From the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.): Home sales in California dip below pre-pandemic levels as the effects of rising interest rates begin to show even as prices set another record, C.A.R. reports Continue reading
Tag Archives: California Housing
Newsom Bans Most Single-Family-Only Zoning In California
Less than 48 hours after squashing an attempt to oust him from office, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed sweeping housing legislation on Thursday that reportedly bans single-family-only zoning in most neighborhoods, in favor of cramped high density living across the state.
California April Housing: Sales up 65% YoY, Active Listings down 50% YoY
CAR on California October Housing: Sales Up 1.9% YoY, Inventory Down 18%
The CAR reported: California housing market holds steady in October, C.A.R. reports
(Bill McBride) Shrinking inventory subdued California home sales and held home sales and prices steady in October, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) said today.
Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 404,240 units in October, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR® associations and MLSs statewide. The statewide annualized sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2019 if sales maintained the October pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.
October’s sales figure was up 0.1 percent from the 404,030 level in September and up 1.9 percent from home sales in October 2018 of a revised 396,720.
“The California housing market continued to see gradual improvement in recent months as the current mortgage environment remains favorable to those who want to buy a home. With interest rates remaining historically low for the foreseeable future, motivated buyers finding that homes are slightly more affordable may seize the opportunity and resume their home search,” said 2020 C.A.R. President Jeanne Radsick, a second-generation REALTOR® from Bakersfield, Calif. “Additionally, the condominium loan policies that went into effect mid-October could help buyers for whom single-family homes are out of reach.”
…
After 15 straight months of year-over-year increases, active listings fell for the fourth straight month, dropping 18.0 percent from year ago. The decline was the largest since May 2013.
The Unsold Inventory Index (UII), which is a ratio of inventory over sales, was 3.0 months in October, down from 3.6 in both September 2019 and October 2018. It was the lowest level since June 2018. The index measures the number of months it would take to sell the supply of homes on the market at the current sales rate.
Gavin Newsom Wants To Fix California’s Housing Crisis. So What Are His Options?
Gov. Gavin Newsom says California’s housing affordability crisis is so severe that he wants a bit of everything to solve it.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Megan Colbert compare notes on raising toddlers as she shares her struggles as a single parent while talking about affordable housing issues on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 in Sacramento. Newsom held a round table discussion to address housing affordability and rising rents. Renée C. Byer rbyer@sacbee.com
That means seeding construction for millions of new residences, opening the door to a new rent control law and finding ways to protect low-income families from eviction.
C.A.R. Report: California Housing Market Sputtered In November
California Association Of Realtors Report, Absent Seasonal Adjustments
– Existing, single-family home sales totaled 381,400 in November on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, down 3.9 percent from October and down 13.4 percent from November 2017.
– November’s statewide median home price was $554,760, down 3.0 percent from October and up 1.5 percent from November 2017.
– Statewide active listings rose for the eighth straight month, increasing 31 percent from the previous year.
– The statewide Unsold Inventory Index was 3.7 months in November, up from 3.6 months in October.
– As of November, year-to-date sales were down 4.6 percent.
LOS ANGELES (Dec. 18) – California home sales remained on a downward trend for the seventh consecutive month in November as prospective buyers continued to wait out the market, according to the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.).
Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 381,400 units in November, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR® associations and MLS’ statewide. The statewide annualized sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2018 if sales maintained the November pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.
November’s sales figure was down 3.9 percent from the revised 397,060 level in October and down 13.4 percent from home sales in November 2017 of a revised 440,340. November marked the fourth month in a row that sales were below 400,000.
“While many home buyers continue to sit on the sidelines, serious buyers who are in a position to purchase should take advantage of this window of opportunity,” said C.A.R. President Jared Martin. “Now that interest rates have pulled back, home prices have tapered, and inventory has improved, home buyers’ prospects of getting into a home are more positive.”
The statewide median home price declined to $554,760 in November. The November statewide median price was down 3.0 percent from $572,000 in October and up 1.5 percent from a revised $546,820 in November 2017.
“The slowdown in price growth is occurring throughout the state, including regions that have strong economic fundamentals such as the San Francisco Bay Area,” said C.A.R. Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. “The deceleration in home price appreciation should be a welcome sign for potential buyers who have struggled in recent years against low inventory and rapidly rising home prices.”
