Foreclosure map – Real Bay Area or not
Burbed reader Madhaus shared this recently:
WIthout a doubt, the East Bay is definitely not in the Real Bay Area. But clearly this visualization is skewed. Palo Alto in the orange? Uh, 1 in 1200 isn’t exactly a screaming rate of foreclosures.
What do you think?
April 19th, 2008 at 8:58 am
That’s a neat map. Heat map LOL. The BA is HOT!
Remember Palo Alto has “the EPA” and there are even some bad areas that are officially menlo park. Even Sunnyvale has a little area, along Maude Avenue to the 101, that’s “not too great” lol.
Very cool map.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
what do I think? I think Realestater will be all over this thread, spouting the usual crap that it’s always a great time to buy. And he’s not a realtor? Yeah, right.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
” And he’s not a realtor? Yeah, right.”
Now, now, waiting for the fall, just because someone’s an imbecile doesn’t necessarily make them a realtor.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I KNEW IT.
some parts of berkeley are the real bay area after all!!!!!!
April 19th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
realestater must still have his head up his behind cuz we all know he is full of Sh*t
April 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am
To be fair, not all PA foreclosure addresses are not in proper PA. However, PA is not clean either. It has its sown share of foreclosures.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
realestater must still have his head up his behind cuz we all know he is full of Sh*t
———–
Whatever you say might be 100% correct, but atleast he lives in “management class” neighborhood with “smart people”. Do you?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Just keep watching the foreclosures. Eventually they hit critical mass and nobody can hold onto their place when everyone in the neighborhood gets their HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) canceled. This is a huge problem in Southern Cal and it’s why that irvine blog is so much fun to read.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Foreclosures is not even close to being a problem in the RBA. You can search for the actual numbers by zip, county, or city on the SF Chronicle website:
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/foreclosures/
Here are some zips I checked:
Sunnyvale 94087 – 3
Mountain View 94041 – 1
Cupertino 95014 – 1
Los Altos 94024 – 0
Palo Alto 94301 – 0
Palo Alto 94306 – 0
Madhaus – Give me a freaking break!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Need more?
Atherton 94027 – 0
Woodside 94062 – 0
Menlo Park 94028 – 0
Burlingame 94010 – 1
San Carlos 94070 – 2
Before some idiot yells out Palo Alto 94303 has 44 foreclosures, let me inform you that 94303 is a shared zip code with East Palo Alto. All of those 44 foreclosures must be on the EPA side. Even with that number, that is less than 5 per 1000 households in that ghetto area. Conclusion? Foreclosures has nil effect on the RBA market. Yup, I say it again, nil as in zippo.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Austin Powers,
If you’re not smart enough to tell reality from hysteria, you deserve to live in the s*** neighborhood with your supporter.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
The SFGate site only mentions the TDS. Other sites carry auction and preforeclosure info showing how much worse it’s going to get. See the post on Patrick.net “is there 1 or 74 foreclosures in Palo Alto” from a couple of weeks ago. So these numbers tend lower than what’s in the pipeline. All the zips you mention with zero hits have preforeclosures.
Okay, moving on to this one site. Gosh, RE, why didn’t you mention that 94087 Q1 foreclosures are up a whopping 50% over last year? Yeah there’s 3 foreclosures first quarter, and there were 3 foreclosures there in the whole freakin’ YEAR of 2007. Maybe you’d better stop doing amateur research.
Also I wondered why you left out Los Altos’ OTHER zip code. Oh, that’s why:
Los Altos 94022: 2 Q108, 1 in ALL OF 2007.
Mtn Vu 94040 (you know, the GOOD zip): 2 Q108, 4 in all of ’07
Mtn Vu 94043 (you know, ANOTHER zip): 5 Q108. Total in all 2007: 4.
Saratoga 95070 1 in q108. A whopping 5 last year, of which 1 was also in q107.
Los Gatos 95032: 5 Q108. This is great, there were only 3 in ALL of 2007. The other 2 LG zips had one foreclosure each last quarter.
San Jose 95129 – the Cup School District one. 2 Q108, 3 in ALL of 2007.
Willow Glen 95125 – oh oh. 17 in Q108. How many for all of 2007? 13.
