San Mateo 2br/1ba for rent $2000 – how much would it be to buy?
Let’s look at a rental listing on the MLS, and then look at the ZEstimate.
Reports
3924 Casanova DR, San Mateo 94403 (San Mateo)
$2,000 Beds: 2 bed(s) Baths: 1 bath(s) MLS: 80848296
Property Overview
3924 Casanova DR
San Mateo (San Mateo) 94403
Detached Single Family (Class 10)
Bed/Bath: 2 / 1
SqFt: 950
Lot Size: 950 sq ft
Date Available: 12/05/2008
Rental Price: $2,000
Remarks
Immaculate & charming home in S.M. Village. New interior paint, neutral carpets and window coverings. New paver driveway and patio. Beautiful large and private backyard. Gardener, washer and dryer included. Close to park, Whole Foods and highway 92. House is very light and airy – fireplace in living room. NO PETS!! NON SMOKERS PLEASE!!
Ok. $2000 a month for a 2/1.
What do you think the ZEstimate is?
Did you guess that it was: $537,000
Here’s some other juicy information:
ZESTIMATE®: $537,000
* Value Range: $451,080 – $569,220
* 30-day change: -$10,500
* Zestimate updated: 12/19/2008Last sale and tax info
Sold 06/10/2005:
$625,000
2008 Property Tax:
$7,352
Those of you with fancy calculators – how rich is this landlord becoming? Would you buy it today if it were offerred?
January 5th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Light and airy! Realtardese for “The house is old, dated and cramped, to distract you I advise keep looking UP.”
Another minuscule lot as well (under 4500 sf).
Happy Monday, all.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:28 am
This must be a mis-print because as we all know from the wise RE investors here, finding anything for rent under $4,000 a month is impossible. How dare this impostor ask for less than that. It totally screws up the whole cash flow equation. Rent will NEVER go down! Its the Bay Area for cryin’ out loud, and economy be damned, the rental market here is totally immune!
January 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Interest alone on 80% of the 625K purchase price would come to 2,500 per month with a 30yr @ 6%. If this is owned outright 2K should *just* cover costs, but it leaves no margin for vacancies.
Not a bad neighborhood, but not a great one either, I’d say this falls short of RBA.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Yeh, I guess that’s ok neighborhood. Next to everything: beautiful 101, Belmont upscale neighborhood (so your kids will have a chance to find playmates from good families), next to ghetto elementary school. Needless to say, this shack looks great on outside too! $2k/month rent for 2br/1b, are you kidding? It should be $3+k at least!
January 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
But it’s not in Palo Alto! Palo Alto and San Mateo are *completely different* market.
Anyway, mortgage comes out to $2.6K/mo, so savings by renting over buying are $7K. Pretty modest, esp. compared to the insane savings in the cupertino thread.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
This area is especially risky because of the new developments that will be put in place of Bay Meadows <1 mile away.
Recent plans suggested 1000+ condos will be put in, and while they won’t be directly comparable with SFH like this one, you’d better believe that they will directly compete for the same buyers.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
7k for taxes, then there is landscaping, owner insurance, blah blah blah. And yeah, the most expense 2/1 in San Mateo.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Well… Looks like the first week of trading is off with a fizzle. But of course that means nothing to people in the RBA who will “snap up” those homes when the market accordingly recovers in the Spring bounce, as so predicted by the investor geniuses here. Just you wait!
January 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
that’s right, bob! Who needs the stock market when we’re guaranteed 7% annual appreciation on our real estate holdings?!
January 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
7%? You’re not in the RBA. We get 10% here in the RBA, foolio.
And who’s the schmuck posting as “Real Alex?” The only real Alex here is ME!!
January 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“that’s right, bob! Who needs the stock market when we’re guaranteed 7% annual appreciation on our real estate holdings?!
Nobody. I’ll take a guaranteed 7% over anything except a guarantee of something higher
January 5th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I rent a similar place in a similar neighborhood (Evergreen SJ). I pay $1200. Lawl.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Sonar, you can’t possibly pay that little. Rents are going up. If you are, you must have found the one rental unit going for far below market.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
…or you live in a slum.
