Which bubble era cities will crumble to dust?

Jan 19th, 2011  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by Jiji
2011-01-19 07:04 AM

HA !!
This guy has not bothered to do his home work,

I have yet to see one ghost town in IE (Well at least not in TV
), nor do I think there will ever be one.
OK maybe someplace like Hemet but I doubt even that will last very long.

Usually when these foreclosures hit the market at a decent price they do not last one day without an offer.

Astute Observation by matt138
2011-01-19 06:36 PM

i dont think he is talking next month

Astute Observation by octal77
2011-01-19 07:13 AM

Its going to be interesting to see the ‘substitution effect’ in action.

Of course many hard to quantify factors such as quality of life and ‘prestige zipcode’ come into play, but a few, such as median family income vs. median house price can.

I am convinced that advances in technology can only enable and speed up the substitution effect.

I work in IT and have lived in Irvine for 32 years.

I can assure you that it is becoming less important to physically travel to a job site.

So the question is a what point do many families
cry uncle and refuse to put up with high real
estate prices and move to low cost areas simply
because they now can?

Astute Observation by bigmoneysalsa
2011-01-19 03:41 PM

“Of course many hard to quantify factors such as quality of life and ‘prestige zipcode’ come into play”

Actually it’s pretty easy to quantify those factors. You look at relative rents.

If rents in city A are twice as high in city B, but prices in city A are three times as high as city B, somethings out of whack. And if both city A and city B were recently affected by a massive housing bubble, you might want to look to that as part of the explanation.

Astute Observation by Jiji
2011-01-19 07:53 AM

The planned route for the High speed rail would benefit this region greatly as well, but alas I think the powers that be will waste what little money there is on the central valley route that there is almost ZERO benefit from on that part of the project, I guess that is some sort of grand plan maybe, complete the useless part first, then say gee if we just have more money we could complete the part that would actually have riders LA-IE-SD route.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 08:52 AM

That is sort of the plan.  Basically, the section that is proposed to be completed first (near Bakersfield) has several advantages:

1. It’s the straightest, therefore the trains travel the fastest and it’s the cheapest and easiest to build.
2. Land costs are also lower.
3. Local politicians were uniformly in favor of it.
4. There were no NIMBY lawsuits, unlike in more built-up areas.

Path of least resistance, basically.  This section can be up and running quickly, unlike other areas, with lawsuits galore and tough, tricky, slow work to build.  Of course, it is in the middle on nowhere, so it’s fairly useless on it’s own.  But if the entire project is to be built as planned, this section would have to be built anyways, so it does also encourage the full completion of the system to have this built first.

Astute Observation by N2
2011-01-19 04:47 PM

What?!  How would “the planned route for high speed rail benefit this region”?  By making it theoretically easier to get from Anaheim to San Francisco?

What I think you mean is this region could benefit from additional regional rail service.  Even regular speed Metrolink-type service would enhance the substitution effect discussed in the main post if there were more trains running more frequently (and, as long as we’re dreaming, to more locations).

Astute Observation by Jiji
2011-01-19 08:19 AM

Also over the last year, I think it was the OC register that had the data, but the average home selling price actually increased in most of the IE while LA & OC average price decreased.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 08:33 AM

Two points:
I found a paper once by a Fannie economist modeling the price of mortgage-backed securities.  The impact of default risk: ZERO! The assumption built in was the loans could be refi’d, property sold, or they were guaranteed by the GSE’s.
Check this link: Absence of Fear

My associate asked several questions. “What are the key drivers of your rating model?” They responded, FICO scores and home price appreciation (HPA) of low single digit (LSD) or mid single digit (MSD), as HPA has been for the past 50 years. My associate then asked, “What if HPA was flat for an extended period of time?” They responded that their model would start to break down. He then asked, “What if HPA were to decline 1% to 2% for an extended period of time?” They responded that their models would break down completely. He then asked, “With 2% depreciation, how far up the rating’s scale would it harm?” They responded that it might go as high as the AA or AAA tranches.

Just as there was ignored risk yesterday, there is ignored risk today.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 09:33 AM

Good to know that not everybody was deluded.  I wonder if this guy’s firm made money betting against the market.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 10:39 AM

I don’t think they did.  5 year returns are about the Russell 2000.  They run a mutual fund company, so leveraged short bets are outside what they’re able to do.  Maybe for their institutional clients…

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 08:36 AM

I disagree with the article.  In the city of Riverside at least, there are no masses of empty houses, even small, older ones in bad neighborhoods.  Now, there might be masses of empty apartment buildings as former residents of those became first time home buyers (since prices dropped in many cases by 50% or more).  But the percentage of single family homes that are unoccupied does not seem to be any higher than normal; the opposite might actually be true.  I would love to see actual statistics of occupied vs unoccupied houses (and apartments) if they exist.  But there are certainly no Detroit-style neighborhoods of empty houses.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 08:44 AM

It’s easy to check % vacant housing units at the census.gov website.  Enter a location name and then follow this link that says, “See more data for Riverside County, California on the Fact Sheet.”