Other key points from C.A.R.’s November 2018 resale housing report include:
- On a region wide, non-seasonally adjusted basis, sales dropped double-digits on a year-over-year basis in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Coast, and the Southern California regions, while the Central Valley region experienced a relatively small sales dip of 3.9 percent.
- Forty-one of the 51 counties reported by C.A.R. posted a sales decline in November with an average year-over-year sales decline of 16.8 percent. Twenty-six counties recorded double-digit sales drops on an annual basis.
- Sales for the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole fell 11.5 percent from a year ago. All nine Bay Area counties recorded annual sales decreases, with Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties posting double-digit annual declines.
- The Los Angeles Metro region posted a year-over-year sales drop of 10.1 percent, as home sales fell 11.2 percent in Los Angeles County and 14.4 percent in Orange County.
- Home sales in the Inland Empire decreased 6.7 percent from a year ago as Riverside and San Bernardino counties posted annual sales declines of 9.0 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.
- Home prices in the San Francisco Bay Area are no longer climbing at the double-digit pace that occurred throughout much of this year. On a year-over-year basis, the Bay Area median price ticked up 0.6 percent from November 2017. While home prices in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties continued to remain above $1 million, all but San Mateo County recorded a year-over-year price decline.
- Statewide active listings rose for the eighth consecutive month after nearly three straight years of declines, increasing 31 percent from the previous year. November’s listings increase was the largest since April 2014.
- The unsold inventory index, which is a ratio of inventory over sales, increased year-to-year from 2.9 months in November 2017 to 3.7 months in November 2018. The index measures the number of months it would take to sell the supply of homes on the market at the current sales rate.
- The median number of days it took to sell a California single-family home edged up from 22 days in November 2017 to 28 days in November 2018.
- C.A.R.’s statewide sales price-to-list-price ratio* declined from a year ago at 98.9 percent in November 2017 to 97.9 percent in November 2018.
- The average statewide price per square foot** for an existing, single-family home statewide was $282 in November 2018, up from $277 in November 2017.
- The 30-year, fixed-mortgage interest rate averaged 4.87 percent in November, up from 3.92 percent in November 2017, according to Freddie Mac. The five-year, adjustable mortgage interest rate also increased in November to an average of 4.11 percent from 3.24 from November 2017.
Key Graphics (click links to open):
- Calif. historical existing home sales.
- Calif. historical median home price.
- Year-over-year sales by price segment.
- Unsold inventory index of single-family homes.
Note: The County MLS median price and sales data in the tables are generated from a survey of more than 90 associations of REALTORS® throughout the state and represent statistics of existing single-family detached homes only. County sales data are not adjusted to account for seasonal factors that can influence home sales. Movements in sales prices should not be interpreted as changes in the cost of a standard home. The median price is where half sold for more and half sold for less; medians are more typical than average prices, which are skewed by a relatively small share of transactions at either the lower-end or the upper-end. Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and the size of homes sold. The change in median prices should not be construed as actual price changes in specific homes.
*Sales-to-list price ratio is an indicator that reflects the negotiation power of home buyers and home sellers under current market conditions. The ratio is calculated by dividing the final sales price of a property by its last list price and is expressed as a percentage. A sales-to-list ratio with 100 percent or above suggests that the property sold for more than the list price, and a ratio below 100 percent indicates that the price sold below the asking price.
**Price per square foot is a measure commonly used by real estate agents and brokers to determine how much a square foot of space a buyer will pay for a property. It is calculated as the sale price of the home divided by the number of finished square feet. C.A.R. currently tracks price-per-square foot statistics for 50 counties.
Leading the way…® in California real estate for more than 110 years, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States with more than 190,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.
# # #
November 2018 County Sales and Price Activity
(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)
| November 2018 | Median Sold Price of Existing Single-Family Homes | Sales | |||||||
| State/Region/County | Nov.
2018 |
Oct.
2018 |
Nov.
