in debt when they graduate and then have to move in with mom and dad so that all can help to pay the mortgage or maybe by then it just didn't work out because we gambled and lost, so then we'll all just walk away from our debt. Sounds like a prosperous life to me.

nosf41 says

Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district.

But they can pay half as much by renting the same thing, and be in the exact same school district.

Say the house is a million dollars. The cost of that million dollars whether you buy or simply forego the use of the money is something like 6%, or $60,000 per year.

But to borrow the million dollar house is only $30,000 per year, about $2,500 per month in rent.

Those buyers don't seem to know math very well. Maybe they didn't go to a good school district.

nosf41 says

Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district.

But they can pay half as much by renting the same thing, and be in the exact same school district.
Say the house is a million dollars. The cost of that million dollars whether you buy or simply forego the use of the money is something like 6%, or $60,000 per year.
But to borrow the million dollar house is only $30,000 per year, about $2,500 per month in rent.
Those buyers don’t seem to know math very well. Maybe they didn’t go to a good school district.

I agree. That is why I am renting. A co-worker of mine paid more than 900k for a house in that area a year ago. Other co-worker rents in the same area.

KurtS says

nosf41 says

Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district.

Right, there is higher demand to live within CUSD. However, many SFRs listed within the district are less $/sqft.

I suppose you could raise a couple kids in that 926sqft 2BR, although this property is not located within the district map from what I see:

Thanks for the map. Few months ago there were two condos for sale on Fremont/Wolfe (which belong to CUSD)
I assumed that this one is in the same school district.

KurtS says

nosf41 says

Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district.

Right, there is higher demand to live within CUSD. However, many SFRs listed within the district are less $/sqft.

I suppose you could raise a couple kids in that 926sqft 2BR, although this property is not located within the district map from what I see:

You are right, but it falls under cherrychase elementary, comparable to very good schools of Cupertino school dist.

But to borrow the million dollar house is only $30,000 per year, about $2,500 per month in rent.
Those buyers don’t seem to know math very well. Maybe they didn’t go to a good school district.

Although rents have come down, its will still cost you around 3.5K to rent. I am renting and actually moving out next week from an apartment to a duplex, a 3b/2b and my rent is 2100, which is ok with me.

chrisborden says

Let’s see if I have this right. People willing to pay overinflated prices and even bid them higher and get hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt so that their kids can go to good schools and then get into college (if they can) and borrow outrageous tuition so that they too will be heavily in debt when they graduate and then have to move in with mom and dad so that all can help to pay the mortgage or maybe by then it just didn’t work out because we gambled and lost, so then we’ll all just walk away from our debt. Sounds like a prosperous life to me.

Well said, but you missed one point, that debt comes back to the taxpayers, you and me.

I saw a nice 3 bedroom/ 2 bath Ikler style house in the Sunnyvale School District- Cherry Chase Elemetary. When it was being sold I had to take a look at it. Thought I'd keep track of it. Eventually sold for about $760K. You can rent the same house (maybe not with all the updated appliances) in the same area for under $2500/mth. And, the rents are continuing to drop.

Ryan says

I saw a nice 3 bedroom/ 2 bath Ikler style house in the Sunnyvale School District- Cherry Chase Elemetary. When it was being sold I had to take a look at it. Thought I’d keep track of it. Eventually sold for about $760K. You can rent the same house (maybe not with all the updated appliances) in the same area for under $2500/mth. And, the rents are continuing to drop.

I think you are probably talking about rancho area of cupertino. I havent seen eickler types in cherry chase area. But, I wouldnt be surprised to see your number. You can definitely rent $2500 for a house worth $750K.

nosf41 says

Simple explanation: Many people are willing to pay extra to get their kids into the Cupertino school district

If this was true why only a dinky 2 perc. appreciation from 1991 to 1997 where prices went from $210-237K?
As i have been saying all along.. appreciation at rate of inflation.
Around that time 1996-97 there was a new development near by which had 1500-2000 sq ft TH running at 190-200K.
No waiting list .. no multiple offers and no interest at all.
This home is really bearly worth 300K if not less TODAY.. and that is based on 30% inflation from 1997 to 1998.

