Here's the DataQuick numbers for each city. I bolded anything with a year over year decline higher than 45%. Some of those are statistical flukes due to low sales numbers and the rest seem to be the less desirable areas of the IE. The interesting on is the city of Riverside. It had a healthy 407 sales and the median is down 46%. Check out the city of San Berdu's median, it's
$83k!
| Riverside County | 3,331 | $190,000 | $323,500 | -41.27% |
| AGUANGA | 5 | $219,500 | n/a | n/a |
| ANZA | 2 | $205,000 | n/a | n/a |
| BANNING | 37 | $90,000 | $208,000 | -56.73% |
| BEAUMONT | 89 | $210,000 | $309,500 | -32.15% |
| BLYTHE | 4 | $179,500 | $218,500 | -17.85% |
| CABAZON | 3 | $85,000 | $195,000 | -56.41% |
| CALIMESA | 4 | $175,000 | $218,000 | -19.72% |
| CATHEDRAL CITY | 81 | $170,000 | $271,750 | -37.44% |
| COACHELLA | 55 | $143,000 | $234,500 | -39.02% |
| CORONA | 349 | $309,000 | $429,000 | -27.97% |
| DESERT HOT SPRINGS | 111 | $84,000 | $247,000 | -65.99% |
| HEMET | 173 | $110,000 | $233,750 | -52.94% |
| HOMELAND | 2 | $88,750 | n/a | n/a |
| IDYLLWILD | 9 | $220,000 | $287,500 | -23.48% |
| INDIAN WELLS | 9 | $340,000 | $1,525,000 | -77.70% |
| INDIO | 149 | $180,000 | $305,000 | -40.98% |
| LA QUINTA | 91 | $327,500 | $470,000 | -30.32% |
| LAKE ELSINORE | 143 | $185,000 | $305,000 | -39.34% |
| MECCA | 3 | $79,000 | $225,000 | -64.89% |
| MENIFEE | 83 | $200,000 | $305,000 | -34.43% |
| MIRA LOMA | 21 | $292,000 | $344,250 | -15.18% |
| MORENO VALLEY | 362 | $148,500 | $250,000 | -40.60% |
| MOUNTAIN CENTER | 2 | $144,000 | $669,000 | -78.48% |
| MURRIETA | 227 | $240,000 | $330,000 | -27.27% |
| NORCO | 30 | $334,000 | $455,000 | -26.59% |
| NUEVO | 11 | $185,000 | $258,500 | -28.43% |
| PALM DESERT | 67 | $295,000 | $387,000 | -23.77% |
| PALM SPRINGS | 91 | $250,000 | $314,000 | -20.38% |
| PERRIS | 200 | $144,500 | $278,250 | -48.07% |
| RANCHO MIRAGE | 39 | $345,000 | $660,000 | -47.73% |
| RIVERSIDE | 407 | $190,000 | $350,000 | -45.71% |
| SAN JACINTO | 109 | $140,000 | $232,500 | -39.78% |
| SUN CITY | 89 | $150,000 | $269,000 | -44.24% |
| TEMECULA | 158 | $270,000 | $360,000 | -25.00% |
| THOUSAND PALMS | 14 | $145,750 | $285,000 | -48.86% |
| WHITE WATER | 6 | $105,000 | $266,000 | -60.53% |
| WILDOMAR | 44 | $245,000 | $358,750 | -31.71% |
| WINCHESTER | 51 | $232,000 | $325,000 | -28.62% |
| San Bernardino County | 2,265 | $152,000 | $290,000 | -47.59% |
| ADELANTO | 83 | $86,000 | $200,000 | -57.00% |
| APPLE VALLEY | 120 | $125,000 | $207,500 | -39.76% |
| BARSTOW | 15 | $109,000 | $142,000 | -23.24% |
| BIG BEAR CITY | 27 | $250,000 | $224,250 | 11.48% |
| BIG BEAR LAKE | 17 | $294,000 | $392,500 | -25.10% |
| BLOOMINGTON | 24 | $144,000 | $225,000 | -36.00% |
| CEDARPINES PARK | 3 | $80,000 | $130,000 | -38.46% |
| CHINO | 59 | $295,500 | $388,000 | -23.84% |
| CHINO HILLS | 60 | $421,500 | $493,000 | -14.50% |
| COLTON | 49 | $135,000 | $270,000 | -50.00% |
| CRESTLINE | 13 | $150,000 | $190,000 | -21.05% |
| FAWNSKIN | 4 | $218,250 | n/a | n/a |
| FONTANA | 328 | $212,000 | $350,000 | -39.43% |
| GRAND TERRACE | 5 | $173,500 | $305,000 | -43.11% |
| GREEN VALLEY LAKE | 2 | $109,000 | $320,000 | -65.94% |
| HELENDALE | 8 | $133,750 | $275,000 | -51.36% |
| HESPERIA | 186 | $136,500 | $227,000 | -39.87% |
| HIGHLAND | 48 | $215,000 | $332,500 | -35.34% |
| JOSHUA TREE | 13 | $70,000 | $157,550 | -55.57% |
| LAKE ARROWHEAD | 14 | $369,250 | $406,500 | -9.16% |
| LANDERS | 2 | $56,500 | $62,000 | -8.87% |
| LOMA LINDA | 8 | $271,500 | $339,500 | -20.03% |
| LUCERNE VALLEY | 5 | $51,000 | $187,500 | -72.80% |
| LYTLE CREEK | 2 | $89,000 | n/a | n/a |
| MENTONE | 7 | $72,000 | $372,000 | -80.65% |
| MONTCLAIR | 20 | $238,500 | $315,000 | -24.29% |
| MORONGO VALLEY | 2 | $112,500 | $204,000 | -44.85% |
| NEEDLES | 3 | $57,500 | $55,000 | 4.55% |
| ONTARIO | 106 | $195,000 | $320,000 | -39.06% |
| PHELAN | 19 | $180,000 | $302,500 | -40.50% |
| PINON HILLS | 5 | $155,000 | $362,500 | -57.24% |
| RANCHO CUCAMONGA | 125 | $330,000 | $396,000 | -16.67% |
| REDLANDS | 36 | $250,000 | $345,000 | -27.54% |
| RIALTO | 119 | $150,000 | $299,000 | -49.83% |
| RUNNING SPRINGS | 11 | $132,500 | $215,000 | -38.37% |
| SAN BERNARDINO | 270 | $83,000 | $210,000 | -60.48% |
| SUGARLOAF | 15 | $110,000 | $155,000 | -29.03% |
| TWENTYNINE PALMS | 13 | $85,000 | $115,000 | -26.09% |
| TWIN PEAKS | 3 | $151,500 | n/a | n/a |
| UPLAND | 48 | $302,000 | $480,000 | -37.08% |
| VICTORVILLE | 277 | $119,000 | $220,000 | -45.91% |
| WRIGHTWOOD | 5 | $184,000 | $375,000 | -50.93% |