Riverside city, at 7.2%, is below the national average of 11.8%, but Riverside county is above the average at 13.8%.  This data is from a 2005-2009 dataset, so I would imagine all those numbers are worse today.

Astute Observation by Jiji
2011-01-19 08:54 AM

The problem with Gov stats is they don’t differentiate between apartments an SFH, Yes I would agree that I would not want to be an apartment owner in the IE, but homes are not empty long in the better parts on the IE anyway. 

Everything looks like a nail if all you got is a hammer.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 08:56 AM

That’s sort of helpful, but not really.  I would want to compare 2006 versus 2010, and also include apartments versus SFR.

I do suspect desert areas of Riverside County might more resemble the article’s conclusions.  Places like Hemet or parts of Palm Springs.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 09:17 AM

That seemed to be your idea…which is backed up by the statistics I showed.  I’m afraid that data to the detail you want will probably not be free.  But going a level down in the housing, vacancy rates are shown for homeowner vs. rental.

I think one basic idea is that when you have an oversupply, the least desirable areas will see the largest price hits because they will be the ones with insufficient demand.  Less desirable units will stay vacant (even at very low prices) while more desirable units will see price decreases, but not the degree of the less desirable units.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 09:27 AM

I agree with this.  For example, in pretty much any city, houses seem to be holding up better than condos, because houses are a superior product than condos.

I guess my only real point is that in Riverside (and places west, so Corona as well, for instance), the Detroit-like empty neighborhoods hasn’t happened and won’t.  To the east of that, maybe it has or will.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 10:33 AM

To continue to use Detroit as a model, Detroit’s home prices rose 25% from 2000-2005, and I cannot imagine its population was growing then.  While those were some of the heydays of the SUV & the big3, there were still declines there.  Just because things are looking up now, does not mean that it will forever.

Astute Observation by winstongator
2011-01-19 08:39 AM

Link to the report: A Study of Real Estate Markets in Declining Cities  84 pages.

Astute Observation by Joseph
2011-01-19 08:53 AM

Riverside is a cesspool.  At least in Rust Belt cities there was once (and still remains, in some cases) thriving industries, and over a century of development, infrastructure, and human capital.  Riverside mostly grew from the artificial support of a housing bubble, and deflated just as quickly. 

Basically, the future of Riverside is lower-income spillage from Los Angeles County, and immigration from Latin America.  Perhaps the latter will bring eventual growth and transformation, but only if real roots are dropped (as opposed to more transient, dual-residence immigrants).

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 09:23 AM

“Riverside mostly grew from the artificial support of a housing bubble”

I disagree, at least in the city of Riverside itself (as opposed to Moreno Valley, Hemet, etc.).  Riverside has had a fairly steady growth over the years:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0662000&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_DP5YR4&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on (hope that link works)

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT

Total housing units
95,322
+/-1,272
95,322
(X)

Built 2005 or later
3,087
+/-375
3.2%
+/-0.4

Built 2000 to 2004
8,359
+/-578
8.8%
+/-0.6

Built 1990 to 1999
9,465
+/-599
9.9%
+/-0.6

Built 1980 to 1989
15,019
+/-848
15.8%
+/-0.9

Built 1970 to 1979
19,509
+/-770
20.5%
+/-0.8

Built 1960 to 1969
11,819
+/-752
12.4%
+/-0.8

Built 1950 to 1959
17,514
+/-831
18.4%
+/-0.8

Built 1940 to 1949
3,891
+/-421
4.1%
+/-0.4

Built 1939 or earlier
6,659
+/-447
7.0%
+/-0.5

Now, the last decade’s data here is incomplete, but it looks like there were no more housing units built in the 2000’s than in the 1950’s or 1970’s.  There is a lot of older housing stock in the city.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-01-19 01:27 PM

You are correct that most of the rust belt still has significantly more diverse industry than Riverside.  You can’t even compare the industrial complex of Riverside to the rust belt since Riverside’s bearly exist.

Even Detroit, hit hard by the recession, has more industrial capacity than Las Vegas.  Detroit is more relevant than Las Vegas moving forward as well.  Cheap housing is meaningless.  Housing can be free, it won’t create revenue.  After Detroit centralizes and knocks down entire neighborhoods it’s future will be brighter than Las Vegas.