Alex, the 7% is based on price doubling every 10 years. Don’t get greedy now.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
SM Village…dang I rent in Baywood (west side of El Camino, a block away from downtown SM and within spittin’ distance of Hillsborough) and I’m only paying $1400/month…granted our place is just a 1/1 and a triplex rather than a single family dwelling but…that house is too close to Los Prados, 101, and Scotchollow (perhaps one of the worst apartment complexes on the Peninsula IMO) for my taste. And not all that close to Whole Foods – not like you can walk there very easily – the walk would include a wonderful hike across 8 lanes of the busiest part of East Hillsdale Blvd. Bleagh!
January 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
10 years, 10%. Blah blah blah. Same difference when you have a third grade education and the mental capacity of a Porsche.
What really matters is that real estate always goes up. Is anyone really disputing this? This ain’t Texas, for cryin’ out loud!
January 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I haven’t popped in for awhile. Here’s the latest on the (non-)selling front. I pulled my house off the market after my buyers failed to find a buyer for their over-priced POS. The listing officially expired December 31.
The first vulture, er, Realtor called to FRICKIN’ WAKE ME UP on New Year’s Day. Lovely. The one who called in the afternoon helpfully pointed out “spring is coming.” Duh. I guess the implication is that spring bounce would sell my property. They seem rather crushed when I tell them we aren’t going anywhere, and persist in asking where we had planned to move as if that makes a difference somehow.
I’ve gotten several letters as well, including a hand-delivered “special package” on my front porch. I feel like the prettiest girl at the dance. LOL. The tone of the letters is a bit different. They’re more of a scare tactic about housing values continuing to decline and the longer you wait, the more equity that will be lost. (Or as they say, “you are loosing equity.” (sic))
If these geniuses were so good at actual selling (rather than taking listings), they could have gotten their commission last summer/fall when the house was available.
Meh, I’m satisfied with staying at this point. Any suggestions what to say to the next one that calls and interrupts my dinner? I wouldn’t mind freaking one of them out.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“If these geniuses were so good at actual selling (rather than taking listings), they could have gotten their commission last summer/fall when the house was available.”
Unfortunately, for the past couple of years, all that has been required of them is what you mention. Maybe some will actually have to work now…
January 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
guys — i live on PA/LA border, with a 2B/2B, and only pay slightly more than that. don’t tell WGer, he’ll freak.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@17 – Try selling it yourself on craigslist. With all the information available on the Internet and most buyers doing their own browsing, you’ll stand a good chance at selling it. Selling a house is not rocket science. List it at less than you think it might be worth and remember that you don’t have to accept a offer. If you get a couple, raise the price. The lack of the 6% commission gives you flexibility. It’s not like you can’t decide to use a realtor down the road. I do think that it’s pretty likely that your house probably isn’t going to be going up in value any time soon though. So the “loosing” equity comment might be accurate. If you do use a realtor, use a very experienced one, not a clown that can’t spell their own name.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Thanks, Jim. I agree about the equity remark, I was just making fun of the grasp of language exhibited by many Realtors. Best case, prices will be flat for a couple of years. Not paying 6% would save me nearly $100k on the transaction.
Realtors are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Kind of like travel agents. (Well, not completely irrelevant, but their services aren’t worth more than $10k or so.)
