$154,120: Minimum income needed to afford median-priced OC SFR (Santa Ana, Garden Grove: real estate market, mortgage)

[man4857]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

they could do that in SF because there are a lot of hi paid techies who need to be housed.


in OC?

I don't care what people do that needs to be housed. People of all incomes needs housing. Doctors needs to be housed. So does teachers. So does the guy working at Starbucks...

The same problem SF is dealing with hasn't happened in OC yet at the same scale. Since the average price of housing (SFR) is $750K but in SF it's 1.2M. Give it a couple decades until the problem gets worse and you'll see the same thing happening. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out... (unless you're really that stupid)

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by man4857

If that was the case, there would be high-rises in the most expensive areas in LA/OC... Demand drives construction and highest demand = highest prices since it's always sold to the highest bidder.

Dude go to LA right now. I just counted 23 cranes. All building high rises. Oh and multi use buildings? They're popping up all over LA. Last year I worked with a builder who acquired 4 blocks in LA on Olive and Grand.
The acquisition of the land alone ran 55 million for EACH lot of land. That was just to purchase the land.

Rents
Studio 2,000-3,000
1 bed. 2,300-3,800 and some call for details
2 bed 3,000-6,000 and some call for details



Don't believe me
1000 Grand by Windsor | Luxury Downtown Los Angeles, CA Apartments | Floor Plans

Only 40 combined available out of a 300 unit building. And that builder built 4 buildings in 1.5-2 years accelerated schedule. The streets didn't get any wider. Neither did the freeways. They are building like crazy in LA. So I'm not quite sure where your they aren't building angle comes from. Because they seem to be building all over the place. Or is the problem that they aren't building "affordable" housing for your price/wage range?
Huntington Beach built 10-12 of those multiuse apartment buildings. So many in fact the whole city council was voted out by residents a while back. There were NO additional expansions to infrastructure, Anaheim and Santa Ana are all building like crazy too.

See the thing is builders don't care. They just want to build their building sell it and move on. Added traffic issues? Utilities problems? Not their problem. That's the city and state problem.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

Dude go to LA right now. I just counted 23 cranes. All building high rises. Oh and multi use buildings? They're popping up all over LA. Last year I worked with a builder who acquired 4 blocks in LA on Olive and Grand.
The acquisition of the land alone ran 55 million for EACH lot of land. That was just to purchase the land.

Rents
Studio 2,000-3,000
1 bed. 2,300-3,800 and some call for details
2 bed 3,000-6,000 and some call for details



Don't believe me
1000 Grand by Windsor | Luxury Downtown Los Angeles, CA Apartments | Floor Plans

Only 40 combined available out of a 300 unit building. And that builder built 4 buildings in 1.5-2 years accelerated schedule. The streets didn't get any wider. Neither did the freeways. They are building like crazy in LA. So I'm nit sure where your they aren't building Angie vines from.
Huntington Beach built 10-12 of those multiuse apartment buoldings. So many in fact the whole city council was voted out by residents a while back. There were NO additional expansions to infrastructure, Anaheim and Santa Ana are all building like crazy too.

See the thing is builders don't care. They just want to build their building sell it and move on. Added traffic issues? Utilities problems? Not their problem. That's the city and state problem.

"Building like crazy" is just what you see. Building enough to keep up with demand to keep prices stable is a different story ("stable" meaning, prices rise with or close to the rate of inflation). Which many many studies already say, CA is not building enough just to keep up with demand.

Also if you didn't realize, most skyscrapers are being built are luxury housing. Because... conceptually, because of high demand, if you put all the rich folks into 1 luxury building, then the demand/price for other not-so-luxurious apartments for normal folks will be maintained because... if you don't house the rich folks somewhere, they have the money to out-bid the normal folks and jack up the rent for normal looking places and force them out.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

Dude go to LA right now. I just counted 23 cranes. All building high rises. Oh and multi use buildings? They're popping up all over LA. Last year I worked with a builder who acquired 4 blocks in LA on Olive and Grand.
The acquisition of the land alone ran 55 million for EACH lot of land. That was just to purchase the land.