2017 |
Price MTM% Chg | Price YTY% Chg | Sales MTM% Chg | Sales YTY% Chg | ||
| Calif. Single-family home | $554,760 | $572,000 | $546,820 | -3.0% | 1.5% | -3.9% | -13.4% | ||
| Calif. Condo/Townhome | $465,770 | $476,440 | $451,250 | -2.2% | 3.2% | -19.1% | -17.4% | ||
| Los Angeles Metro Area | $512,000 | $516,000 | $500,500 | -0.8% | 2.3% | -14.0% | -10.1% | ||
| Central Coast | $672,500 | $669,500 | $685,000 | 0.4% | -1.8% | -15.9% | -18.0% | ||
| Central Valley | $320,000 | $320,000 | $310,000 | 0.0% | 3.2% | -11.7% | -3.9% | ||
| Inland Empire | $363,620 | $359,000 | $340,000 | 1.3% | 6.9% | -12.2% | -6.7% | ||
| San Francisco Bay Area | $905,000 | $958,800 | $900,000 | r | -5.6% | 0.6% | -12.7% | -11.5% | |
| San Francisco Bay Area | |||||||||
| Alameda | $900,000 | $900,000 | $880,000 | 0.0% | 2.3% | -10.9% | -6.7% | ||
| Contra Costa | $641,000 | $657,000 | $615,000 | -2.4% | 4.2% | -5.8% | -8.0% | ||
| Marin | $1,172,940 | $1,450,000 | $1,230,000 | -19.1% | -4.6% | -25.7% | -26.8% | ||
| Napa | $683,500 | $709,500 | $682,000 | -3.7% | 0.2% | -11.5% | -6.1% | ||
| San Francisco | $1,442,500 | $1,600,000 | $1,500,000 | -9.8% | -3.8% | -14.0% | -12.2% | ||
| San Mateo | $1,500,000 | $1,588,000 | $1,486,000 | -5.5% | 0.9% | -22.1% | -13.7% | ||
| Santa Clara | $1,250,000 | $1,290,000 | $1,282,500 | -3.1% | -2.5% | -10.9% | -9.9% | ||
| Solano | $450,000 | $430,000 | $410,000 | 4.7% | 9.8% | -2.7% | -3.6% | ||
| Sonoma | $612,500 | $650,000 | $655,000 | -5.8% | -6.5% | -25.5% | -29.1% | ||
| Southern California | |||||||||
| Los Angeles | $553,940 | $614,500 | $530,920 | -9.9% | 4.3% | -17.5% | -11.2% | ||
| Orange | $795,000 | $810,000 | $785,000 | -1.9% | 1.3% | -7.5% | -14.4% | ||
| Riverside | $400,000 | $400,000 | $383,000 | 0.0% | 4.4% | -14.8% | -9.0% | ||
| San Bernardino | $299,450 | $289,000 | $280,000 | 3.6% | 6.9% | -8.0% | -3.2% | ||
| San Diego | $626,000 | $635,500 | $619,900 | -1.5% | 1.0% | -8.4% | -11.0% | ||
| Ventura | $643,740 | $650,000 | $640,000 | -1.0% | 0.6% | -18.8% | -11.7% | ||
| Central Coast | |||||||||
| Monterey | $630,000 | $620,000 | $618,120 | 1.6% | 1.9% | -6.1% | -11.2% | ||
| San Luis Obispo | $624,000 | $586,000 | $615,000 | 6.5% | 1.5% | -14.4% | -17.5% | ||
| Santa Barbara | $550,000 | $659,000 | $742,000 | -16.5% | -25.9% | -20.3% | -18.8% | ||
| Santa Cruz | $862,500 | $885,000 | $870,000 | -2.5% | -0.9% | -24.0% | -26.1% | ||
| Central Valley | |||||||||
| Fresno | $265,750 | $272,000 | $264,000 | -2.3% | 0.7% | -6.4% | -2.9% | ||
| Glenn | $225,000 | $253,000 | $232,000 | -11.1% | -3.0% | 12.5% | -5.3% | ||
| Kern | $235,250 | $240,000 | $235,000 | -2.0% | 0.1% | -14.8% | -1.8% | ||
| Kings | $222,000 | $229,000 | $230,000 | -3.1% | -3.5% | -3.4% | 6.3% | ||
| Madera | $265,000 | $254,950 | $245,000 | 3.9% | 8.2% | 2.1% | -2.0% | ||
| Merced | $261,930 | $271,850 | r | $255,000 | -3.6% | 2.7% | -22.5% | -13.0% | |
| Placer | $461,000 | $470,000 | $450,000 | -1.9% | 2.4% | -5.1% | -13.6% | ||
| Sacramento | $365,000 | $360,000 | $349,900 | 1.4% | 4.3% | -10.2% | -7.1% | ||
| San Benito | $583,200 | $597,000 | $649,880 | -2.3% | -10.3% | -4.3% | 10.0% | ||
| San Joaquin | $365,000 | $369,200 | $360,500 | -1.1% | 1.2% | -20.1% | 17.5% | ||
| Stanislaus | $310,000 | $319,000 | $298,750 | -2.8% | 3.8% | -17.2% | -9.2% | ||
| Tulare | $237,400 | $232,000 | $215,000 | 2.3% | 10.4% | -16.2% | -2.5% | ||
| Other Calif. Counties | |||||||||
| Amador | NA | NA | $348,950 | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||
| Butte | $326,940 | $318,000 | $315,000 | 2.8% | 3.8% | -7.1% | 8.3% | ||
