I'm not aware of any instances of houses in Turtle Rock going down in price, even since 2005/2006. There's not a lot of turn over there, so there may not be many data points. Has anyone seen falling prices in TR? Why is it the last hold out? Prices seem to be dropping everywhere else.
Turtle Rock - last holdout for dropping prices?
- Thread starter Owen_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
I keep looking, but there hasn't been much for sale there. Being and older, upscale neighborhood, there are probably fewer overextended sellers who need to sell, so most are just staying put.
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
That being said, the Ridge Bren tract in Turtle Rock is getting killed...
There are plenty of homes that have dropped in price there- some still on the market.
4 Starlight sold and the owners sold for like $1.255 and they bought it for $1.34 million
A couple of homes have played the re-listing game so I don't remember the original prices. But, the home on Beckwith Terrace finally is on a contingent basis and is priced $1.399 million but the original price was $1.575 million or something like that.
The Hanu Reddy home at 17 Moonray has come down around $150K now asking $1.399 million.
23 Silver Crescent has come down a lot in asking price. Original price was $1.549 million now still unsold and asking $1.2 million.
Of course, all these prices are still high, but I have been seeing reductions. But Turle Ridge- still too high!
4 Starlight sold and the owners sold for like $1.255 and they bought it for $1.34 million
A couple of homes have played the re-listing game so I don't remember the original prices. But, the home on Beckwith Terrace finally is on a contingent basis and is priced $1.399 million but the original price was $1.575 million or something like that.
The Hanu Reddy home at 17 Moonray has come down around $150K now asking $1.399 million.
23 Silver Crescent has come down a lot in asking price. Original price was $1.549 million now still unsold and asking $1.2 million.
Of course, all these prices are still high, but I have been seeing reductions. But Turle Ridge- still too high!
There's a home I have been watching 17 Moonray- originally with Hanu Reddy (totally overpriced at over $1.5 million) then there must have been a spat with Hanu because another realtor came in and the price was $1.399 with the new realtor. Yet Hanu still had the listing on homeseekers- so it was the same house but 2 different prices. I look today and the house says "Pending" with a 3rd broker (Vince & Lucy)- and it shows $1.25 million. The buyers bought the home 12/1/2004 for $1.28 million. So, there is some progress with the pricing in TRock.
graphrix_IHB
New member
I am bringing this thread back up from the dead, because I am finally starting to see some foreclosures in Turtle Rock. Unless people bought at the peak a home they couldn't afford, or they used their home as an ATM, or an unfortunate drastic financial change, then for the most part Turtle Rock will not suffer as much as other areas. But, those that did, look like this...
4 Moss Glen #13 went back to the back for $645k. It has a zestimate of $771k, it sold on 9/23/2003 for $529k, and it had a NTS amount of $691k. The ATM must have been canceled. Just looking at the satellite views from zillow, this is one of those products from the 70s, that make you say... WTF were they on when they designed it?
4992 Paseo De Vega went back to the bank for $565k. It has It has a zestimate of $707k, it sold on 12/22/2005 for $695k, and it had a NTS of $558k. Zillow shows it as still listed, and that the agent updated it on 1/29/2008. I can't find it on Zip or Redfin, so maybe the agent knows something I don't?
4 Moss Glen #13 went back to the back for $645k. It has a zestimate of $771k, it sold on 9/23/2003 for $529k, and it had a NTS amount of $691k. The ATM must have been canceled. Just looking at the satellite views from zillow, this is one of those products from the 70s, that make you say... WTF were they on when they designed it?
4992 Paseo De Vega went back to the bank for $565k. It has It has a zestimate of $707k, it sold on 12/22/2005 for $695k, and it had a NTS of $558k. Zillow shows it as still listed, and that the agent updated it on 1/29/2008. I can't find it on Zip or Redfin, so maybe the agent knows something I don't?
Trooper_IHB
New member
The Foreclosure Man has arrived....
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
IMO, Turtle Rock will have the highest $/SF pricing at the bottom. It will still suffer, but because the houses are older and the financial situations of the owners is probably better, I don't think it will get hammered like Turtle Ridge, Quail Hill, Woodbury, etc. Plus, the lots are bigger there which has value due to its relative scarcity.
Anonymous_IHB
New member
From the comments on http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/02/san-diego-reo-prevalence-above-50.html
hopeinsd writes:
As someone who will be buying in San Diego again in the future, I have been following the market very closely.
In markets with lots of sales from 2004-2007, things are truly scary. REO are the ONLY thing selling and at up to 45% off peak price. REOs selling at low prices are fueling more REOs. Real owners can't price at REO level in those areas because they would be underwater. Its like a "china syndrome" style melt down. See http://www.sdlookup.com/ Property..._CA_91914#13447
Markets where there was not much turnover in the peak years are at a standstill. There aren't many REOs killing prices, owners with equity want 2006 prices, and buyers (like me) are content to wait them out.
I would guess that REOs are only about 10-20% of the total current inventory. It just that no one else is willing to price as agressivly as the REOs, hence 50% of sales.
hopeinsd | 02.02.08 - 3:57 pm | #
hopeinsd writes:
As someone who will be buying in San Diego again in the future, I have been following the market very closely.
In markets with lots of sales from 2004-2007, things are truly scary. REO are the ONLY thing selling and at up to 45% off peak price. REOs selling at low prices are fueling more REOs. Real owners can't price at REO level in those areas because they would be underwater. Its like a "china syndrome" style melt down. See http://www.sdlookup.com/ Property..._CA_91914#13447
Markets where there was not much turnover in the peak years are at a standstill. There aren't many REOs killing prices, owners with equity want 2006 prices, and buyers (like me) are content to wait them out.
I would guess that REOs are only about 10-20% of the total current inventory. It just that no one else is willing to price as agressivly as the REOs, hence 50% of sales.
hopeinsd | 02.02.08 - 3:57 pm | #