Everthing in Cupertino is the same and has been so for decades, nothing is different but the fools who are willing to overpay
and go bust later. Whats changed ? Biggest scam is people actually believing prices do double or more every decade.

Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Oct 16, 2009Listed $498,000 -- MLSListings #80949365
Jun 20, 2003 Sold $380,727 8.0%/yr Public Records
Apr 30, 1997 Sold $237,000 2.1%/yr Public Records
Jun 14, 1991 Sold $210,000 -- Public Records

Why are so many in denial over the realistic prices back in 1990s?

thomas.wong87 says

Everthing in Cupertino is the same and has been so for decades, nothing is different but the fools who are willing to overpay
and go bust later. Whats changed ? Biggest scam is people actually believing prices do double or more every decade.

You forgot the good old days..all those stock options/free money then followed by free loan is what the difference is. Also, I dont what % of household had dual income till 97 in that area, but now, it should be more. Considering everything, this is still way out of what it should be.

thomas.wong87 says

Why are so many in denial over the realistic prices back in 1990s?

Most people in the area don't have long-term memory. Recent past history to Silicon Valley culture is essentially invisible. Then there are quite a few local retirees who won't let go of that peak price, not realizing their $1M 50s-era home is indistinguishable from scores of towns in "flyover country". But we'll tell ourselves that weather, jobs, or schools shore up the difference...forever.

What would break that psychology? What would make sellers realize that they are not going to get that price?

Perhaps a decent earthquake would be a good thing overall...

As someone that sent his kids to a Cupertino-Union school district school for one year, I was not impressed. I had previously sent my kids to a "6" school, then the "10" Cupertino school, and now back to a "6". I'll be honest, my kids learn more in the "6" schools than in the Cupertino "10".

One thing I noticed about the Cupertino district is the very high expectations and demands from the parents. The schools aren't necessarily teaching more advanced topics by default, though. The parents request extra work for their kids, and even send them to outside tutors.

It is my opinion that while the Cupertino district offers a safe and sound education, the teachers aren't necessarily better than in other, "lower" districts. The caveat, though, is that the school should at least be a "5" or above. Anything under that and the school probably really does "suck". ;)

The bottom line is, in my opinion, there is no need to pay crazy "Cupertino" money to live in a "10" district unless you like the sound of bragging about it. Save yourself a ton of money and send 'em to a "6". You might be pleasantly surprised that they'll still turn out remarkably literate, with a more realistic view of the world, to boot. ;)

What would break that psychology?

Perhaps when it becomes socially acceptable/expedient to price to sell--versus waiting for a new upswing? The local realtor buzz about "bidding wars" certainly doesn't help, nor does the Wall St. rally. I don't wish for an earthquake; I can imagine various man-made "disasters" will take their toll: a slump in venture capital, foreclosures and numerous retail/CRE fiascos, businesses and grads moving to more cost-effective locales, a repatriation of professionals, an eventual downslope of retirees living in homes--to name a few possible variables. I must be skeptical of the local hype or something?

Since local execs won't contemplate relocation from their prime abodes, admin offices may remain...but not all the same drivers on demand, "Google-effect" or not. And, if professionals pull up and move elsewhere, they won't care about the CUSD anymore.

The parents request extra work for their kids, and even send them to outside tutors.

Right--tutoring and outside curricula seem to question the premium put on CUSD RE. Money saved from renting or living outside CUSD could be directed towards their education just as well. My brother is currently using his Yale PhD to tutor CUSD students, and the stories I hear are scary...some HS kids have no life outside their studies.

I have learned that owning a home is not the dream I was looking for in America....at least not right now. Who in tarnation can live in 800SQFT?

Beds: 2
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 926
$/Sq. Ft.: $538
Lot Size: 871 Sq. Ft.
Property Type: Townhouse

Heck, I think offshoring is going to drop these prices quick!...we wont be able to afford 300K in 10 years. We might not be able to afford 100K.

stocksjustgoup says

As someone that sent his kids to a Cupertino-Union school district school for one year, I was not impressed. I had previously sent my kids to a “6″ school, then the “10″ Cupertino school, and now back to a “6″. I’ll be honest, my kids learn more in the “6″ schools than in the Cupertino “10″.