| Calaveras | $325,000 | $302,500 | $318,000 | 7.4% | 2.2% | -33.6% | -31.9% | ||
| Del Norte | $250,000 | $223,000 | $214,000 | 12.1% | 16.8% | -20.0% | -42.9% | ||
| El Dorado | $461,750 | $500,000 | $470,000 | -7.7% | -1.8% | -28.6% | -27.5% | ||
| Humboldt | $310,000 | $315,000 | $310,000 | -1.6% | 0.0% | -24.0% | 3.2% | ||
| Lake | $255,000 | $265,250 | $262,000 | -3.9% | -2.7% | -11.4% | -23.5% | ||
| Lassen | $184,000 | $148,000 | $189,000 | 24.3% | -2.6% | -40.0% | -48.3% | ||
| Mariposa | $355,000 | $305,500 | $250,000 | 16.2% | 42.0% | -12.5% | 180.0% | ||
| Mendocino | $414,000 | $420,000 | $374,500 | -1.4% | 10.5% | -13.1% | 6.0% | ||
| Mono | $725,000 | $599,900 | $400,000 | 20.9% | 81.3% | -47.1% | -35.7% | ||
| Nevada | $399,000 | $401,500 | $405,750 | -0.6% | -1.7% | -30.6% | -13.9% | ||
| Plumas | $289,500 | $310,000 | $302,000 | -6.6% | -4.1% | -44.7% | -42.2% | ||
| Shasta | $283,000 | $261,000 | $250,000 | 8.4% | 13.2% | -17.2% | 7.1% | ||
| Siskiyou | $226,000 | $181,500 | $189,500 | 24.5% | 19.3% | -19.6% | -15.9% | ||
| Sutter | $296,000 | $290,000 | $270,000 | 2.1% | 9.6% | -16.9% | -14.7% | ||
| Tehama | $199,000 | $233,250 | $224,500 | -14.7% | -11.4% | -38.1% | -46.9% | ||
| Tuolumne | $288,500 | $304,000 | $325,000 | -5.1% | -11.2% | -15.4% | -9.6% | ||
| Yolo | $429,500 | $443,750 | $440,000 | -3.2% | -2.4% | -12.5% | -26.3% | ||
| Yuba | $263,000 | $282,000 | $285,000 | -6.7% | -7.7% | -1.3% | 14.5% | ||
r = revised
NA = not available
November 2018 County Unsold Inventory and Days on Market
(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)
| November 2018 | Unsold Inventory Index | Median Time on Market | ||||||||
| State/Region/County | Nov. 2018 | Oct. 2018 | Nov. 2017 | Nov. 2018 | Oct. 2018 | Nov. 2017 | ||||
| Calif. Single-family home | 3.7 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 28.0 | 26.0 | 22.0 | ||||
| Calif. Condo/Townhome | 3.4 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 25.0 | 21.0 | 17.0 | ||||
| Los Angeles Metro Area | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 32.0 | 30.0 | 27.0 | ||||
| Central Coast | 4.4 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 34.0 | 30.0 | 30.0 | ||||
| Central Valley | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 25.0 | 21.0 | 18.0 | ||||
| Inland Empire | 4.7 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 37.0 | 35.0 | 31.0 | ||||
| San Francisco Bay Area | 2.3 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 23.0 | 19.0 | 15.0 | ||||
| San Francisco Bay Area | ||||||||||
| Alameda | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 17.0 | 15.0 | 13.0 | ||||
| Contra Costa | 2.2 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 19.0 | 16.0 | 14.0 | ||||
| Marin | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 35.0 | 22.0 | 36.0 | ||||
| Napa | 4.6 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 49.0 | 41.0 | 57.5 | ||||
| San Francisco | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 16.5 | 15.0 | 16.0 | ||||
| San Mateo | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 16.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | ||||
| Santa Clara | 2.1 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 18.0 | 14.0 | 9.0 | ||||
| Solano | 3.0 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 41.0 | 39.0 | 32.5 | ||||
| Sonoma | 3.8 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 49.0 | 47.5 | 44.0 | ||||
| Southern California | ||||||||||
| Los Angeles | 3.9 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 27.0 | 25.0 | 22.0 | r | |||
