| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2008/4/25-5/2 [Transportation/Car] UID:49828 Activity:kinda low |
4/24 Los Angeles is bleeding with foreclosures:
http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-re-zipforclosures-pg,0,3014082.photogallery?index=12
PS Talking to the trashy ppl there I always knew how dumpy
Lancaster and Palmdale were. At foreclosure rate of 1/59 and
1/67, you have to wonder why people there are so irresponsible
with their finances. On the other hand, it's surprising
to me that a city as dumpy as Venice and Santa Monica have much
fewer foreclosures than Lancaster and Palmdale.
\_ These areas also attract people who love MONSTER TRUCK and
NASCAR. I mean, it's always been known that people who live
far from civilization are lower forms of life. The saddest
thing is that people like you and me end up bailing them out
of their misery.
\_ Santa Monica is pretty much the only place in LA I would
consider living in. Maybe Malibu if I was so rich I didn't
have to drive anywhere. -Liberal SF Elitist
\_ Santa Monica is a shithole, but for a while it was more expensive
than Beverly Hills in terms of median price for a SFR. There
are a lot of wealthy people that live there and demand to live there
is high there so it stands to reason foreclosures would be low
compared to poor, undesirable Lancaster and Palmdale.
\_ If it is a shithole, why do so many wealthy people want to
live there?
\_ A lot of people new to LA think it's where they want to live.
Also, the location has close proximity to lots of high-paying
jobs so it's convenient. SM does have some nice areas in
the north, but those houses costs millions and are out of
the north, but those houses cost millions and are out of
reach of most people. Think of SM like Berkeley. Berkeley
is an expensive crime-ridden shithole, but that doesn't
mean there aren't some nice places in the Berkeley Hills.
\_ Where in LA isn't a shithole?
\_ Lots of places including Pacific Palisades, Palos
Verdes, Bel Air, Malibu, most of the canyons, SF
\_ and yet, you still have to drive through the
shithole freeways like the I-10 and I-405.
You can live in a nice home but if it takes
so much effort to get from A to B, it's still
a shithole.
Valley south of Ventura Blvd, La Canada, San
Marino, Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa
Beach. Almost any place near a beach or the
mountains/hills. Lots of Orange County is nice,
\_ yet you still have to deal with LA traffic.
Lots of traffic in Orange County. You're
confusing nice homes and neighbors and nice
quality of living. Traffic and road rage and
congestions and pollution != quality of living.
You may live in the nicest home in Irvine but
you're still in hell. I guess dimwitted
Angelenos will never get it.
\_ I live 8 miles from work and take the street
to get there. Dealing with traffic, whether
in LA, SF, Seattle, or Des Moines, is a
personal choice. I'd say SF is more congested
\_ LA is a really great place if you never have
to drive the same reason why Las Vegas is a
really great place to live as long as you never
have to leave your huge Vegas mansion.
and I dunno about pollution but it's better
than it was in the 1970s which is more than
can be said about most places. I have a
mountain view, experience lots of wildlife,
enjoy the warm weather, and love being near
world-class shopping, entertainment, museums,
and educational institutions. Last weekend I
hiked in the snow and walked along the beach
in the same day. To me, this (California) is
paradise. It's just that LA is a bit warmer
and has a bit more going for it than SF. SF
and San Diego are nice, too, but much more
provincial in comparison. Maybe I'll retire there.
\_ If everyone in LA lived 8 miles from work,
traffic problem would be less of an issue
today. I've lived in LA 1/2 of my life and
MOST ppl there don't have the luxury of living
so close to where they work, or they simply
don't want to live so close to work given
how shady some of the commercial zones are.
In addition the clear commercial/residential
zoning that was in place decades ago really
segmented everyone in LA, though a lot
of positive changes have happened (e.g.
the trend to push for mixed used developments
like the Redevelopment of LA and the Playa
Vista project). If you live 8 miles from where
you work, enjoy your career choices in the
proximity of where you live, it doesn't
matter where you live. Consider yourself
blessed because you're in a much better
position than 90% of the Angelinos. -x-LAer
\_ Proximity to work is a choice we all
make. Some people in the Bay Area work
in SF and live in Livermore. My sister
lives in Walnut Creek and used to
commute to Tiberon. You can make those
choices anywhere. It's more difficult
if you are a two-income family, since
it's harder to live close to two jobs,
but I don't see this as an issue specifically
related to LA. Even if you work in a
sketchy area there is usually a nice
area not too far away. Else, don't
accept a job in that sketchy area.
People like to blame LA for their own
personal lousy choices. I knew a couple
that moved to LA from Colorado. They
lived in Valencia. The guy worked in
Palmdale on the Space Shuttle and his
wife worked as an EE in Irvine. They
hated it here. Could it possibly be
because of the shitty situation they
set up for themselves involving long
commutes and boring suburbs? I'd hate
it, too. They went back to Colorado
within 2 years. Lots of people do
equally stupid things. A lot of my
\_ Valencia and Irvine is a stupid choice
and they would have done better had
they moved to a place with more nearby
related industries. Just as stock brokers
move to NYC or actors move to LA
engineers should move to N Cal.