Astute Observation by gepetoh
2011-01-19 02:57 PM

I don’t think you can compare the two cities that are quite different in its make-up and deduce that Detroit would be more (or less) relevant than Vegas in moving forward.  Detroit is an industrial metropolis of 5.7 million people, while Vegas is a service city of 1.5 million.  Having greater industrial capacity in itself is not a defining factor in sustainability, it is how much of that capacity can be served by its population.  Right now, Detroit is pretty dismal there after a gradual decrease in the demand for their industrial capacity.  Maybe a city of 5 million can’t depend purely on service industry as its sole means of sustainability, but then Vegas isn’t growing to be that big.  Counterpoint, however, even San Diego has sustained itself quite admirably as a service-dependent metropolis, although they have recently added new world industry into the fold.  And they are vastly larger than Vegas.

Having said that I am of the opinion I don’t think Vegas with its current capacity can support a population of 1.5 million, nor support the current level of housing inventory.  I just don’t think the demand is there and won’t be for a long time.  So perhaps for a different reason I would agree that future might look brighter for Detroit than Vegas.  But then Detroit has a long way to go, unless the country moves back into industrial and manufacturing.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-01-19 03:31 PM

Don’t leave out these facts:

Unemployment is lower in Detroit than it is in Vegas.

There are more higher education jobs in Detroit.

The probability that Amercia stops building cars and those entrenched companies move high paying HQ jobs out of Detroit is politically unfathomable.

As for Las Vegas, the probability that Amerricans entertainment habits change is extremely high.  Look at history.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 04:07 PM

“Unemployment is lower in Detroit than it is in Vegas.”

False.  Detroit’s unemployment rate (as of 2009) is 28.9%!!!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/08/unemployment-in-detroit-climbs-to-289.html

Now, the unemployment rate in the greater metropolitan Detroit area is much lower (less than half) than in the city itself, and metro Las Vegas has an unempolyment rate higher than metro Detroit by two or three points.  But when I was refering to Detroit, I’m talking about south of 8 Mile.

Plus, all this talk about industry in Detroit and Riverside is also BS, considering the population of Riverside is currently less than a third of Detroit’s today (and less than one sixth of it’s peak population).

Astute Observation by gepetoh
2011-01-19 04:12 PM

My point was that it doesn’t make much sense to compare the two.  I never said Detroit had better or worse prospects, just that it is difficult to compare the two.  I think it’s pretty obvious that the comparisons are difficult, no matter how you try to spin it.

Chances are that neither town are going anywhere in the foreseeable future.  It doesn’t even make sense to be predictive here.  Fact of the matter is, Detroit IS in the rust belt that has been in decline for some time, so I suppose a case can be made that Detroit is a declining market.  But there is no evidence that Vegas is going anywhere, nor that gambling and related entertainment is on the decline.  So you’re basing your predictions on conjecture that this type of entertainment is not sustainable, with no empirical evidence that points to such.

Astute Observation by gdude
2011-01-23 12:18 PM

But as the credit contraction continues and other states and cities turn to gambling to close their budget shortfalls, Vegas’ barrier to entry moat around its industry will dry up, depressing its income potential. Couple that with fewer dollars to spend on gambling in general = bad times for Vegas.

The point about Detroit housing falling to near zero (as an advanced case for the rest of America) is that its manufacturing days are over because of the cost of living relative to thte rest of the world, predominantly expressed in the wages paid there. If you can buy a 2000 sf house in a nice neighborhood for $25,000 (not there yet, even in Detroit), then you will be able to pay wages that make America competitive again in the world manufacturing market. This is what is happening, through currency depreciation and falling asset prices. The only question is, how long will the process take?

Astute Observation by Laura Louzader
2011-01-19 04:32 PM

The price of fuel in the future and critical shortages thereof might be the deciding factors in whether Detroit and other Midwestern burgs regain their past success.

These old Great Lakes cities grew in what were the most favorable locations in the country in the pre-auto era, pre-petroleum era. They are well above sea level, have the most generous supplies of fresh water on Earth, fertile hinterlands, and excellent water transport routes, in addition to being equally accessible to all parts of the country east of the Rockies.

These things have not been too important in an age of super-cheap oil, which is now ending. Cheap fuel makes it not only possible to have fleets of millions of trucks traversing the continent, but make it possible to build and maintain the fantastic Colorado River plumbing system that makes it possible to run city areas of 2 million people or more in the high desert.

Should fossil fuels become scarce and expensive, these places will be more difficult to maintain and will be able to support far fewer people. Water will be impossible, as the mega-dams and aquaducts that these large populations rely upon become progressively more expensive to repair and replace.