| Orange | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 24.0 | ||||
| Riverside | 4.9 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 36.0 | 34.0 | 29.0 | ||||
| San Bernardino | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 42.0 | 35.0 | 34.0 | ||||
| San Diego | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 22.0 | 24.0 | 17.0 | ||||
| Ventura | 5.4 | 5.1 | 4.4 | 53.0 | 51.0 | 51.0 | ||||
| Central Coast | ||||||||||
| Monterey | 4.3 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 28.0 | ||||
| San Luis Obispo | 4.6 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 40.0 | 29.0 | 30.0 | ||||
| Santa Barbara | 5.2 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 41.0 | 40.0 | 35.0 | ||||
| Santa Cruz | 3.2 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 30.5 | 21.0 | 22.5 | ||||
| Central Valley | ||||||||||
| Fresno | 3.5 | 3.6 | r | 3.0 | 19.0 | 19.0 | 18.0 | |||
| Glenn | 4.8 | 4.9 | 3.8 | 73.5 | 22.5 | 45.0 | ||||
| Kern | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 26.0 | 21.0 | 25.0 | ||||
| Kings | 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 23.5 | 26.0 | 16.0 | ||||
| Madera | 5.1 | 5.7 | r | 4.4 | r | 34.0 | 30.0 | 28.0 | ||
| Merced | 4.8 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 23.0 | 22.0 | 25.0 | ||||
| Placer | 3.0 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 27.0 | 25.0 | 17.0 | ||||
| Sacramento | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 24.0 | 19.0 | 17.0 | ||||
| San Benito | 3.1 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 41.5 | 23.0 | 23.5 | ||||
| San Joaquin | 3.6 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 24.0 | 22.0 | 14.0 | ||||
| Stanislaus | 3.3 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 25.0 | 21.0 | 18.0 | ||||
| Tulare | 4.1 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 35.0 | 28.0 | 29.5 | ||||
| Other Counties in California | ||||||||||
| Amador | NA | NA | 5.4 | NA | NA | 69.0 | ||||
| Butte | 2.9 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 24.0 | 21.0 | 18.0 | ||||
| Calaveras | 6.5 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 53.0 | 43.5 | 60.0 | ||||
| Del Norte | 5.6 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 110.0 | 95.0 | 111.0 | ||||
| El Dorado | 4.4 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 41.5 | 48.0 | 40.0 | ||||
| Humboldt | 5.8 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 24.5 | 27.0 | 28.0 | ||||
| Lake | 7.0 | 6.7 | 4.7 | 60.5 | 51.0 | 54.0 | ||||
| Lassen | 8.6 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 110.0 | 109.0 | 85.0 | ||||
| Mariposa | 4.8 | 4.6 | 12.2 | 147.0 | 24.0 | 6.0 | ||||
| Mendocino | 7.9 | 7.3 | 5.7 | 66.0 | 87.0 | 63.5 | ||||
| Mono | 8.4 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 127.0 | 115.0 | 153.5 | ||||
| Nevada | 5.7 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 41.0 | 40.5 | 33.0 | ||||
| Plumas | 9.8 | 6.1 | 5.1 | 152.0 | 87.0 | 143.0 | ||||
| Shasta | 4.4 | 3.9 | 4.3 | 26.5 | 34.5 | 33.0 | ||||
| Siskiyou | 7.1 | 6.6 | 5.5 | 60.5 | 20.0 | 60.5 | ||||
| Sutter | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 29.5 | 34.0 | 32.0 | ||||
| Tehama | 9.2 | 5.4 | 4.0 | 49.5 | 48.5 | 63.0 | ||||
| Tuolumne | 5.8 | 5.6 | 3.9 | 58.5 | 47.0 | 42.0 | ||||
| Yolo | 3.7 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 27.0 | 22.0 | 22.0 | ||||
| Yuba | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 30.0 | 33.0 | 17.0 | ||||
r = revised
NA = not available
If California Is Split Into 3, What New State Will Have The Hottest Housing?