| YUCAIPA | 36 | $187,500 | $334,500 | -43.95% |
| YUCCA VALLEY | 44 | $105,000 | $190,000 | -44.74% |
11 comments:
Those numbers seem to support what I am seeing in Rancho Cucamonga. Except for the occasional REO bargain, prices just don't seem to be dropping all that much around here except for at the very low end. List prices aren't dropping as much as you'd think they would be considering what is going on in neighbroring cities.
The change in sale composition is distorting these numbers pretty badly. Low-end sales are recovering while high-end sales are low; this would push down the median even if individual houses were actually stable. This is the opposite of what was happening in late 2006.
Is there a way to get these numbers as median per square foot? That's not distortionproof, but it tends to be better.
Todd, I agree with you. I've been seeing $200/sq ft. in Rancho Cucamonga for a long time. When I can now buy in Glendora for approaching that price, Rancho doesn't seem very desirable.
The price per sq/ft is shown on the zip code report from Dataquick. Rancho Cucamonga seems to be around $175 s/f average.
Price per sq ft varies quite a bit in Rancho Cucamonga from what I have seen on Redfin. I have seen a few for $130-140 per sq ft all the way up to well over $300 per sq ft. I see alot of listings that range from about $210-280 per sq ft but not much seems to actually sell that high anymore.
Of course you can go one city to the east (Fontana) and find bargains galore but I'm not sure that I really want to live in a foreclosure/REO black hole. Mello-Roos fees are quite high in the northern end of that city as well and seem to add anywhere from about $2000 to $5000 to your yearly tax bill.
So when is the next wave of REO properties supposed to hit the market? I read a few weeks ago that only 16% of bank owned properties are acutally listed for sale so I'm guessing that banks will need to sell their stash eventually.
Riverside is dirt cheap right now, although inventories are dropping a bit. The prototypical house I've seen is in a decent neighborhood, built in the 1950's, 3 beds, 1 to 2 baths, and about 1,100 sq ft. They were selling at $300k-$350k in 2005 or 2006. They are now selling for $100k or $150k. Price drops of two thirds are not uncommon. And I'm not even counting the post-apocolyptical wastelands that are Casa Blanca and Eastside-I've seen houses with more than 80% drops.
Just wanted to bring this info. to light, sorry if a bit off topic.
As prices spiral downward, the low end properties are starting to have another sort of problem: the bank refuses to foreclose. The bank wisely considers that with cities enforcing codes to force them to maintain homes, and with the probability of vandalism and the erosion of value and marketability that vandalism engenders; the bank is better off never taking back the property.
One article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/us/30walkaway.html?ref=realestate
That article is about homes in the slums of Detroit and similar ghettos. I wouldn't expect that sort of nonsense in more desirable areas. It's a simple equation really. Can the bank recover any of their money? If the answer is yes, they will take the house and sell it. If it's not they walk away and leave the original owner to deal with it. Simple math on the banks part.
Exactly X, simple math. I'm guessing that something close to, or just south of 50k residual value is break-even for a bank on a foreclosure when you figure all the costs and liabilities they have to assume. How many craptastic properties are there in the IE that might have a run-down, small, older house on them, plus a small lot, in a rural or ghetto neighborhood? Lots of them. Not that it would be a direct concern for any of us, but I just thought it was "interesting" and fairly likely that it will soon begin happening here in the IE too.
That would depend on the individual property. Even a shack that's only worth $50k can net the bank plenty. As long as there isn't $40k in back taxes, there's money to be made. Those crapshacks in Detriot might only fetch $5k (or less). After paying the taxes and carrying costs, there's no way to make any money on that. I would be very surprised to see the banks walk away from properties in a civilized part of California. Now out in the middle of the desert I can see it.
The population of the city of Detroit is down more than 50% since 1960. That means that over half of the housing stock is useless surplus.
Lots of boarded up houses and apartment buildings with no economic value.
Post a Comment