January 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Light and Airy… 8 foot ceilings sure are light
flat as a pancake
crushed by the economy
a square and grey turd
January 5th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
OK Zanon, since you mentioned my name, can you at least acknowledge that a dump like this renting for $2K reinforces my point that good rentals are over $3K in many places and close to $5K in Palo Alto? The fact that you rented your place years ago is meaningless. The explosion in rents happened in 2008. I used to rent one particular house for $1700, the tenants moved out, I cleaned it and gave it to the rental agency and bam, $2650. This place above is not worth $2K. It probably rented for $900 or so just a few years ago. If this dump can get $2K, with 900 sq ft, with “neutral carpets” (another word for dump, nice places have floors these days) and in a spotty part of town, then everything half decent should rent for $3K. I doubt this gets $2K.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Amused Lurker, Ah baywood. Now THAT is a nice place. We are addicted to a “close in” feel- I think it derives from when the kids were home and having to drive them around everywhere, but anyway thats why we like WG in the south bay, we can walk everywhere and I am a half mile away from the skarks ice practice rink. Most of the tony neighborhoods here like Saratoga are too country for us. But Baywood, you are VERY close in, with a country feel. it is unique in that sense. Downtown Burlingame has everything you need, and tons of activities up there too.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
SanMatean- plus what about that train up there, the light rail or whatever it is? Won’t that go right through San Mateo village? Even if its quiet you have the whole construction issues.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:13 am
WGer: All the renters I know in PA came in before 08, so they are in the 2-3 category.
Craigslist right now is showing higher rents, which is fine. I have not done an analysis to see how accurate your rent figures are, but sure, you’ve spent more time on this than I have and I believe you.
I personally am very surprised at the strength of rents in non-RBA areas like Willow Glenn, San Mateo etc. A quick craigslist/zillow search in WG showed cash positive properties.
And RBA, even at elevated rent levels, is still hugely, monumentally, cash flow negative. PA rents need to be $8K-10K to get us there, and we’re nowhere close to that yet, nor do I think we’ll ever get there.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am
The difference in RBA that I see is that the people living there have built equity from prior home ownership and put down larger amounts when they buy. I have no data to back this up, but I’d be extremely surprised if many people have house payments in the $8k-10k range, even with taxes added in. Most of those folks don’t do the “investment math” and buy because they want to own a house and live in the neighborhood.
Which takes us back to your new definition of RBA (I think it was yours) – RBA is cash flow negative but no one cares. Still, there will be a limit to the premium people are willing to pay and unlike certain people here, I think prices will have to come down to retain their relative value to the low end that has been crushed lately.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Ahh yes… rents. The next thing to fall that RE cheerleaders ( speculators) will deny all the way down as the rents fall as the result of the sour economy. Then what?
January 6th, 2009 at 8:50 am
N, I think you are probably right about people that move into areas like Palo Alto, Menlo Park, etc. The owners are also older and more well established and thus more able to ride out financial downturns. However, because of the steep market declines many would-be move-uppers have no equity and thus can’t move up into those places. That will definitely put a strain on the market in those areas as it limits the pool of buyers. Of course so too does the fact that those areas are still close to bubble prices and that neighboring areas are falling which makes them more attractive relative to places like PA.
In short, I doubt will see many foreclosures in areas like Palo Alto, but I definitely think the bubble prices will deflate until the premium for those areas comes back into line with their historical norm.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am
It’s below market but I’ve seen other 2-bedroom houses in the area for $1500. It’s just an old and problematic place with no curb appeal, concrete walls and chintzy metal awnings. But otherwise no real problems.. safe area, just a bit far from everything.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:44 am
WG,
Caltrain runs more than half a mile away, I doubt this is a significant factor (For comparison, anything between Middlefield and Alma in Palo Alto are as close or closer to the tracks).
Similarly, construction issues shouldn’t significantly impact this area- unless Hillsdale traffic is significantly disturbed.
You guys quoting 2.5K, trending towards 3K in this area.
If you have tips to find lower rent, I’m all ears!
January 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Whoa- looks like my last post was rearranged by some HTML issues, reposted with “greater than” and “less than” instead of their symbols:
WG,
Caltrain runs more than half a mile away, I doubt this is a significant factor (For comparison, anything between Middlefield and Alma in Palo Alto are as close or closer to the tracks).
Similarly, construction issues shouldn’t significantly impact this area- unless Hillsdale traffic is significantly disturbed.
You guys quoting less than 2K rents for a 2Br- are you in detached single family homes? There is a substantial premium to be paid to have your own yard, garage, etc, to not have to share a wall with a neighbor, the list goes on and on…
I just took a peek around craigslist and I found 2 listings less than 2K for 2 bedroom SFH rentals. It really seems like most SFH rentals are more than 2.5K, trending towards 3K in this area.