In this June 18, 2018, photo, venture capitalist Tim Draper points to a computer screen at his offices in San Mateo, showing an initiative to split California into three states qualified for the ballot. Opponents of an initiative are asking the state Supreme Court to pull the measure from the ballot. (AP Photo/Haven Daley)
Voters will decide in November on a proposition that calls for California to be split into three new and separate states.
This column isn’t the place to debate the merits of the idea. Nor will I ponder its odds at the ballot box. And I’ll leave to other pundits the vast legal, political and operational impacts of such a historic change — and that’s only if the breakup ever got all the necessary approvals after a winning vote.
We are here to talk one thing: What might these three new state housing markets look like based on historical trends. Geographically speaking, the plan creates new state borders along county lines.
There’s the retooled “California,” essentially the coastal counties from Los Angeles to Monterey. There’s the oddly named “Southern California” combining Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties up through the interior to Lake Tahoe. And there’s “Northern California,” everything else or basically the Bay Area plus everything up to Oregon.
Knowing the new county lineup, I filled my trusty spreadsheet with historical housing data provided by Attom Data Solutions. Looking at stats from 2000 through 2018’s first quarter, here are 10 things you should know about the housing markets within each of the new proposed states.
1. Price tags: When you shuffle the counties into three states, what does a sales-weighted median for 2018’s first-quarter selling prices for all properties look like? It’s no surprise that it would cost the most to buy in Northern California at $580,200. Next was the new coastal California at $571,900. Southern California was most affordable — remember all the cheaper inland properties are in this new state — at $426,000.
2. Best bet: Where was the best performance this century, as measured by growth in median selling prices for all properties, 2000 through this year? Well, seaside property rocks. The Pacific-hugging new California’s 181 percent gain was tops vs. Southern California at 148 percent and Northern California’s 120 percent.
3. Most pain: Split or not, don’t forget the pain of housing’s bubble bursting! What new state’s housing market would have fared the worst in the 2006-2011 downturn? Northern California’s 46 percent price drop was the largest loss and a shade ahead of Southern California’s fall of 45.6 percent and new California’s 41.4 percent tumble.
4. Top recovery: Where was the post-recession rebound the best, measured by the 2011-2018 selling price upswing? Northern California produced 108 percent in gains in seven years vs. Southern California at 84 percent and new California’s 83 percent.
5. Predictability: Split the state into three, expect the same crazy real estate. Just peek at the nearly uniform best and worst 12-month periods since 2000! New California’s best was up 30 percent vs. its worst of down 35 percent; Southern California ran from up 29 percent to down 37 percent; and Northern California ranged from up 29 percent to down 42 percent.
6. Big sellers: Ponder the size of these markets, in terms of purchase transactions closed in the past 18 years. Most sales activity in 2000-2018 was Southern California’s 3.2 million sales followed by Northern California’s 2.9 million and new California’s 2 million.
7. Sales dips: Home buying is down since the turn of the century as homeowners choose to move less and ownership is less affordable. New California’s sales pace is down 19 percent since 2000; Northern California is off 10 percent; Southern California is down 4.5 percent.
8. Home sweet home: Now let’s think about single-family homes under the proposed three-way split. Southern California would have 2.77 million single-family homes worth a combined $1.44 trillion. New California gets 1.84 million single-family homes worth $1.41 trillion. Northern California is home to 2.87 million homes worth $2.18 trillion.
9. Price extremes: Where’s the budget-busting housing in the proposed new states … and where are the bargains? Southern California’s priciest single-family homes are in Orange County at an average value of $871,635 vs. the cheapest county, Kings, at $202,699. New California’s priciest is Santa Barbara County at $804,942 vs. San Benito County’s $541,434 low. Of course, Northern California has an insane gap: the highest prices are in San Mateo County at $1.61 million vs. the cheapest county, Modoc, at $89,158.