I'm an engineer and I've gone through
so many companies like IBM and Intel
and now a startup, and I've never had
to move given how close I was to
endless career opportunities. If I
moved to LA, it would be the end of
my career or my home, since I'd have
much less mobility.
coworkers are fresh-outs who move to LA
for work. Where do they invariably
live? The beach. How far is the beach
from work? 37 miles. That's 50 minutes
without traffic. WHY?! They usually move
away in a few years. The people who
stay on long-term are the people who
chose to live close to work (a very
nice area, BTW, just not near the beach).
I'm better off than 90% of Angelenos
because I realize I control my own
commute with the choices I make in
where to work and live and I don't do
stupid things like accept job offers that
pay 10% more but increase my commute by
an hour a day.
\_ where does your wife work? How long
do you plan to stay at your job? How
secure is it?
\_ Because LA is so poorly planned, it is
hard to find homes near jobs. You fail
to see the connection between low density
single use development and long commutes.
SM -> Downtown is 15 miles, btw and there
are other good job centers even closer.
\_ Most of this was already covered above, but yeah,
I guess I cannot in good conscience call any of
those places shitholes, though I would not want
to live in almost any of them, because they are
too far from jobs and shopping and have no good
rapid transit, which would force me to have to
spend hours a day on LAs congested freeways. I
can imagine a situation where it would be okay
(worked at CalTech and lived in San Marino, for
example) but that would be pretty unique. Parts
of Beverley Hills are pretty nice: ironically
I prefer the part that most people think of as
"not as nice" because it is walking distance
to Santa Monica Blvd. And all those places cost
just as much or more than Santa Monica north
of Montana. -SFer
to Santa Monica Blvd. And those places cost
just as much or more than Santa Monica. -SFer
too, if you want to count that as part of LA.
\_ SF still going strong:
http://www.csua.org/u/lcm (WSJ - video)
\_ At the price point I've been paying attention to SF
has dropped a bit.
\_ Which price point is that, if I may ask. I am kind of
curious. |
| 12/24 |
|
| www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-re-zipforclosures-pg,0,3014082.photogallery?index=12 com) LANCASTER Median sales price in March 2008: $227,500 (Down 31% from March 2007) Consists of three ZIP Codes, with 746 foreclosures in first quarter of 2008 In ZIP 93535: Foreclosures in first quarter 2007: 70 Foreclosures in first quarter 2008: 345 Percentage increase: 393% Households per foreclosure: 59 Ranking of households per foreclosure of the 498 ZIP Codes surveyed*: 19 *Rank of 1 is the ZIP Code with the most foreclosures; |
| www.csua.org/u/lcm -> online.wsj.com/article/SB120886732384734503.html?mod=most_viewed_day MORE Home Sales Fall, but Signs of Stability Emerge By KELLY EVANS and SUDEEP REDDY April 23, 2008; Page A3 US sales of previously owned homes declined in March as the housing-market slump continued, but two gauges of home prices provided a glimmer of hope that the downturn might be easing a bit. Existing-home sales fell 2% last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 493 million, the National Association of Realtors said. The drop followed an increase of 29% in February, the first monthly gain since July. The languid sales pace has pushed inventories of unsold homes to a 99 months' supply at current sales rates. That large overhang has put downward pressure on prices for months, especially in areas hit hardest by the housing crisis. Now, however, there are signs that prices might be starting to stabilize. The median US home price rose to $200,700 last month from a revised $195,600 in February, the Realtors' report said. And the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's home-price index showed prices rising a seasonally adjusted 06% in February from January, the first monthly gain since June. The Ofheo index tracks homes purchased with government-backed mortgages, which excludes homes purchased with substandard loans more susceptible to the housing market's swoon. Sign up for our new email of the day's Real Time Economics posts, by Greg Ip, Sudeep Reddy and the Journal's economics team. The email also includes the latest economic headlines, data and columns. by midyear," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, in a note to clients. Existing-home sales dropped 65% in the Midwest last month and 35% in the South; Single-family home sales fell 27%, while sales of condominiums and co-ops rose 36%, for a second consecutive increase. The fate of the nation's housing market could determine the shape and length of the current economic downturn. In an interview, Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, warned that the US may be in for a long period of "anemic growth -- longer than two quarters." But, Mr Fisher said, "I don't think it needs to be all that deep. "This strikes deep at the heart of the ordinary, hard-working consumer," he said. "They're getting multiple whammies -- slow economic growth, job insecurity, their homes are perceived to be worth less. I would expect them to change their behavioral patterns." He also said, in the Monday interview, that slower economic growth may not resolve mounting concerns about inflation because he expects only a mild slowdown in world demand. "We've been weakening and we haven't seen the price responses," he said. |