You are probably right. You can't say a school is better or worse by some number. But, my reason to seek a place in that area is not so much for education, its pretty safe, accessibility, I take part time courses in De Anza and work in milpitas etc.

What would break that psychology? What would make sellers realize that they are not going to get that price?

Actually, a healthy RE market should have some premium for better schools, not this much in my opinion. I think as long as knife catchers still buy, the sellers' psychology wont change. Free market, no government goof up, that should teach them what they forgot.

4X says

Heck, I think offshoring is going to drop these prices quick!…we wont be able to afford 300K in 10 years. We might not be able to afford 100K.

BTW, things are going, we might be having "Inshoring". China probably would offshore work to us...

Cupertino over the last decade or two has undergone a dramatic demographic shift where many of the "complacent" locals have sold to highly industrious and family focused immigrants - mainly Chinese and Indians. Many of them are dual-income professionals. In my opinion these families will be the last to sell under pressure, financial or otherwise. I hate to say it, but for Cupertino, don't expect to see dramatic drops back to "reality". This IS the reality. Another 10% drop from the bubble peak, maybe - but I don't think there will be more than that.

stiles.c says

In my opinion these families will be the last to sell under pressure, financial or otherwise. I hate to say it, but for Cupertino, don’t expect to see dramatic drops back to “reality”

So as any other area of bay area. Do you think the demographic of Evergreen/Milpitas/Santa clara didn't change, there you can find houses 30-50% less than peak, and still falling. I partially agree with you, these people will be the last one to give up, but they will.

stiles.c says

Many of them are dual-income professionals. In my opinion these families will be the last to sell under pressure, financial or otherwise.

Well, it could be equally said that many SFBA couples are dual-income irregardless of their ethnicity, and exert similar demands on the market. In actuality, I would argue that towns with a higher influx of skilled immigrants are more subject to mobility when the local job situation changes--or return to growing career opportunities in their home country. I own property in the CUSD area, and naturally we'll cite reasons why the place is more immune to a bust. I'm not sure it's any different however.

OP: I think you're correct that this TH should be selling in the $270k range.

Back in the early eighties, there were a lot of THs built in that area of Sunnyvale, (94087) particularly in the vicinity of Remington/Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Fremont Rds. And near OSH, there too, off El Camino.

Those THs, especially near the Arboretum, were generally going for $140k for an upscale 2BR/2BA/2-car garage. Reason why I know this is that a relative bought one back in 1982 and held on to it for years eventually selling for about $700k in 2002. 1982 price for a 3/2 TH with attached 2-car garage were going for about $165k in that vicinity.

Reason why the property "values" went up so much so fast is because SV and BA boomers were using house sale proceeds to finance a luxurious retirement, or they were laid-off during various downturns or due to offshoring (which has been going on for quite a while in the SV) and they wanted a large sum to relocate out-of-State, to finance a period of unemployment, or to early-retire. And to "trade-up" - that too - to places in the Peninsula.

While on the subject of trading-up to the Peninsula, imo, Menlo Park is one of those boomer ghettos where you hardly ever see anyone of any age group other than 50's or 60's. Sorry to say, it looks as though they ran everyone else out-of-town. Everytime I go there (MP), I sense this exclusionary attitude which I don't detect in other upscale towns like Santa Barbara or Newport Beach.

Menlo Park: no families, no elderly, no babies, no children, no teens....just older middle-aged people. Los Altos is the same however you do see children at times because parents bring them in from Mtn View, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale to attend private school like St. Nicholas or the Montessori on Grant. Mountain View, imo, is a border-line boomer ghetto. There are some young families there and I do see other age groups as opposed to just boomers.

Wanted to add that its not my intention to specifically nail boomers for the real estate mess, however, and unfortunately, this happened on their watch and generally due to their large numbers (which is not their fault) which fueled housing demands which they profited from at the expense of other age groups.