Yup, I see a trend allright – a trend of INCREASES in foreclosures in the RBA, which you still haven’t bothered defining for us. Therefore any claim you have about the RBA is patent nonsense since your terms are undefined. Your statements are the equivalent of dividing by zero.
Fun facts: Worst zip in Santa Clara County, by foreclosure rate: San Jose 95116, 10+ homes per thousand in foreclosure. Most foreclosures, SJ 95111 with a whopping 94.
Extra Credit: What is so special about San Jose 95134, with no foreclosures in ’08 yet? It’s very very special because it also had no foreclosures in ’07, just like 94301 & 94306, 2 of the Paly zips. It’s MORE special than 94024, the only other zip with zero foreclosures, because this Los Altos zip had itself a foreclosure last year.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
See the post on Patrick.net “is there 1 or 74 foreclosures in Palo Alto” from a couple of weeks ago.
————–
Any zipcode that has foreclosure is not part of RBA. It’s simply not “desirable”. End of discussion.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 am
All the zips you mention with zero hits have preforeclosures.
————-
Hmmmmm. Someone is missing “pulse of the market”!
Did I tell you that “homes are flying through court window”.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
All of those 44 foreclosures must be on the EPA side.
———–
Right! I don’t have any proof, but I know. I know because I know. I don’t need to find and verify anything, because I already know. I know because I feel so. As I feel so, it got to be true. As it got to be true, IT IS FACT.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
>>See the post on Patrick.net “is there 1 or 74 foreclosures in Palo Alto” from a couple of weeks ago.
It’s entertaining to see how you guys like to go back to the sanctuary of Patrick.net.
This is just another example where reading the data without understanding it is useless. As I already explained above, Palo Alto shares one zip code with East Palo Alto. That’s where the foreclosures are. There is no such thing as foreclosure in Palo Alto. I showed you all the other zips in Palo Alto already. The “94303″ part of Palo Alto is one of the most prestigious area. When you enter University Avenue from 101 side, that area is 94303. Even the cheaper parts of Palo Alto (where Madhaus could not afford 15 years ago) has no foreclosure. How can there be be any foreclosure in 94303?
74 foreclosures in PA? Get a clue. There are not even that many house listings in the entire city of Palo Alto right now!
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Also I wondered why you left out Los Altos’ OTHER zip code. Oh, that’s why:
————
Madhaus,
Unless you cherry-pick data and present it in a professional manner, it remains as “amateur info”. You need to learn little bit about professionalism – a very honest and unbiased kind of professionalism with highest degree for integrity. You know people in real estate industry are famous for that.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
>>why didn’t you mention that 94087 Q1 foreclosures are up a whopping 50% over last year? Yeah there’s 3 foreclosures first quarter, and there were 3 foreclosures there in the whole freakin’ YEAR of 2007.
Are you trolling, Madhaus? It doesn’t matter what the percentage is.
3 foreclosures (in Q1, Q2, yearly, or whatever) is 0.22 per 1000 households. The number is microscopic. When you were looking at the SAT stats, did you notice there are always some idiots who fail the test?
Here’s a typical scenario:
“Patrick.net reports 300% increase in foreclosures in city XYZ! The sky is falling!”
RE checks the data, and finds out, oh…3 houses got foreclosed instead of 1 out of 1 million household. Better get brace for the fall now!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
Pralay,
Yes, I’m cherry picking. The entire RBA is like one big cherry ranch!
I’m still waiting for you to find that 1 bad apple that spoils the scene. Where can I get a bargain, Pralay? After all, you are in the RBA (Real Big Amateur) camp, are you?
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
I’m still waiting for you to find that 1 bad apple that spoils the scene.
————
RealEstarer,
I am going to feed the troll (YOU) for one more time. Over and over I have seen that you are such a lazy ass that you don’t even make any effort to disprove anything. Instead, you keep repeating your talking point without any data to support your claim – just like those politicians.
Question 1: From the map given above, how many homes did you find in East Palo Alto (and not in Palo Alto)?
Question 2: Is this home showed in the map located in Palo Alto or East Palo Alto? It has 94306 zipcode.
