Santa Cruz is the 4th most unaffordable! 3rd for rent!
Despite falling prices, homeownership out of reach for many – Santa Cruz Sentinel
SANTA CRUZ — Even though the median home price dropped 37 percent last year, Santa Cruz County remains unaffordable for many first-time buyers.Santa Cruz County is the fourth most expensive place in the nation to buy a home after San Francisco, New York and San Jose, according to Paycheck to Paycheck, a study released Thursday by the Center for Housing Policy, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, D.C. The county also was found to be the third most expensive place in the U.S. to rent after San Francisco and Honolulu.
Locally, the median price of a single-family home plummeted from $630,000 in 2007 to $400,000 in 2008, but homeownership is still out of reach for households with income under $130,000, according to the center’s calculations. Meanwhile, a two-bedroom rental cost $1,590 a month on average.
[snip]
Pricey LIVING
Rank, 2008 Two-bedroom rental, 2008 Rank, 2007
1 San Francisco, $1,658 1
2 Honolulu, $1,631 11
3 Santa Cruz County, $1,590 6
Median home
Median
Rank, 2008 price, 2008 Rank, 2007 price, 2007
1 San Francisco, $575,000 1 $770,000
2 New York, N.Y., $455,000 7 $525,000
3 San Jose, $410,000 2 $649,000
4 Santa Cruz County, $400,000 3 $630,000
Tie Honolulu, $400,000 18 $409,000
SOURCE: Center for Housing Policy
Congrats to Santa Cruz!
Is it any wonder? With its beautiful, warm, beaches, its thriving high tech high income economy, is it any wonder why Santa Cruz is right up there?
I can list 10 reasons why everyone would want to live in Santa Cruz (assuming they couldn’t live in the Real Bay Area). Can’t you?
May 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Santa Cruz? Where in the hell do all the hippies that hole themselves up in those hills get the money to live there?
May 14th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Santa Cruz is a little hidden “gem” of this housing bubble insanity. Median household income is $62,849 according to US Census. That would support the median house price no more than $200K.
SC is in for an additional 50% haircut, and that’s assuming their “economy” will hum along unaffected by the rest of the country.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Santa Cruz is a little different because wealthy people from out of state and out of country have vacation homes there. Same for Monterey and Carmel. What do they care if property values go up and down? It’s all the same to them. And I’m sorry, no one has a vacation home in Palo Alto.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
reason? who needs reason when you have drum circles!
May 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Santa Cruz vacation homes? Maybe if they like foggy summers. Santa Cruz isn’t in the same ball park as Carmel/Monterey/Pebble Beach. I expect major cratering in the Santa Cruz market way before Palo Alto.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Here is how to add some data to unearthly’s predictions
Click on the following redfin link http://www.redfin.com/city/17680/CA/Santa-Cruz
Go to “Santa Cruz Market Trends”
Check the following three boxes
1. # For Sale
2. # Sold
3. House
Un-check the following three boxes
1. Listing $/SqFt
2. Sold $/SqFt
3. Both
Now compare the #For Sale (House) and #Sold (House). They are both shades of blue but they clearly show that inventory is rising while sales are falling. This predicts a drop in prices in the next few months especially in winter.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
lol – try that with 94301. Not pretty. And sale price to list is hovering around 93%.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Keep Santa Cruz Wierd” they say, and it is. Expensive as hell but you can always find a room in a “hippie house” for cheap to unbelieveably cheap, depending on your tolerance for hippies. I’ve been going down there every weekend, giving out bundles of rosemary for tips, working on a batch of cat toys right now, you can make anywhere from a bit fat nothing to $100 or more depending on what you do on Pacific Avenue. Since jobs as we know them are NOT coming back and my own personal world came to an end a couple years ago, I consider the $400-$500 a month income I can generate on Pacific to be very good money. On this kind of income, I can builld a house, buy a Harley, etc. No kidding. I’m a naturalized citizen of the underground economy now, and becoming relatively happy in it. Yes, I do file my taxes, counted stuff that I’m not sure is even taxed for my 2008′s and came out with them owing ME $438.