One more thing about Cupertino schools from the WSJ (please note that this article is written by an Asian at a high point in the RE market):

http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/markettrends/20051123-hwang.html

~Misstrial

Misstrial says

One more thing about Cupertino schools from the WSJ (please note that this article is written by an Asian):

http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/markettrends/20051123-hwang.html

Very interesting, the article is written exactly at the height of the boom, nov 2005. Thanks for the link, very informative.

yw, dont_getit. I live in the Cupertino SD - I live close to Rancho San Antonio county park.

To add a current dimension to the 2005 WSJ article, some Asians and Indians are leaving Cupertino to return to their native countries simply because there are more economic opportunities there as opposed to here. This phenomenon was reported on recently in a major news outlet this year (2009), sorry cannot remember which one.

Edited to add: This wasn't the article I read, think it was in the Mercury News, however, this piece supports the gist of the article:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2009/tc20090228_990934.htm

Even the numbers of Asians at Whole Foods off Stevens Creek have noticeably gone down - probably due to relocation back to Asia.

In addition, there is an entire strip mall located off of De Anza, with signs in Chinese or other Asian characters, that has been abandoned with all shops closed. Others off De Anza that cater to the Asian crowd look distressed. Its rather sad that they focused their sales efforts to one demographic only since this Depression will probably affect them even more than most.

In my neighborhood, house sales are slow with sellers holding out for their wishing price.

~Misstrial

What would break that psychology? What would make sellers realize that they are not going to get that price?

Already seeing it.. large well known employers like Sun Micro going under in 2009 as did Tandem and Ask Computers back in 'the day'.

Its been now 9 years since the Tech Peak in 2000 and so far there isnt "the next big thing coming from Silicon Valley" or wealth from stock options some have been hoping. Eventually the news of shrinking, VC funding, job force and employers will sink in.

Well Misstrail, Your right.. many from Hong Kong who settled in early to mid 90s were escaping the take over by Communist Mainland in '97-99. They thought HK was going to loose out and become a backward city in China. It turned out the Communist Party was more capitalist and pro-business friendly than the state of California. And since costs are less many tech companies have moved jobs overseas.

LOL! it wouldn't surprise me regarding the closure of malls. As was the case back in 1989-91, we had lots of distressed small retailers, restaurants, and night clubs which eventually went under.

China's growth accelerates to 8.9 percent in 3Q

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_economy

8.9% under rough times isnt bad, more growth and jobs in China which
has a global impact...

... certainly will make double digit sooner them than us.

It's clear... China is taking our recovery, and we are giving it to them.

thomas.wong87 says

LOL! it wouldn’t surprise me regarding the closure of malls.

Yep, and it's already happening in a big way. Sunnyvale's ambitious $750M "Santana-Row" style retail/office/residential complex is now in foreclosure, without any finished space except that parking garage.

KurtS says

thomas.wong87 says

LOL! it wouldn’t surprise me regarding the closure of malls.

Yep, and it’s already happening in a big way. Sunnyvale’s ambitious $750M “Santana-Row” style retail/office/residential complex is now in foreclosure, without any finished space except that parking garage.

Indeed I heard that as well. Man, talk about wrong timing. It would have been sold out if it was done like 3 years ago.

stocksjustgoup says

It’s clear… China is taking our recovery, and we are giving it to them.

China didnt spend money on the banksters, rather on infrastructure. thats why their GDP is 8.9% in 3rd qtr.

thomas.wong87 says

Well Misstrail, Your right.. many from Hong Kong who settled in early to mid 90s were escaping the take over by Communist Mainland in ‘97-99. They thought HK was going to loose out and become a backward city in China. It turned out the Communist Party was more capitalist and pro-business friendly than the state of California. And since costs are less many tech companies have moved jobs overseas.
LOL! it wouldn’t surprise me regarding the closure of malls. As was the case back in 1989-91, we had lots of distressed small retailers, restaurants, and night clubs which eventually went under.