Astute Observation by N2
2011-01-19 05:26 PM

Really?  The peak-oil-doom prophesy may have some merit over the very long term, but do you really think in a post-fossil fuel world millions of people are going to migrate from the hydro and solar-powered southwest to the frozen midwest?  What is it about midwestern industrial cities that sprang up in the early 20th century to build fossil-fuel powered industrial machines that would be more hospitible to large populations in an energy scarce future than the desert cities that sprang up in the late 20th century?  The location of the great lakes cities was only more favorable than the west 100 years ago because the economy of the west (and the plumbing you refer to) hadn’t developed yet.  Take away those considerations (which time has done) and the midwest is just as inhospitable as the west, although in different ways. 

It amazes me that the vision of the future presented by peak-oil-doomsters and knustlerites always ends up looking pretty much exactly like the late 19th century.  Not only will our collective scientific and technological knowledge level suddenly revert to that of early industrial era, but there will be a reverse-migration from the west to the midwest. The future may well suck, but I’ll put my money on it sucking differently than the past did.

Astute Observation by lee in irvine
2011-01-19 03:05 PM

After Detroit centralizes and knocks down entire neighborhoods it’s future will be brighter than Las Vegas.

I don’t know why so many people in here hate LV so much.  I love that town!

Las Vegas is America’s adult premier playground ... like it or not, that’s a fact!  I can understand how some people hate the place due to the heat, gambling, sex, etc ... Then don’t go!

As for me, I love the place.  I love to play golf in Summerlin, hike in Red Rock, spoil my wife at the Forum Shops in Caesars Palace, and go to concerts.  I sure the hell don’t like to waste all my time getting drunk, losing money gambling like so many other do there.  Maybe that’s the reason why so many either love the town or hate it.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-01-19 03:36 PM

Las Vegas is essentially a giant carnival.

Every carnival eventually gets shut down.

Astute Observation by lee in irvine
2011-01-19 04:22 PM

Like I said, I understand why some people hate the town.  Most of these people have no discipline and go there to get drunk, lose money or go to strip clubs.

“Every carnival eventually gets shut down.”

Apparently people have been saying that about LV for many years.

http://www.originallifemagazines.com/LIFE-Magazine-June-20-1955-P2474.aspx

Wrong!

Astute Observation by tenmagnet
2011-01-19 04:32 PM

You forgot to include speculating on real estate on your list of why people go there. 
Make sure you insert it next to losing money.

Astute Observation by Planet Reality
2011-01-19 05:11 PM

Yes and all the gory details of speculating stay in vegas

Astute Observation by matt138
2011-01-19 07:37 PM

who said anything about speculating?

the far east contingent will party in LV and irvinerenter’s renters will deal their cards and valet their cars.

Astute Observation by lowrydr310
2011-01-20 10:33 AM

There are two reasons I go to Vegas:

1) Visit close friends who live there

2) Skyzone Trampoline Park

I went once when they first opened, and now I’m hooked, making trips to vegas primarily for this. We need more of these things around! They’re starting to franchise out (there’s now one in Sacramento!) but I swear if every city had an indoor trampoline park it would fix the problems of obesity and depression.

Astute Observation by jb
2011-01-19 09:33 AM

I have a naive question after all that I’ve read: I’m thinking of paying off my loan on my rental property. What if the bank doesn’t have the note? Will I own it after I pay it off? Or do these rules apply to foreclosed properties? Is there a way for the bank to get a new note if they’ve lost it and they still have the loan?

And what if they have lost the note…who do I owe the remaining balance to?

Astute Observation by Walter
2011-01-19 10:09 AM

Request from your servicer (who you send the payment to) the payoff amount.

After paying according to their instructions, make sure they file a deed of reconveyance.
http://homebuying.about.com/od/glossaryqr/g/Reconveyance.htm

Once the deed of reconveyance is recorded, you now have proof that the loan paid was off in case anything funny ever happened with the note.

If you have any doubt about what you are doing, get an hour or two of an attorneys time. They can make sure all is straight.

Astute Observation by jb
2011-01-19 11:52 AM

Thank you, Walter. The deed of reconveyance was never recorded with the property that we just sold in June. We had refinanced our first in 2004 with GMAC, and they left their first “lien” in place. So they had two “firsts”. It was a stressful couple of weeks to get that straightened out, as those departments at GMAC are overwhelmed with work and our sale couldn’t close until they fixed their mistake.

I may spend the hour with a lawyer to make sure that everything goes smoothly. We have time on our side this time around.

