Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (4997)	7/25/2002 2:13:57 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

Let me ask this, at what point did California ever have a higher percentage of people looking for housing that could afford the houses that were selling? It seems to me this is a decades old problem in California, yet the price of housing rises almost unabatedly. Things look different where I'm sitting in a house (my studio in Baltimore) that has yet to come back to the selling price it could have gotten in 1987....even though it has increased from its price trough 33% in the last four years. There's a huge stock of older housing in the cities and rural areas that still hasn't recovered from the last housing bust. In the county where I live, what is causing the median selling price of houses to rise so fast is the fact that the new housing is 5000-8000 square feet with luxury interiors while the older existing housing is 20-30 year old 1200-3000 sq feet of ugly. So you have a lot of people who are staying put in their old houses because they can't buy anything better with their current incomes and lots of new wealthier people moving into the few new houses that severe restrictions on growth will allow the developers to build. So the only housing that is selling is the higher end. It skews the statistic.