If you have tips to find lower rent, I’m all ears!
January 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
nomadic says,
>>The difference in RBA that I see is that the people living there have built equity from prior home ownership and put down larger amounts when they buy. I have no data to back this up, but I’d be extremely surprised if many people have house payments in the $8k-10k range
As a long time resident of the RBA, I would agree with the above. Generally, the people who have always owned homes have the most equity. The renters never end up saving much money, and keep falling further and further behind the homeowners. This is why many renters think home ownership is unattainable, while fact, it’s quite attainable if you find an entry point, stay in the game, and then move up when possible.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I am talking about detached single family homes, yes. Mainly in Alum Rock though I live in Evergreen.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
RE says,
>>This is why many renters think home ownership is unattainable, while fact, it’s quite attainable if you find an entry point, stay in the game, and then move up when possible.
Generally true, but for people who bought in the last 3-4 years, purchase of entry-point homes has spelled financial disaster. Almost any SFH that sold for <750K in 2005 will resell today for <500K (SF proper excluded for now). These people will not be moving up any time soon, if ever.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“As a long time resident of the RBA, I would agree with the above. Generally, the people who have always owned homes have the most equity. The renters never end up saving much money, and keep falling further and further behind the homeowners. This is why many renters think home ownership is unattainable, while fact, it’s quite attainable if you find an entry point, stay in the game, and then move up when possible.”
I actually agree with that, as a general statement, the caveat being that it is never a good time to buy an over-priced house because you will lose equity in the short term and not gain much in the long term and thus not be able to move-up. Now is one of those times. You also shouldn’t be buying if you can’t do so on standard terms (ie. 30 year fixed) without over-extending yourself. Common sense of course, but if people used common sense the last 5 years, we wouldn’t have a market that remains 25% overpriced.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
sonarrat,
Okay, looks like we’re talking about totally different markets. Alum Rock median 2BR SFH asking is ~299K, whereas San Mateo is ~600K. No surprise that there should be a substantial difference in rent.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:01 am
““As a long time resident of the RBA…”
LOL – I’m calling bs. Were RE a long time resident of the RBA, he would be very aware that home prices in the upper end do not double every 10 years.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:15 am
The renters never end up saving much money, and keep falling further and further behind the homeowners.
RE, remember that you and I had an exchange about this very notion awhile back? As you might recall, I disproved the theory above since My Wife and I both save more than half our incomes and could buy a home for cash elsewhere, or a big chunk of one in the RBA if we really wanted to.We save more than what the average homeowner has supposedly gotten in equity and then some.
You need to understand that equity is not necessarily an outstanding performer and that if rent is signifigantly less than buying,as has been in the BA for years, a smart renter can in turn save more money than a homeowner will gain in equity, and in the case of the owner, the value is merely paper wealth until sold, hence not as accessible.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
bob – depends on where you own the house. I would tend to agree that owning one higher end house (that has a large chunk of cash tied up) isn’t the best way to maximize long term income.
However, the difference between your fastidious saving & frugal living and a homeowner, is that a homeowner takes advantage of leverage in a rising market. (It can kill you in times like this too.) The two years I owned in 94087 during the bubble run up was like having a room mate earning a six-figure salary who gave me all his money. TAX FREE too!
Of course, the bubble is long gone and won’t be seen again in my lifetime, but it was fortuitous for some nonetheless. Just think how much more you’d have if you were lucky enough (and it was just luck) to take advantage of the situation while also socking away as much money as possible.
I know you are too risk-averse to consider leverage, so maybe I’m wasting my time. You should just be able to see and understand another viewpoint. Besides, you are a relatively rare exception to RE’s rudely stated point.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Wise words, nomadick. LOL
January 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Bob says,
>>RE, remember that you and I had an exchange about this very notion awhile back? As you might recall, I disproved the theory above since My Wife and I both save more than half our incomes and could buy a home for cash elsewhere,
Bob, I’m sure you’re honest about your statement, and you firmly believe you have a lot of money. The thing is that what you consider as a lot of money is not a lot of money by Bay Area standards. When you say you can buy a house for cash elsewhere, you’re thinking about Tennessee, Texas, or one of those deserted places you’re thinking about moving to. I am sure you can buy a $200K house outtright, so can many homeowners in California if they were to sell their homes and move to a third world state. In fact, these folks can probably retire outright, but very few choose to go that route.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
WTF? I stop posting for ONE DAY and everyone goes gangbusters while I’m on the danged plane back to the RBA!
bob — most people working in/near Silicon Valley aren’t willing to drive a 40 mile commute and RENT.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Hey, can we have some positive spin here? WG? RE?