Pricing:
3 beds: $326,385
Full Baths: 2
Square Feet: 1323
Address:
Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA 94306
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Pralay,
LOL. Using a cartoon map to prove your point? Show me a real house I can buy in PA for $320K. I have cash waiting, and can pay more.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Let’s keep it a bit civil guys!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
LOL. Using a cartoon map to prove your point? Show me a real house I can buy in PA for $320K. I have cash waiting, and can pay more.
———-
That’s why I call you troll. You don’t answer question directly and keep repeating your talking point.
Do you want to tell me that the information provided in that site is NOT TRUE. If so, you should state it clearly.
But I know you won’t answer above question either. Such a troll!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Let’s keep it a bit civil guys!
———-
Civility with a troll! You got to be kidding!
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
I don’t thinks this meets the definition of trolling because it is on topic.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
are my comments showing?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Show me a real house I can buy in PA for $320K.
———–
To be more precise, nowhere I implied that you can get that house for $320. As it is on auction, it go well above the starting price. You are playing your usual game to deviate from the original point.
The main point is that YOU CLAIMED that there is no foreclosure in Palo Alto. As you know “pulse of the market” too well, why don’t you do us a favor by telling if the information in that “cartoon map” true or not?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Sorry crossroads, it looks like your comment got stuck in the spam filter. Now fixed.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
I don’t thinks this meets the definition of trolling because it is on topic.
————-
Ha! Refuting the Hotpad map as “cartoon map” to claim there is no foreclosure in PA – that got be “on topic”!
If someone want to refute the information provided hotpad sincerely, at least he should point out the errors in that site/map. A troll does not do that. A troll says “oh! that’s just a cartoon map”.
Having said that, I am not saying that information in hotpad is 100% correct. But if there is any inaccuracy I would like to know that.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
>>You are playing your usual game to deviate from the original point.
The original point, as I stated a few times, is that foreclosures are irrelevant in the RBA. Madhaus says there are 74 foreclosures in PA. Rather than debating with him, you come to me complaining I might be off by 1? WTF?
Neither I nor you know the specifics around that house on Park Blvd, since it does not disclose the full address. It could be a marketing gimmick, like those in the mail which tells you that you’ve won a million dollars.
However, I do know more about Park Blvd than you. Park Blvd. backs up to Cal Train, so there could be a property out there that the owner gave up on. Still, talking about these isolated cases (that pops up in good times and bad) is a waste of time. You have certainly wasted enough of everyone’s time here with your distractions and general ignorence.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
The original point, as I stated a few times, is that foreclosures are irrelevant in the RBA.
————
RE,
This is NOT what you said earlier. You are changing your argument. Read your own post #16. You said:
“There is no such thing as foreclosure in Palo Alto.“.
Which one is your argument? “No such thing” or “foreclosures are irrelevant”?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Park Blvd. backs up to Cal Train, so there could be a property out there that the owner gave up on.
———–
Oh, yeah! First “there is no such thing as foreclosure in Palo Alto“, and then “there could be a property out there that the owner gave up on”.
I thought PA market is hot – properties are “snapped up” within a week.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Neither I nor you know the specifics around that house on Park Blvd, since it does not disclose the full address. It could be a marketing gimmick, like those in the mail which tells you that you’ve won a million dollars.
—————-
Come on RealEstater! You are the ONLY market expert here – among “bunch of cluless amateurs”. You know “pulse of the market”. You should know the exact address. How about this address?
4129 Park Blvd
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
You have certainly wasted enough of everyone’s time here with your distractions and general ignorence.
————
You really want to know what is “waste of time”?
- A “hitech guy” who claims to be an “investor” but spending too much time to defend a joke.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Pralay, don’t feed the troll. When I reply, it’s to post facts. They aren’t for the troll, they’re for everyone else following along at home, so they can decide who actually understands the pulse of the market versus who is flying through a window.
burbed, I know 1+0=10, but what the heck is 0+1? I tried entering “01″ and your stupid editor wouldn’t accept it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Madhaus,
LOL. Your “facts” are not even accepted by the editor.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
They aren’t for the troll, they’re for everyone else following along at home, so they can decide who actually understands the pulse of the market versus who is flying through a window.
———–
And the “management class” troll still cannot decide which was his original argument: “no such thing as foreclosure in Palo Alto“ or “foreclosures are irrelevant in RBA”.