• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Since May 2009, according to National Association of Realtors data, “San Diego housing prices have been going up steadily,” no matter what Case-Shiller and Radar Logic say, claims Nevin. “Home prices will continue to go up at 3 to 5 percent a year.”

While conceding that consumer spending “has not been glorious,” Nevin says that the county’s retail vacancy rate remains at 4 percent. “People continue to spend. When you add 31,000 more people a year [population growth], you automatically get more spending.”

Nevin, who looks for 15,000 new jobs in the private sector, sums it up: “For the first time in four years, this is our turnaround year. It will not be phenomenal, but a turnaround nonetheless.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

SurfPuppy619 March 31, 2011 @ 9:47 a.m.

Home prices-IMO- will remain stagnent, but most likely will go down for the next 2-5 years.

There is a HUGE "shadow inventory" of homes waiting to go through the REO process.

25% of all mortgages/trust deeds are under water, and they will all evetually go back to the lenders, and that is going to take years to cycle through.

Add in the much more stringent lender underwriting rules, the overall reluctance of lenders to lend and you have the mess we will continue ot be mired in for the next 5 years.

0

Don Bauder March 31, 2011 @ 12:20 p.m.

Absolutely. The lenders are holding potential foreclosures and short sales off the market. They are dribbling them out, so as not to push prices down further. Another point: the Federal Reserve will continue to tell banks to be very cautious making mortgages. The reason is that the Fed has printed bushels of money. If the banks start making loans at a normal rate, inflation will soar. So Ben Bernanke is helping to keep the economy down and unemployment up. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister April 9, 2011 @ 1:58 p.m.

a shocker: “Adjusted for inflation, total retail sales peaked in 2006. Assuming normal inflation of 2.5 percent a year, we still won’t be back at that 2006 peak in 2020.” --IN: Bauder

If the peak was a bubble, is that where "we" want to "get back to" in 2020 (or any other year--in adjusted terms)?

0

Don Bauder April 9, 2011 @ 4:10 p.m.

By 2020, it would no longer be considered a bubble. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister April 9, 2011 @ 4:35 p.m.

Even in adjusted (constant dollar) terms?

0

Don Bauder April 9, 2011 @ 6:43 p.m.

I would say yes -- inflation-adjusted, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister April 9, 2011 @ 9:46 p.m.

What should be the target numbers (range) for a sustainable recovery?

0

Don Bauder April 10, 2011 @ 5:59 p.m.

Are you talking about retail sales? Suggest you ask Kelly Cunningham, the local economist who follows retail sales most carefully. Remember, in selecting an inflation-adjusted target, you have to take population growth into account. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister April 14, 2011 @ 1:57 p.m.

In a way, but I'm primarily interested in changes and trends in how consumers allocate discretionary income. I'd like to see a pre- and post-boom breakdown to see if sales were comparatively higher for essentials, and lower for non-essentials, as well as notable exceptions to this kind of assumption, such as booze, movies, chocolate, fast-food, and cheap imports. Of course, trends in luxury items also should be included. Also what kind of brick-and-mortar stores closed and stayed open over a sample period. Finally, where were all the exceptions to such trends and events? I'm more interested in the principles which drive both nationwide (worldwide) and local cases, and if San Diego, for example, is any kind of significant anomaly. I'd like to see which statistics get tossed out as outliers and why. And, of course, I'd like to see where the solid and soft parts are, and how they stack up historically.

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2011 @ 4:05 p.m.

You could probably dig for that information. One thing is clear: Since the Fed accelerated its program to pour liquidity into the system in 2009, we have developed two economies: one economy for the richest 5 to 10% or so, and the other economy for the rest. You can see that in retailing numbers. Sales of the upscale retailers have recovered; sales of retailers serving the poor and middle class are still crawling along. This came about because the highest incomes have zoomed while the others have been flat to down. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister April 14, 2011 @ 7:05 p.m.

To what extent, I wonder, do the figures for the top 5-10% contaminate the average? What would the various relevant curves for the top 5 and 10 percent and the bottom 95 and 90 percent look like over the last hundred years or so? Have there been any similar phenomena comparable to the last decade or so? Or are "our" noveau-riche making the robber barons of the last century or so and the Midas' of ancient "civilizations" look like Mother Teresas?

How would the San Diego region stack up in that regard?

"The more you generalize about a population, the less you know about any individual in that population." --Henry Geiger

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2011 @ 9:23 p.m.

The figures for the top 5-10% -- and DEFINITELY for the top 1% -- would skew the mean. That's why it's probably better to use the median. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close