Rents
Studio 2,000-3,000
1 bed. 2,300-3,800 and some call for details
2 bed 3,000-6,000 and some call for details



Don't believe me
1000 Grand by Windsor | Luxury Downtown Los Angeles, CA Apartments | Floor Plans

Only 40 combined available out of a 300 unit building. And that builder built 4 buildings in 1.5-2 years accelerated schedule. The streets didn't get any wider. Neither did the freeways. They are building like crazy in LA. So I'm not quite sure where your they aren't building angle comes from. Because they seem to be building all over the place. Or is the problem that they aren't building "affordable" housing for your price/wage range?
Huntington Beach built 10-12 of those multiuse apartment buildings. So many in fact the whole city council was voted out by residents a while back. There were NO additional expansions to infrastructure, Anaheim and Santa Ana are all building like crazy too.

See the thing is builders don't care. They just want to build their building sell it and move on. Added traffic issues? Utilities problems? Not their problem. That's the city and state problem.

LA city's supply was artificially constrained by Proposition U which the voters passed in 1986. Prior to Prop U, LA city building codes were able to plan for a population of 10 million in the city, but after Prop U's passage, planned density was forced down by 55% on all new units that broke ground after 1986, lowering the planned population of LA city to 4.5 million. So voters created their own problem. Measure S if it hadn't failed would have made it even worse

[man4857]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

LA city's supply was artificially constrained by Proposition U which the voters passed in 1986. Prior to Prop U, LA city building codes were able to plan for a population of 10 million in the city, but after Prop U's passage, planned density was forced down by 55% on all new units that broke ground after 1986, lowering the planned population of LA city to 4.5 million. So voters created their own problem. Measure S if it hadn't failed would have made it even worse

Too bad people don't want to take responsibility for anything these days.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by man4857

Too bad people don't want to take responsibility for anything these days.

I thought only those who complain are from other states like expatCA and man4857

[man4857]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

I thought only those who complain are from other states like expatCA and man4857

Ask your neighbors. I grew up in the LA area so, I know how it is. Everyone I know in LA is still complaining about high COL.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Cdsmd

Yep. I work in underwriting commercial real estate loans all throughout socal. Tons of new supply coming online, but demand is still through the roof. Too many people want to live here.

And buy before prices go even higher.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by man4857

Ask your neighbors. I grew up in the LA area so, I know how it is. Everyone I know in LA is still complaining about high COL.

the neighbors I knew when we were living in an apartment bought their houses sometime in 2010-2012. we bought ours in 2014. my last neighbor just bought last year.


in our new neighborhood, those who stayed long enough are cashing out. that's minimum of 300k equity to bring to Arizona or Texas or as DP for those 900k SFRs they are building near us. not bad for 1400 square feet townhouse.

[man4857]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

the neighbors I knew when we were living in an apartment bought their houses sometime in 2010-2012. we bought ours in 2014. my last neighbor just bought last year.


in our new neighborhood, those who stayed long enough are cashing out. that's minimum of 300k equity to bring to Arizona or Texas or as DP for those 900k SFRs they are building near us. not bad for 1400 square feet townhouse.

Great for you who can buy a place. I'm not really interested in seeing who can afford a home or not just by judging if they can purchase property (or purchase a mortgage) in their name.

Seems like that's everyone's benchmark these days, if you can get loaned x amount of dollars to buy something, you've made it regardless of the price. My benchmark is proportions...like you should not buy a home that costs you over 3x your annual household income (or to be specific, you should not mortgage/borrow anything over 3x your annual household income, that's house price - downpayment + closing). Or you should not buy a car that costs over 50% of your annual household income. Or the real benchmark is... can you even pay the sucker off. Lol...The people I know, who are approaching retirement, hasn't paid off their house yet, my parents included... So that tells you something.

I don't care what the loan terms are. You can make something seem affordable just by lengthening the loan... or playing all sorts of games with taxes/interest rates to lower the monthly payment.

But it still stands, at exactly the moment in time you decide to purchase something. Your income was x dollars, you spent x dollars you had, and you spend another x dollars you didn't have. Can you really afford that purchase?
The answer for most living in SoCal would be a big fat NO, if you follow the rule of thumb.