The U.S. economy is likely to deteriorate further this year and unemployment will rise into 2010, according to the latest forecasts from the staff of the Federal Reserve.
.
“Meeting participants generally agreed that the uncertainty surrounding the outlook was considerable and that downside risks to even this weak trajectory for economic activity were a serious concern,” the Fed said in the minutes.
If the current recession, which began in December 2007, lasts throughout 2009, that would make it the longest U.S. economic downturn since the Great Depression.
.
The minutes also showed that some Fed members are now more worried about the threat posed by deflation, or falling prices, than they are about inflation. Deflation can slow economic activity dramatically since it could lead to businesses to cut their production plans in the wake of lower prices.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Deflation means that people have to spend less money on essentials.
Meaning they can spend more money on – you guessed it – real estate.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Deflation can slow economic activity dramatically since it could lead to businesses to cut their production plans in the wake of lower prices.
The real risk of deflation is that money is worth less in the bank tomorrow than it is today. It actually encourages people to spend rather than save. Which is amusing since that’s pretty much been the plan for the average American since about, oh, 1978.
Deflation means that people have to spend less money on essentials.
Meaning they can spend more money on – you guessed it – real estate.
No, no, no! Deflation encourages people to move to barter, because there’s no point in saving money. So I will trade you four dozen Sprinkles Cupcakes for your Cayenne.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
LOL – there you go! Spend it on real estate…
Maybe I should go get a new car or something. It’s my patriotic duty! (If it’s built in the US anyway.)
January 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
RE,
If I ever want to be amused by reading almost hysterical ignorance, all I have to do is read one of your replies. Has it occurred to you that of all the states gaining the most population, TX and NC tops the list? Do you think you know why? Are they in fact as you say- deserted third world states? Jesus Christ. Get your head out of your you-know-what.
Lastly, money is money, and I can almost guarantee that I’ve likely got a lot more saved up versus the average Bay Area homedebtor.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Lastly, money is money, and I can almost guarantee that I’ve likely got a lot more saved up versus the average Bay Area homedebtor.
With or without equity? Yeah, I know, anyone who bought after 2004 probably doesn’t have any.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
With or without equity, probably as you say- before 2004, or even 2002-2003 for that matter. I’m not saying equity is bad and cash is good, or vice-versa. But to state that renters are basically fools and are losing money is an inaccurate statement. Its easy to save money if rent is so much less than buying, even in a down market. It helps to realize that in a case like mine, I’m saving as much as I was last year yet the avg homeowner is losing equity value versus gaining it. Its possible to “make” as much or more by simply saving versus counting on equity. In the end its all about financial leverage.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
No swearin’!
- Haploid
January 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hey, can we have some positive spin here? WG? RE?
———-
LOL! Talking about positive spin. Let’s read what former NAR Chief Economist has to say about his positive spins:
So, did WG or RE take over responsibility David Lereah for giving positive spins?
January 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Deflation means old folks lose their life savings and as a result go riot on the streets, while the young ones snap their homes with still-cheap credit.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“The renters never end up saving much money, and keep falling further and further behind the homeowners. This is why many renters think home ownership is unattainable, while fact, it’s quite attainable if you find an entry point, stay in the game, and then move up when possible.”
Ooops! What’s their plan B now RE?
January 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Pralay, #52- Thats incredible! What an interview with that turkey Lereah.