Hey t.w87: :)

Yeah, Marxist politicians, some well-known financial institutions, some corporations, and voters here in the USA, their thinking shaped by the 60's radical left, are in charge and are actually outdoing the communists in China. They don't think there's anything wrong with Marxism; they think the problem is that Marxism/socialism hasn't been *administered properly* in the former USSR and China and that's why its failed to one degree or another. So, things will actually be worse here in the USA as these folks attempt to outdo the Soviets and Red Chinese, if you can imagine that....

My across-the-street-neighbors in Irvine came here from China when Mao came into power. Their father was a general in the Chinese army prior to the communist take over. He and his immediate family came here at the time of the Cultural Revolution to avoid execution.

My dad was a Vietnam Vet. He told me that the Chinese communists, allied with Vietnamese communists (Viet Cong) beheaded anyone who didn't go along with their Party line in S or N Vietnam. Anyone: old grandmas, elderly men, their children - anyone who didn't kowtow to them was executed in Vietnam. A whole lot of deaths.

This country (USA) hasn't seen anything yet. The Marxists/communists rule by death.

~Misstrial

No, that's not quite right. Our problem is that corporations, especially banks, have turned the US into a communist system in which corporations get massive welfare (the $700B for banks is just a bit of it) and don't have to compete, and are not allowed to fail.

So it's not that we have state-run corporations, but rather we have corporations running the state!

And they use a false "left vs right" divide to conquer us. While we're arguing about everything BUT their takeover of government, they are busily looting the US treasury and leaving us all with the debts.

No, that’s not quite right. Our problem is that corporations, especially banks, have turned the US into a communist system in which corporations get massive welfare (the $700B for banks is just a bit of it) and don’t have to compete, and are not allowed to fail.
So it’s not that we have state-run corporations, but rather we have corporations running the state!
And they use a false “left vs right” divide to conquer us. While we’re arguing about everything BUT their takeover of government, they are busily looting the US treasury and leaving us all with the debts.

ty Patrick, I added "some well-known financial institutions" and "some corporations" to my post above.

And you are correct, there are those on both sides of the political aisle who are contributing to this.

~Misstrial

@dontgetit

BTW, things are going, we might be having “Inshoring”. China probably would offshore work to us…

Dont Get it, explain in-shoring? Does this mean that China will have to many jobs and not enough talent? or...are you referring to a influx of people from China picking up their properties and businesses bought during this downturn?

4X says

@dontgetit

BTW, things are going, we might be having “Inshoring”. China probably would offshore work to us…

Dont Get it, explain in-shoring? Does this mean that China will have to many jobs and not enough talent? or…are you referring to a influx of people from China picking up their properties and businesses bought during this downturn?

I was just kidding. Forgot to put the sarcasm cap on. Anyways, on a serious note, with so much T-bills, I dont care if they buy real estate, but I think their corporations are buying water/mineral rights all over the world. Thats pretty scary. Down the line 20-30 yrs from now, I think the country that controls the water/mineral can very well be the dominant one.

Corporations buying water rights in Bolivia did not work out so well:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/thestory.html

Misstrial says

No, that’s not quite right. Our problem is that corporations, especially banks, have turned the US into a communist system in which corporations get massive welfare (the $700B for banks is just a bit of it) and don’t have to compete, and are not allowed to fail.

Like I said before the "massive welfare bailout to banks" was to make your personal bank account along with other corporate, government and other business entity cash balances whole. The expected return of 'your' deposit with interest revenue to the bank by borrowers didnt happen since homeowners defaulted on their loans leaving your bank balance exposed to loses.

Had banks failed, your checking and savings account balance would have disappeared, along with your employers account who had payroll and vendor obligations. Local, state, and federal governments would be unable to pay its workers and we would be far worst. Yes! to big to fail.

Where do you think Apple, Intel, GM, State of California and Ma&Pop small business keep their money to pay their bills. And no they are not covered by FDIC or any other plan.

Sorry for the long explanation.

So it’s not that we have state-run corporations, but rather we have corporations running the state!

LIke some of Obama "friends" from the valley who keep talking about Solar and Clean Coal. While ignoring Nuke plants
which isnt in their interest.