Deflation is what happens when money is destroyed faster than it can be created, and with millions forced into the kind of life I have now, and finding they enjoy it, we wil see deflation accelerate. In effect, the 90% of us who are disgruntled players will stand up from the Monopoly game and go find something else to do: Pick oranges, ride bikes, plink at rats in the dump, go to the beach and have a good old fashioned sand fight. Forced into middle-aged teenagerhood, we’ll find that living as teenagers again really isn’t that bad. I mean 1950s teenagers, doing odd jobs and having fun on little money. Doing the chores for ourselves and our own, no credit and if possible no cell phone. It’s a pretty damn nice life, once you get over the complete re-arranging of the furniture in your head.
“Me today, you tomorrow” – Old Soviet saying.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
lol – try that with 94301. Not pretty. And sale price to list is hovering around 93%.
—–
But at least it is 6% up from March 09. Now, that’s called “recovery”.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
UnrealAlex,
I definitely hear ya. When I leave the Bay Area, I plan on doing something totally different and constructive. Not sure what, but ideas include small equipment repair, restoring old furniture, or something along those lines.
I figure once we move, buy our cheap-o non Bay Area home in flyoverland or whatever, we won’t have to have super demanding jobs and can just more or less pay the minimal bills and go with the flow. Definitely looking forward to it.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Santa Cruz is pretty ridiculous; only 7% of households make over $150k while median house price is over $600k.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
FYI, Palo Alto has 213 Single Family Houses for sale; of which 30 or 14% have been listed in the last 7 days. Why would anyone want to sell in the worst market in decades?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Santa Cruz is pretty ridiculous; only 7% of households make over $150k while median house price is over $600k.
Ya, but you also have to figure that probably 75% of the people who live up there are aging hippies in their 60′s who have the protection of prop 13 behind them. Of course none of them could afford to buy in their neighborhood now, but that’s kind of the story with most of the Bay Area: Make the young-uns’ pay out the ass while they get a nice free ride from doing nothin’.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
#6 Gavin, that Redfin link is excellent! Man, if only they had data going back 10-15 years, so we could really compare.
They really let you get it down to the neighborhood level.
94301 is in some deep doo-doo. And I thought the inventory/sales ratio was bad in some of the East Bay ‘good’ neighborhoods – East Bay is doing way better!
Of course, the $ sq/ft didn’t get as high over here, so it doesn’t have as far to fall.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Bob, Here’s Santa Cruz’s population breakdown:
Under 18: 17.3%
18-24: 20.5%
25-44: 32.6%
45-64: 21.0%
65+: 8.5%
The university faculty, students, and staff probably dominate the demographic data.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
The university is a huge part of what makes Santa Cruz housing so ‘special’. Like Berkeley. And Stanford.
The professors who bought in the 60s and 70s could afford normal SFH. Not even close now. Though I guess at least the trend is in the right direction this year.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
There’s a little over 800 faculty members in UCSC contrast that with Stanford which has over 1800 faculty members. I would say the real reason that Santa Cruz real estate went through the roof was funny money (exotic loans)…
During the bubble 25% of Loans in Santa Cruz were Interest Only not to mention a huge number of Option ARM’s.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
FYI, Palo Alto has 213 Single Family Houses for sale; of which 30 or 14% have been listed in the last 7 days. Why would anyone want to sell in the worst market in decades?
—-
LOL! Just yesterday I saw 177. Our local real estate pro is claiming “bottom”. I guess sellers are fools.
They love to sell at the bottom.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Pralay, interestingly enough 16 (or 7.5%) have been listed since yesterday. Perhaps it was in honor of the end of the War of Bavarian Succession?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I was wondering where the heck today’s property was, in the middle of this emptyness — in 95125? And I was thinking, well, it’s pretty empty near Signal Hill or whatever they’re calling it now. But that cannot possibly be Willow Glen. More like Santa Teresa del Fuego.
