patrick.net

1 to 3 early to late 90s. For SFBA pre-1998.

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/Major/NorCal.html

John Talbott's book "Sell Now!" had a nice chart in it showing how the price/rent ratio had dramatically increased along with all luxury goods in various cities, including the Bay Area.

I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was relatively reasonable to buy in the early 1990's I think.

It's almost never wise to borrow the money for a house IMO. It's just socially accepted that it is. Pay cash or rent. save then buy. quit playing with the funny money. what would houses cost if there was no funny money to borrow? a lot less.

It all depends on Rents!!! get it?? Rent is House Value. Rent the House or rent the money. which one is a better deal?

so to answer the question

1. who cares all markets are local.
2. ""
3. "" SFH buyers in the City of SF in 2003-2008 can't cover there costs with rents IMO. (thats how F'n rich they are.) I'm sure they still can't today.

Houses in CA are liabilities not assets. we've all been brain washed.

@katy Rent is 'house value' to the pool of renters; Sale price is 'house value' to the pool of buyers; neither a borrower nor a lender be- sure [at least to relatives!]....
and don't get 'brainwashed' to either extreme- I say everything in moderation - whether it's ice cream or debt!

Katy Perry says

Houses in CA are liabilities not assets. we’ve all been brain washed.

a house is a liability regardless of whether or not you have a mortgage. The brainwashing is thinking this somehow changes once the mortgage is paid off.

toothfairy says

Katy Perry says

Houses in CA are liabilities not assets. we’ve all been brain washed.

a house is a liability regardless of whether or not you have a mortgage. The brainwashing is thinking this somehow changes once the mortgage is paid off.

Haha, how many people actually pay it off? Live 5-10 years pay the interest on rented money, sell it, give huge commission to a realtard, minus the money you put in. Add to all the costs(you know better). In the end you are ready to make another 30 year mortgage. Myths of home ownership.....

toothfairy says

Houses in CA are liabilities not assets. we’ve all been brain washed.

a house is a liability regardless of whether or not you have a mortgage. The brainwashing is thinking this somehow changes once the mortgage is paid off.

Er, yet again you are mostly incorrect.

Honestly, I'd just quit posting if I was wrong as often as you are, but to each their own.

There is NOTHING that says one must perform maintenance or repair on their house...at least if its not in violation of govt law(or I suppose HOA if that applies).

There is the taxes, but in general thats a relatively small amount and you'd be indirectly paying that anyway as a renter.

toothfairy says

Katy Perry says

Houses in CA are liabilities not assets. we’ve all been brain washed.

a house is a liability regardless of whether or not you have a mortgage. The brainwashing is thinking this somehow changes once the mortgage is paid off.

I so agree. well said.

toothfairy says

a house is a liability regardless of whether or not you have a mortgage. The brainwashing is thinking this somehow changes once the mortgage is paid off.

Once your mortgage is paid off your house is hardly a liability anymore... It's place to live, that you can choose to maintain or you can just not to maintain. My parents are 50 and have their mortgage paid off and I've never once heard them complain about their home being a "liability".. In fact they love the freedom they have now. Most home maintenance is really UPGRADES to the home that are totally optional. The most expensive repair in a home is a roof and most companies give you a 30 YEAR to LIFETIME warranty on your roof.. that only costs maybe 15K-25K. The next most expensive maintenance would be the Central A/C and heating.. and that's at most $5K-10K for 10-15 years of life. That breaks down to about $100 a month in maintenance... The rest is pretty much optional.

Los Angeles Renter says

The most expensive repair in a home is a roof and most companies give you a 30 YEAR to LIFETIME warranty on your roof.. that only costs maybe 15K-25K.

How many roofing companies are around in 30 years to make good on that warranty?

Los Angeles Renter says

The most expensive repair in a home is a roof and most companies give you a 30 YEAR to LIFETIME warranty on your roof..

i've heard foundation can be very expensive.

Katy Perry says

I so agree. well said.

yeah but then I dont get your ranting about having a mortgage.

sorry didn't mean to steer this thread off course even though the question has mostly been answered. I just had to point that out since I experienced this first hand last month closed my first all cash deal so there's no mortgage, yet it feels no different. the thing is still a liability.
I pay taxes and insurance each month so if the house burns down I'm not left with a big fat goose egg.
I'm already looking forward to pulling my money out with a refi.

Los Angeles Renter says

Once your mortgage is paid off your house is hardly a liability anymore…

Who do you know that has paid off their mortgage? I know you can count it on one hand.

Well if it's not a liability it for sure is not an asset. I've heard trip and falls are sort of liability. Plus Taxes and HOA fees. Plus a marraige that falls apart is a little different for a CA home "owner" vs a renter. Plus all the nesting upgrades the Va jay jay wants,...I mean needs. like i was saying we have been brain washed.

toothfairy says

I so agree. well said.

yeah but then I dont get your ranting about having a mortgage.

I agree toothfairy. an "owner" occupied house is a liability regardless IMO. Look I'm a renter so I see things a little differently than you. I must admit I'm open to a change if i feel like it's worth it. Like a few hundred over my costs every month maybe ( that's not even enough for the hassle is it?)

E-man says

I disagree. If a house generates positive cashflow income, it’s an asset and not a liability. :)

I was speaking about owner occupied,.. my bad. but positive cash flow is not always worth the hassle you have to admit. I don't think two hundred dollars a month over is worth it if I have to be at the house every other week. I'm not foolish enough to believe that being a landlord is every ones dream.

Yes Eman,.. I know there are real owners In America. but I bet you don't personally know any in San Hoe CA. All those owners are in states like MT, ID, ND, SD, I bet.

dont get me wrong. debt free is a pretty good feeling. reducing expenses is good too. I still pay tax+ins but still less than most people pay in rent. A lot less. possibly by a factor of 10x.

I never tell anyone they should buy or rent because it's cheaper because everyone's situation is different.
I think where we agree is that using debt to purchase liabilities isn't exactly a good thing,
but you gotta do what works for you.

By the time my parents moved out of their home in Rosemead, CA...about 10 years ago, and 32 or so years after purchase....they had their house owned free and clear, paid property taxes on ~$27K valuation...as did 8 of the 12 homes occupied by the original owners.

So pretty much NOT a liability...if they don't do maintenance...which judging by the shape of homes in some older So Cal neighborhoods...is the standard.

Again...owned home /= liability

In deference to Katy, the vajayjay is universally a liability in one form or another. Even in the cavemen societies where women wear burpkas and crap.

E-man says

Katy Perry says
Who do you know that has paid off their mortgage? I know you can count it on one hand.
Are you kidding me? If I recall correctly from Calculated Risk and some other sources, there are 75M homeowners in America, but only 51M have mortgages. I hope you have 5M hands and 25M fingers.

My home will be paid off later this year. Does that count?

Unlike Californians, my market value is not high. Property tax & insurance = $4500/yr for a modest 1974 SFH. That's a bit higher than my neighbors because I have more land, but much lower than coworkers or family in other communities. Some of them pay $8K-$10K/yr tax for nice but not extravagant homes.

I don't understand how California can afford proposition 13. It does not make sense for people to only pay a few hundred dollars per year. There must be enough people paying tens of thousands to offset it.

Payoff2011 says

I don’t understand how California can afford proposition 13. It does not make sense for people to only pay a few hundred dollars per year. There must be enough people paying tens of thousands to offset it.

That's part of the reason things are so hosed right now. Up until recently property values were going going up up up, and revenue was going up with them, filling up the gaps. Now that the values are dropping, they support for all those non-tax payers is going away.