Here is more from your link,
Q. The NAR’s latest forecast calls for a slight increase in home prices next year. Thoughts?
A. My views are quite different now. I’m pretty bearish and have been for the past year and a half. Home prices will continue to drop. I think we’ll see a very modest recovery in sales activity in 2009. But we’ve still got excess inventories, a bad economy and a credit crunch that will push prices down further, another 5% to 10% more. It’ll take a long time to get back to the peak prices we saw in many markets.
Q. Any regrets?
A. I would not have done anything different. But I was a public spokesman writing about housing having a good future. I was wrong. I have to take responsibility for that
So in other words now he is trying to make a living in consulting which means he will be hired on his record of accuracy. He must have had an “oh shit” moment when he tried to get a job in the real world. What an idiot!
January 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Gotta disagree a little here with you madhaus. Deflation encourages people to WAIT vs spend. It is true that money in the bank is worth less tomorrow than today, but it is also true that everything you might want to buy will be cheaper tomorrow.
The real risk of deflation is that money is worth less in the bank tomorrow than it is today. It actually encourages people to spend rather than save. Which is amusing since that’s pretty much been the plan for the average American since about, oh, 1978.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
WG, during deflation the bank takes away interest rather than gives it to you! So the best place for your money during deflation would be to put it in real estate.
As in hide it under the crawlspace.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Madhaus,
Do you have an example of a bank charging real negative interest rates? The concept amuses me, and indeed, if this were to happen one would be tempted to store cash in safety deposit boxes, or something of the sort.
I’d probably look for a Treasury investment vehicle with a positive interest rate if banks were offering negative interest rates. If the Fed is offering negative rates, then barter starts to look attractive.
RE- you are right that deflation encourages delayed capital expenditures, etc., since rational people recognize that the same goods can likely be purchased for less tomorrow than they can be today. But the notion that money loses value over time in a deflationary period is dead wrong. Rather, the purchasing power of money is eroded in an *inflationary* period.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The real risk of deflation is that money is worth less in the bank tomorrow than it is today. It actually encourages people to spend rather than save. Which is amusing since that’s pretty much been the plan for the average American since about, oh, 1978.
I shudder to think that this logic might:
1- reflect the failures of our education system.
2- be represented as truth to other uninformed individuals.
3- not be an intentional joke.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
LOL regarding #59. I had a double take when that comment was made.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Bob says,
>>Has it occurred to you that of all the states gaining the most population, TX and NC tops the list?
Let’s take a look at the data.
Can you say, “We are number one!”?
January 6th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
uh, thanks for the data. CA is #1 in CURRENT population. The growth figures are the third set. CA is #13… behind Texas (#4) and NC (#7).
Change: 2000 to 2030
State Number Percent Rank in percent change
United States 82,162,529 29.2 (x)
Nevada 2,283,845 114.3 1
Arizona 5,581,765 108.8 2
Florida 12,703,391 79.5 3
Texas 12,465,924 59.8 4
Utah 1,252,198 56.1 5
Idaho 675,671 52.2 6
North Carolina 4,178,426 51.9 7
Georgia 3,831,385 46.8 8
Washington 2,730,680 46.3 9
Oregon 1,412,519 41.3 10
Virginia 2,746,504 38.8 11
Alaska 240,742 38.4 12
California 12,573,213 37.1 13
January 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Nah, I think he was too excited about having back up for his argument (first. time. evar!) and didn’t bother to see it was bad data.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Floor wax? Or dessert topping?
Dumber than a box of rocks? Or an excellent troll who keeps his victims biting?
So many choices!
January 6th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Have anyone heard the radio ad for Shreve & Co watches (the one about communicating your success, the corner office and the luxury sedan)? It makes me think of Chuckie every time I hear it.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Have? HAVE??? Has!
January 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
guys:
deflation means that money gains in value.
it’s not complicated.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Hey, can we have some positive spin here? WG? RE?
The U.S. economy is likely to deteriorate further this year and unemployment will rise into 2010, according to the latest forecasts from the staff of the Federal Reserve.
Actually, there was a negative spin given by the media. What I heard on NPR this evening was that some of the board members issued the above opinion, but it was the minority opinion. The majority opinion was that the economy would be challenging during the first half of 2009, and get better in the second half.
