invite response« First « Previous Comments 51 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
Patrick
2009 Jul 10, 3:44am
Dude !!! we agreed on something!! Seriously, this site has shown over and over that leftys and rightys agreed on the house bubble issue.
Hey, that's true! Never thought of it that way, but it's something that really does unite across the political divide. Maybe there should be a single-issue anti-bubble party that gets people elected to stop the bubble-mongering and doesn't touch the other issues.
pkowen
2009 Jul 10, 7:38am
I realize that location is important - ya’ll live where there are (were) plenty of jobs - actually still are as compared to my area. There are a little over 100k people in our entire county. But the homes you describe, 1800-2400 sqft, are selling for around $150-250k depending upon acreage, etc. At the height of the bubble my house was about $325k, now its around $180k.
I honestly can’t figure out how any of you manage to buy out there. My $40-$50k salary here would be $60k there, still not enough to live on.
Wow.
Ellie, your point comes close to home for me. You speak in terms of acreage? Bwaa-haha ha. Only people with acreage here are so far away it might as well be Texas, or so rich they don't have to work. I won't quote my salary but I went from the top 5% income in my previous town in the flyover land, to just above median income in my current zip code - that was with a 20% raise. So a 20% raise out here translates to a 50% pay cut in my disposable income when bubble prices were in effect. The idea that an IT manager can't afford a decent little house on a decent little lot in a clean safe neighborhood is what made it clear to me there was a bubble. My argument is and has always been you can just look at what people actually earn relative to house prices and you'll see where the SF bay area is a total mess. In every other medium or lower density place on earth house prices are in line with 3x or less the median yearly income in an area. Median income $50k, median house $150k. It's rough but a good rule. Here in SF area, it's always been a little more - if you can buy a decent house for 3x median income in your zip code, out here it might be at 4x, maybe 4.5x due to a number of factors. In parts it is on the high-ish side because of more density. But let me remind folks 'the bay area' is a HUGE amount of land. Ok, SF proper is very dense but San Jose ?? 45 miles south and land stretching out for miles and miles? During the housing bubble San Hosey was fully up to 10x median yearly income, no lie, and still is in some areas, all due to option ARM, no doc, no money down, prices always go up, kool-aid madness.
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
Ive been a fan of patrick.net for awhile now, and I am curious what you guys think about this situation. We have been waiting to buy a house for 2 years now. We sold our place in SoCal and relocated to the bay area for work 2 years ago. We've been renting ever since. We live in Lafayette, and now we have started looking for a house because prices have finally started coming down here, but they are still high. We are also looking in Alamo.
I saw this huge, newer home just sold for 1,260,000 on June 6. I believe it was originally listed for over 2MM. It may have gone to auction or something to sell for such a low price.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/charts/67400598_zpid,5years_chartDuration/
 There is a house I am interested in listed for 1.3MM reduced from 1.4MM in the same neighborhood as the house above. The owner paid 1,075,000 in 2000
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2425-Alamo-Glen-Dr-Alamo-CA-94507/18427367_zpid/
The house could use some updating in the kitchen and baths, and new paint. Would it be unrealistic based on the prices falling in the area to offer $950k even though it is less than they paid in 2000? This is my plan if the house hasnt sold by the end of the summer. It has already been for sale over 75 days.