10. Tax bite: Ownership equals property taxes. How would that cost for single-family homes slice up among the three proposed states? Southern California’s 2017 tax collections for single-family homes ran $12.13 billion or $4,372 per average taxpayer. Northern California property taxes totaled $15.53 billion or $5,419 per average taxpayer. And the biggest individual tax bills were in the new California where $10.38 billion in collections translates to an average $5,636 per property.
California’s Most Controversial Housing Bill In Years Just Died With A Thud
Listen to an excellent podcast at the end of this article.
Dense housing makes San Francisco one of the most compact cities in America. Photo via Thinkstock
The most controversial state housing bill in recent memory died with a pretty resounding thud.
Senate Bill 827, which would have forced cities to allow taller, denser development around public transit, got only four votes on the 13-member Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. Both Democrat and Republican lawmakers voted against the bill.
Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, Democrat from San Francisco, the bill would have allowed developers to build five-story apartment buildings near major public transit stops, including neighborhoods previously zoned for single family homes. The bill received a ton of media attention, including a fairly flattering write-up on the front page of the New York Times.
The most controversial state housing bill in recent memory died with a pretty resounding thud.
Senate Bill 827, which would have forced cities to allow taller, denser development around public transit, got only four votes on the 13-member Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. Both Democrat and Republican lawmakers voted against the bill.
Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, Democrat from San Francisco, the bill would have allowed developers to build five-story apartment buildings near major public transit stops, including neighborhoods previously zoned for single family homes. The bill received a ton of media att
Urbanist “Yes In My Backyard” (YIMBY) groups mourned the bill’s death as yet another roadblock to building the new housing the state so desperately needs. Cities and anti-gentrification groups cheered the demise of what they viewed as an unprecedented inroad on local control.
What to make of all the hubbub? Some key takeaways:
Enemies, enemies, got a lot of enemies
It’s tough for anyone to take on cities and counties, who wield enormous power in Sacramento and to whom state legislators often give considerable deference. It’s tough for anyone to take on the construction trades’ union, a major source of campaign contributions for Democratic lawmakers. It’s tough for anyone to take on equity and social justice groups, who can bend the ear of progressive legislators.
It’s really tough to take on all three at the same time. That likely wasn’t Sen. Wiener’s strategy when he first introduced SB 827, but that’s ultimately what helped doom the bill. The support of realtors, developers, YIMBYs and a handful of affordable housing advocates couldn’t muster the votes he needed.
Supporters of the bill arguably made a misstep in not courting social justice groups early enough. A flurry of amendments to protect renters from being displaced and to force developers to include units reserved for lower-income tenants failed to calm their concerns.
Last year, Wiener was able to push through a bill that stripped local control over some housing developments by getting labor and affordability advocates on his side. That bill was also part of a larger package of housing legislation that had something for everyone, including a new revenue source. Gov. Jerry Brown was a driving force behind that package.
None of that that happened this time.
The bill did spark a statewide debate on whether to up density to help remedy our housing crisis
Opponents came from San Francisco and its environs to lobby against the bill—and the gentrification they feared it would bring. Photo by Matt Levin for CALmatters
What Wiener was attempting was truly revolutionary. You can debate how dramatically the character of a city would change by building a five-story apartment building next to a single family home. But taking away the power of local governments to block those types of developments was a pretty radical step—a step that a growing number of Californians think is necessary to prevent cities from obstructing new housing.
The bill received a ton of media attention, both in California and nationally. It garnered support from prominent urban planners, environmentalists and civil rights advocates. It’s both cliche and premature to say it shifted the needle on the housing debate. But it certainly framed the conversation squarely around the state’s role in compelling cities to build.
Expect something like this to come back soon.
Nearly every Democratic legislator who voted against SB 827 caveated their opposition by praising the bill’s vision and audacity. Sen. Jim Beall, Democrat from San Jose and chair of the housing committee, said at the hearing that while he couldn’t support the bill in its current form, he was eager to work on something like it in the months ahead.
Could SB 827 ever rise from the dead? Well for his part, Wiener has vowed to re-introduce something like it in the future. Combining his push for density around transit stations with a broader mix of tenant protections and new funding for affordable housing could make it more palatable to the interest groups Wiener needs to succeed.
Source: By Matt Levin | Cal Matters
Easy Money 