Finally, these are minutes from the last board meeting, so it’s basically old news.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:42 am
uh, thanks for the data. CA is #1 in CURRENT population. The growth figures are the third set. CA is #13… behind Texas (#4) and NC (#7).
—–
It would be hard to understand the difference between population growth and current population by a real estate agent.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:52 am
The majority opinion was that the economy would be challenging during the first half of 2009, and get better in the second half.
——
See nomadic, the best positive spin always comes from our Chuckie. Let’s read the news about meeting minutes.
Slow recovery to begin. Our Chuckie translated “get better”. Doesn’t it sound lot better? Lot more positive. That’s the positive spin we are talking about.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Have anyone heard the radio ad for Shreve & Co watches (the one about communicating your success, the corner office and the luxury sedan)? It makes me think of Chuckie every time I hear it.
—–
Porsche, prestigious zipcode, exotic plants, mega-project, built-to-order furniture, engraved name on brick. Yet the best title this guy achieved here so far is troll. May be this guy indeed need a Shreve & Co watch to communicate success.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Putting aside the apparent fact that California is in fact growing more slowly than other states, shouldn’t we return to the more important question of RBA growth?
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rtr/ex5.pdf
The above 1998 CDHCD report projects 15% and 20% growth in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, respectievly, from 1997-2010, and an additional 5% and 8% between 2010 and 2020. Who knows if these projections are accurate, but the clear picture here is that we are expecting positive population growth.
Now, does net positive migration alone mean property values should increase? What if construction of new housing units outpaces population growth? What if the distribution of income is not shared by all of the growing population?
Really, simple population analyses are poors predictor of housing prices. They may be a good predictor of public service consumption, transit needs, etc.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Pralay says,
>>Slow recovery to begin. Our Chuckie translated “get better”. Doesn’t it sound lot better?
Same difference. If you’re “recovered” from something, aren’t you getting better? The only thing spinning here is your head.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Really, simple population analyses are poors predictor of housing prices.
Especially since we all know the vast majority of those newly minted immigrants are from across the border, and though I realize I’m stereotyping, its safe to say the bulk of them don’t make or have the kind of money to blow on RBA homes either.
Now on the other hand, domestic migration is interesting. Most reports show that of those migrating away from states like CA and the Northeast, the bulk are middle income to upper middle class residents. That’s the kind of growth you want to see. Not more migrant workers and burger flippers. California isn’t getting much of any domestic in-migration to speak of.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Same difference. If you’re “recovered” from something, aren’t you getting better? The only thing spinning here is your head.
————-
Fed did not say that it will be “recovered” in 2nd half of 2009. It said “slow recovery to begin“.
Oh, such a nitpicking! Goes back to Lereah’s comment mentioned in #52. Numbers are “accurate” (according to Lereah) but he put positive spin. Same thing goes to our Chuckie’s comment – technically “slow recovery to begin” is similar (not exactly same) to “getting better”. But it’s all about giving positive/negative spins – like half-full-half-empty glass analogy.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Pralay,
You got too much time on your hands, and too much useless stuff in your head.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
That’s because I am not running
fictitious24×7 IT infrastructure multi-million dollar megaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-project.January 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Oh it’s not a megaaaaaaaaaa project. I bet it’s a Pet-A-Project.
As in go out and walk the doggie.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
The Obama camp has done a few things lately that’s giving me the grins.
1. His intention to lower taxes in hope of stimulating the economy, rather than initiating infrastructure projects. This kind of policy is like the Republicans’ plan. It’s equivalent to giving out welfare and getting nothing in return. Meanwhile, the government is running up huge deficits, while most of us don’t get much benefit out of getting an extra thousand bucks back.
2. Nominating Sanjay Gupta to be Surgeon General. The guy is too young to even date madhaus (that’s a compliment to madhaus, btw).
3. The whole fiasco with the Bill Richardson nomination.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
PralayChuckie,You got too much time on your hands, and too much useless stuff in your head.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
ROFFLE! I haven’t seen this since reading the alt.fan.warlord Usenet newsgroup in the early 1990s.