#7 nomadic, is 94301 really down to 93% for SP/LP? If that’s the case, how can 94087 possibly be at 97% per RealEstater? He wouldn’t be misrepresenting things, would he? Or does he mean 97% of all open houses have PENDING signs within the next two years? What do you think, Mr. Not a Renaissance Man?
May 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
95% ma’am
Another crappy thing about so-called Communications Hill is that you can’t get a freakin’ signal for a mobile phone there. Calls drop as you go by on 87 almost every time.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Pralay says,
>>I guess sellers are fools. They love to sell at the bottom.
A fool is someone who loves to look at a market that is out of his price range by several magnitudes.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
A fool is someone who loves to look at a market that is out of his price range by several magnitudes.
——
LOL! Is that your latest stance, RealExcreter? One should not look at the inventory level of your zipcode?
Being a self-proclaimed “pro” Realtard, how about you explain why inventory is going higher in Palo Alto? Are those sellers fool? If this is the bottom, as you claimed, just holding a few months/years will increase their equity and give them higher sale price. Why are the sellers getting panicked and adding more homes in already high inventory market?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:21 am
94301 sellers are not fools. The RBA parts of 94301 have held firm, but will decline. If you didn’t get out last spring, you def. want to get out this spring. the knife is falling.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:31 am
This is true.
But – remember that the higher end didn’t see the percentage gains that the lower end did.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The higher end saw plenty of gains though, like this one in 94301 purchased 10 years ago for 1/2 the current asking price; or this one purchased in 2003 for $2.3M, now asking $4M.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
#25 – I only 1/2 agree with you. There were some places in the low end that saw truly stupid increases. Crappy houses in bad neighborhoods doubling in 5 years – we know the story.
But at least those places STARTED from low prices.
The places that were fairly boring 3 BD SFH in a fairly boring neighborhood with a good elementary school went through some pretty stunning increases from 1999 to now. Some of them are the most over-priced, because you’re not getting a mansion with a city or ocean view (like you do at the super-high end). You’re just getting a pretty ordinary dwelling. In 94301 or Noe Valley – for $1000/sqft.
Now is THE BEST time to sell THOSE homes. At least the true mansions with uber-high end inside furnishings will still be ‘rich people’ housing after this is over. The others will be – ordinary…
May 19th, 2009 at 6:38 am
It is hard to believe that San Francisco is more costly than New York. New York had continued to run up through last year. I guess when you average in all the boroughs, New York’s comes down. I don’t know how San Francisco is faring the past couple of years on values. I know New York is off. Most of Southern California is off considerably, I am not sure San Francisco has shared their problems.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am
According to this, New York is still #1.
Rank Metro area Affordability index Median home price
1 New York 21.5 $418,000
2 San Francisco 32.1 $525,000
3 Los Angeles 42.1 $288,000
May 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I think the problem is what is defined as “New York”.
There’s New York County – Manhattan
New York City – Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx
New York City MSA – NYC, Nassau, Suffolk, White Plains
Everyone uses a different definition.
They need to start using the term “Real New York” (e.g. Manhattan) to distinguish.
May 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Oh, burbed, I wouldn’t open that can of worms.
Now we have to talk about the Upper West Side vs. Harlem, Midtown vs. Greenwich Village, East Side vs. Central Park West.
There’s Real New York and then there’s REAL Real New York.
I mean, you KNOW you can’t just say “Palo Alto” prices are falling…
May 19th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I mean, you KNOW you can’t just say “Palo Alto” prices are falling…
—–
That’s right. Real Palo Alto does not include undesirable homes like Cowper.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Two things about Cowper:
1) I am stunned that Pralay remembered that it had been discussed before.
2) I am stunned that we didn’t notice it was a short sale in round one. (Or maybe we did and I didn’t read far enough down that thread.)