Astute Observation by buster
2011-01-19 12:51 PM

Why? 

The interest is fully deductible against rental income (vs. home mortgage interest that MAY be partially deductible depending on your income level.)  Unless the rate is very high, or you really do have no better option for your cash, leave the loan and employ your cash elsewhere.  Pay off any other debt, including your home mortgage debt, before this.

Astute Observation by mike
2011-01-19 03:13 PM

I do agree that it may be decades or more before we may get the result to this bubble experiment.  I used to do REO maintenance inspection for a real estate office.  During the brief 18 months that I did this, I saw the IE appearing more ghetto-rized.  In many formerly solid middle class neighborhoods I saw that the majority of the people was the type I saw in east and South central LA.  There are still pockets of the IE that were still solidly middle class, most of the older homes <90’s neighborhood were increasingly become slum like.  Pretty sad to see actually.

Astute Observation by matt138
2011-01-19 07:27 PM

rising prices and heloc withdrawal gives owners capital to improve a property (or just waste it on crap).  this phenomenon works both ways.

once this fake economic / real estate recovery runs out of steam, we’ll start to see this happening more.

Ghost towns?  might take a while

Astute Observation by cry baby
2011-01-19 09:43 AM

There are 4 REO, 6 in default (that I personally know of which means there must be more) units in my condo complex. I have not paid on this condo in more than 6 months and I am just riding it out. Orange County is a nice place to live, nice weather but that is it. Companies are moving out and people and jobs are going with them. This place is just way too expensive. I wish I never bought this place.

Most of the people that are paying on their houses here are underwater and in denial. The smart ones are now starting to realize that it is an uphill battle and not worth the 5-10 year wait for housing prices to come back…

Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2011-01-19 11:46 AM

Which condo complex are you in? It would be interesting to know which complex is seeing that distress.

Astute Observation by lowrydr310
2011-01-19 10:23 AM

Yes, the substitution effect will stimulate demand in Riverside County and drag Orange County prices lower.

How real is the substitution effect, and how much are people willing to tolerate? I’d rather rent in the beach cities than own in the IE especially since it’s closer to work. I have a friend who commutes from Corona to LAX every day, all for the sake of owning a home (which he can afford). I don’t think that headache of commuting is worth it.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2011-01-19 11:31 AM

Eventually, the government should stop subsidizing housing and divert the money into building cheap ways to commute to LA from Riverside and OC.

There are always better and lucrative jobs in big cities.

It seems that half of the Japanese population work in Tokyo and commute using trains each day.

Astute Observation by matt138
2011-01-19 07:43 PM

how bout we leave lightspeed railway building up to the private sector?

if it’s such a great investment, an entrepreneur will build it.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2011-01-19 09:01 PM

First, the government must leave building all auto highways and roads to private entrepreneurs.
“Culver to Jamboree? $5, Sir”

Astute Observation by mike
2011-01-19 03:21 PM

Actually that commute is not too bad if he can take metrolink and the flyaway bus.  Probably come out to about $350/month with very little driving involved.

Astute Observation by Geotpf
2011-01-19 04:13 PM

The driving wouldn’t be the problem there-the sheer length of time for the commute would be.  That would have to take at least two hours, each way.

Astute Observation by lowrydr310
2011-01-20 10:38 AM

That’s what he’s currently doing, and you’re about right with the time. In my previous post I said, “I don’t think that headache of commuting is worth it” and that holds true.

I’d much rather drive my current 5 mile, 15-20 minute commute than sit on a train for an hour or two, even if it means I’m one of those low life renters.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2011-01-19 06:09 PM

The Flyaway bus Irvine-LAX costs $25 each way.
Why is it so expensive? It’s always empty.
And Metrolink is expensive, too: Tustin-Union Station-Tustin $18.50

Astute Observation by mike
2011-01-20 03:04 PM

The monthly pass for metrolink is $250 I think to go from corona to union station.  Probably take about 50-75 minutes of relaxing on the train - napping, napping or doing some computer work.  The flyway bus from Union station to LAX is like $50. monthly pass and take about 20-25 minutes.

Astute Observation by Anonymous
2011-01-19 10:46 AM

Police nab pair in $1.1 million house for sale

http://huntingtonhomes.ocregister.com/2011/01/19/police-nab-pair-in-1-1-million-house-for-sale/126290/

Astute Observation by jb
2011-01-19 03:12 PM

We don’t have any other debt. The rate isn’t high, but it’s quite a bit higher than the 1.8% we’re getting in the bank. I plan to review my numbers with my CPA next month to see if paying it off makes sense. Meanwhile, I’m going to wait for a few questions to get answered by my lender.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main