Skip to comments.
Median Price of a Home in California Increases 22 Percent in March (HO-LEE!)
PRNewswire ^
| 4/27/2004
| PRNewswire
Posted on 04/27/2004 12:24:54 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever
LOS ANGELES, April 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The median price of an existing home in California in March increased 22 percent and sales increased 4 percent compared to the same period a year ago, the California Association of REALTORS(R) (C.A.R.) reported today.
"The median price of a home continued its run of double-digit price increases last month as buyers scrambled to purchase homes amid concerns of rising mortgage interest rates," said C.A.R. President Ann Pettijohn. "This unprecedented demand helped push the median price of a home in many regions in the state to record highs in March. And at $428,280, the median price for the state also hit a record high in March compared to $351,130 just one year ago."
The median price of a home in the Central Valley, High Desert, Monterey, Monterey County, Northern California, Northern Wine, Orange County, Riverside/San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, North Santa Barbara County and Santa Barbara South Coast regions posted record highs in March, according to C.A.R.
Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled 590,220 in March at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR(R) associations statewide. Statewide home resale activity increased 4 percent from the 567,610 sales pace recorded in March 2003.
The statewide sales figure represents what the total number of homes sold during 2004 would be if sales maintained the March pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.
The median price of an existing, single-family detached home in California during March 2004 was $428,280, a 22 percent increase over the revised $351,130 median for March 2003, C.A.R. reported. The March 2004 median price increased 8.4 percent compared to a revised $395,060 median price in February.
"Year-to-date sales are up 4.4 percent compared to the same period last year," said Leslie Appleton-Young, C.A.R.'s vice president and chief economist. "Along with the median price of a home, the inventory of homes for sale reached an all-time historic low of 1.6 months in March, while time on the market stood at a record low of 26 days."
(Excerpt) Read more at prnewswire.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bubble; california; punishgoodnews; realestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: Rutles4Ever
THE HEADLINE IS INCORRECT. If you read the numbers, median home prices went up 8.4%, and are now 22% higher than March of LAST YEAR.
I'd say a headline change is in order.
21
posted on
04/27/2004 12:59:24 PM PDT
by
mcg1969
To: Mears
Yes they are the summer cottages that we went for a week!
22
posted on
04/27/2004 1:01:19 PM PDT
by
angcat
To: nutmeg
.
23
posted on
04/27/2004 1:02:09 PM PDT
by
nutmeg
(Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F’in al-Qerry)
To: MNLDS
There's a lot to like about California actually. If we could only kick the liberals out it'd be worth twice that much.
24
posted on
04/27/2004 1:05:55 PM PDT
by
mcg1969
To: 2banana
The pop is going to be ugly. It took almost 7 years for prices in Sacramento to recover from the early 90s blowout.
25
posted on
04/27/2004 1:08:49 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: mcg1969
Been there. Done that. Glad to be back in the heartland. Thanks, but no thanks.
26
posted on
04/27/2004 1:10:04 PM PDT
by
Choose Ye This Day
(Is Arlen Specter a conservative Republican? Umm... "Not proven.")
To: mcg1969
Amen. This was Reagan Country once. It can be again.
27
posted on
04/27/2004 1:14:48 PM PDT
by
RKV
(He who has the guns makes the rules.)
To: MNLDS
Why would anyone want to spend nearly half a million to buy a home in California? 'cause it will double in value in 5-8 years?
28
posted on
04/27/2004 1:20:33 PM PDT
by
Wheee The People
(Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang. Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang!)
To: Mears
Listen, I bought my house in Burbank 14 years ago for about 175 thousand. Today, I could get about $500 K. It at least helps me to make up for wht I lost in the stock market:)
To: Rutles4Ever
I've just recently placed my home on the market ... I'm asking 1,250,000 negotiable ... here's a picture for those who may be interested ...
30
posted on
04/27/2004 1:26:16 PM PDT
by
clamper1797
(Conservative by nature ... Republican in Spirit ... Patriot by Heart ... and Anti Liberal BY GOD)
To: clamper1797
If it had an ocean view you'd probably get it.
But seriously, I have no idea how people afford houses here. I bought 7 years ago, 1200 sq ft California Craftsman bungalow in North Orange County (Fullerton) for $190K, I've had offers for $500K. I can't sell because to move up in the market I'd have to spend $750K, so any move on my part would have to be lateral, which makes no sense.
31
posted on
04/27/2004 1:34:40 PM PDT
by
Weimdog
To: 2banana
I would not say "bubble" but rather a "market correction". People are buying homes not because simply because of outlandish income, but easy credit and low interest rates.
The Feds have slightly raised and will raise rates again in 3rd quarter. Evereone with half a brain in the investment community knows this. When rates go up, people will not be qualified at current income ratios to purchase these overvalued homes, then the prices will start coming down. It is basic market economics.
Most areas of the country literally doubled or tripled home value in less than four years but it was long overdue. I could get into financials, but would say expect a market correction of 15% of existing home prices by the end of this year in most of the US. Coincidentally, the UK, Australia and other European countries are in the same shape. It was a smart federal policy move to keep our economy from a depression.
32
posted on
04/27/2004 1:35:40 PM PDT
by
quant5
To: MNLDS
Why would anyone want to spend nearly half a million to buy a home in California? because they increase in value (over the last 30 years) at 9% per year, that is a cool $4000 a month in equity.
33
posted on
04/27/2004 1:39:15 PM PDT
by
SF Republican
(Life ain't fair and I'm glad)
To: clamper1797
MANY, MANY Chuckles, thanks for making my day...
34
posted on
04/27/2004 1:46:48 PM PDT
by
quant5
To: CyberAnt
But there are thousands of acres which could be developed which has been denied housing because of some teeny tiny butterfly. Oh, I agree. The ESA isn't about protecting endangered species, it's about getting around the immanent domain laws that require govt. seized land to be paid for. Much easier to just search for some kangaroo rat sub-subspecies on your land, then tell you that you can't use your property.
I think if I were being screwed over in favor of an insect, there might be an "accidental" cropdusting of the "wrong" field.
35
posted on
04/27/2004 1:54:48 PM PDT
by
LexBaird
(Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
To: CyberAnt
The real reason: the enviro whackos have protected all the areas where housing needs to be built. There is a lack of housing and that drives up the price.
I disagree. The real reason is just uncontrolled population growth. California has no need or purpose for 25 or 45 million people. Build all the houses you want and you are just mutiplying many different problems.
To: MNLDS
Suit yourself, my friend, that just means more room for me :-) Though I will admit to be considering a move to Texas, to be back with family.
37
posted on
04/27/2004 2:14:10 PM PDT
by
mcg1969
To: MNLDS
Why would anyone want to spend nearly half a million to buy a home in California? Because we have the best weather in the country, beaches, mountains, and more importantly plenty of jobs. Now that our illegal population has reached the saturation point and are moving onto middle America things are looking up. ;-)
38
posted on
04/27/2004 2:15:29 PM PDT
by
Smogger
To: mcg1969
Or it means more room for our compadres from south of the frontera.
39
posted on
04/27/2004 2:16:26 PM PDT
by
Choose Ye This Day
(Is Arlen Specter a conservative Republican? Umm... "Not proven.")
To: Smogger
Beaches, weather, jobs. Fine.
But HALF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!???!!! That's nuts!
Not to mention traffic, some smog, crime, traffic, illegals glutting the system, traffic...
Did I mention traffic?
40
posted on
04/27/2004 2:19:04 PM PDT
by
Choose Ye This Day
(Is Arlen Specter a conservative Republican? Umm... "Not proven.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson