La Costa resident wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:49 PM:Christopher Thornberg, THANKYOU for telling it like it is. Lets get back to the facts. Homes must be affordable based upon incomes. All other realtor rhetoric (supply and demand, no more land, prices always go up, etc.) isnt going to work anymore!

clm wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:46 AM:It makes sense that there would be a premium to live in San Diego compared to the Inland Empire. Out of all the acreage in the country, there is just a miniscule fraction with warm water beach. Even going inland, it is a thousand times better than almost anywhere else in the rest of the country.

We seem to fill a county about every ten to fifteen years. When we first moved to L.A. County in 1975 you could still get cheap housing if you were willing to drive through the orange groves into Orange County. Then Orange County filled in along with San Diego County and Ventura County. Now Riverside County and San Bernardino County are developing. There will always be cycles, but overall growth is relentless. History tells us to take advantage while prices are down.

MJ wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:51 AM:Once mortgage lending normalizes -- and it will -- a "typical" owner occupied mortgage will require 10% or more down and payments totaling no more than 1/3 of one's **proven** income, and if investment properties require 25-30% down and higher interest rates, prices will follow -- that is, if no one with a median provable income can qualify for a mortgage on a median home, none will sell and prices will have to come down -- which means most sellers will make a modest rather than an insane profit. Most importantly, speculators, flippers and get rich quick types will be driven from the market that they have ruined with their gambling.

Mike G. wrote on Mar 26, 2008 4:23 AM:"Manhattanization"? Get a grip! Japan had 165 million people living on a small island...and property prices plummeted for 10 years.

Spiderman wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:10 AM:the banks havent been regulated for 20 years...our govt needs to step in and help the people but no the banks are untouchable and profit by foreclosing. And the future looks bleak. Hold on tight!

Reardon wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:54 AM:Homes are to shelter the owner from sun, wind and rain -- they are not an investment. Your spouse is not an investment. Your car is not an investment. Each has an emotional and a utilitarian purpose. If any of them also provides a monetary value above their real purpose, be thankful, but that is not why you should have a house, a spouse or a car. Is the housing market going to up or down? (The correct answer is: Yes.)

Escondido Reader wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:12 AM:Beacon appears to be assuming that a family can afford a house that is 6 times the size of their annual income to be "affordable". That's incorrect. The standard is that housing prices are considered appropriate for an area when the median house price is not more than 3 times the average annual salary. Housing will not achieve normal pricing here until the median price is under $200,000. That might not happen, but it's voodoo economics to say that families can afford a house six times their annual income.fu427

NOT TRUE wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:34 AM:You small time real estate investors are going to get ruined if you think,"There is only so much land" Big landholders and developers used propaganda and influence to upzone massively in California and force cities to KEEP UPZONING FOREVER even if there is not enough resources or the road fill up. There is no more land because we are at build out, but that doesn't mean we aren't building up. WE are in a new phase called BUILD UP.

street bound wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:03 AM:I am seeing friends and neighbors walk from their homes because the job that suppported the payments is now dwindling because of the economy.These people are still making their payments but the struggle is getting to be to much. Would it not be possible for a lending institution to drop some of the monthly payment and add that on the back of the loan? For example a person has a 30 year mortgage and the bank drops $500.oo a month off of the payment and moves it to the end of the loan creating a 33 year mortgage. This could be capped at a max of 3 to 5 years allowing for the homeowner to save a little bit each month and stay in theor home and possibly continue to purchase items keeping the economy going.

Been There Done That in 1990 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:20 AM:I find Thornberg's comments to be a bit too "socialist utopia". Maybe also a bit naive to a degree. I feel that the one component that San Diego has when compard to ALL other locals around the country is that the housing demand here is coming largely from everywhere else in the country...not just the typical working Joe earnig a wage in San Diego County. A sizeable portion of the buyers for a home in San Diego are coming from out of California and bringing a significant chunk of equity with them to plop down on a house.Witness the less than 10% declines in the higher end homes. Therefore, as I see it, price declines will come no where near meeting Thornberg's 1/3 utopia formula. I believe prices will stabalize soon and start edging higher. To sit on the sidelines for much longer than six more months would be to miss the preverbial bus as I see it.

Reardon wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:38 PM:To been There...: You are correct in that the major impetus for San Diego is Milwaukee -- so long as it continues to snow there, San Diego will continue to sell. Every year, Ron comes inside on a February morning, puts down his snow shovel and says, "Maude, we are out of here!" If they do not have money they go to Florida. If they do have money they come to San Diego. That keeps prices high because Ron owns a business, or a farm and is not rich but has a decent down payment. Ron and Maude are the supply that creates the demand for higher prices for our housing, and so long as it snows in the mid-west, and not here, that will continue. It happens everywhere – when “rich” Californians go to Oregon, they drive prices there beyond the ability of locals to buy. How many native Hawaiians can buy an average home in Hawaii?

Pieter wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:02 PM:The problem is that the type of jobs the majority of people hold in SD and Riverside counties and the salaries that come with those positions do not support this housing market. The majority works in service jobs, cubicle fillers, tourism, maintenance, military, all underpaid jobs, making no more that 60,000 per year, if that. That is not in line with owning a 500,000+ home, four cars, motorcycles and a large swimming pool. There is too much of a disconnect between the cost of living and income. The only way to recover from that is a plunge in home prices or getting rid off the poorly paying jobs around here. ... around SD has totally collapsed, taking away thousands of 100,000+ jobs back east, to North Carolina which is booming. I know, I am moving there.

been there but haven't done this one wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:38 PM:Sorry friend, this one cannot be compared to what happened in 1990. There are more forces pulling the market down now than in 90. It's apples and oranges. If you think prices are going to edge upward in 6 months you are living a pipe dream. Wages are nowhere near to closing the gap to make that happen. The economy is out of balance, and it will correct itself until wages and prices get more in line with reality. Sorry bud, you're wrong. We are looking at 2 years.

To Street Bound wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:12 PM:Your idea makes entirely too much sense for the average bank. They'd rather take a bath on foreclosures than work out any kind of deal with homeowners. In many cases, too, it's out of the original lender's hands because the loan has been bundled and sold several times since it was first made. Investors don't deal in individual loans anymore. You're part of a huge bunlde of loans and no one has any sense of the borrower any more or any ability to cut deals. It's all just numbers on a spreadhseet.

what about purchasing power? wrote on Mar 26, 2008 4:15 PM:Those who think prices relative to income need to come back down to "historical" norms are completely wrong - and Thornberg is in this category. This is a completely different world we live in from 15 or 20 years ago. Interest rates in the 80s were 12.5% and then were 8-10% in the 90s. Today we are hovering 6% and when the financial markets come back, it's likely we will still have low rates. This increases today's purchasing power significantly when looking at the past. So don't believe ratios these nay-sayers bring up, because it's in an ancient context and they do not have a grasp on the global economics today.

Blackbox wrote on Mar 26, 2008 4:50 PM:blah, blah, running out of land, blah, blah, sunshine, blah, blah, ocean,

We heard this stuff in the last downturn, and yet prices went back to affortable.
Its insane to equate San Diego to manhattan, much less queens or the brox......
Geez, Manhattan = San Diego?
Moeder is complete and utter idiot!
Thornberg meanwhile has been right on every point he has made.....
If thornberg says its absurb. Believe it, it is.
You do get a sunshine tax living in San Diego, but not so out of whack as prices are to incomes right now.
Insanity................

the running out of land thing wrote on Mar 26, 2008 5:00 PM:is just plain stupid. Coming from the east coast, I drive around much of San Diego wondering why there is still so much open land since we supposedly ran out of it. Really if you exclude the coastal strip west of 5, it's seems 80% of the remaining land is empty. Maybe a lot of it is govt owned, too-hilly or something, but I assure you we are not out of land here.

Reardon wrote on Mar 26, 2008 5:08 PM:A thousand years ago when I was hiring, I found out what a computer programmer was making in say, Buffalo -- and offered him 2/3 or 3/4 what he was making. Never had anyone turn me down, Locally we pay in "sunshine dollars" -- so there will always be a disconnect between what we pay in salaries locally, and what home prices are, locally. That gap is filled with mid-westerners, and northerners, with money. If you are waiting for home prices to reach $200,000, then you will never buy. Even now, Europeans are starting to fill the gap and with the combination of our reduced home prices, and the Euro at $1.57, we are a bargain to Europeans. San Diego is part of a world housing market.

clm wrote on Mar 26, 2008 5:46 PM:Part of the reason that prices returned to affordability in the last cycle is that we were not built out. We can talk about how we can always build up but the building gets more expensive on less and less land. Even as we speak, prices are not only going down, but inflation is bringing those prices more in line with other commodities. The liquidity crisis and changes in lending practices are contributing to quickly bring prices down, especially in new neighborhoods where many new owners in bad mortgages are losing their homes. It may surprise some who are following news stories that in many established neighborhoods, where comps aren't being dragged down by multiple foreclosures, prices are not falling at all. Even at a half million dollars, middle class, two income families can afford payments at current interest rates.

My main point is not to wait for prices to fall back to 3 times income. You will probably miss the chance to get a house at all in the San Diego area. It may happen in the Inland Empire but only because it is so overbuilt. Just as bank lending and resulting foreclosures will never again get so out of hand, the opportunities we are starting to see there will probably never be repeated to that extent anywhere in Southern California again. Prices may continue down for a while, but don't expect them to fall back to what someone would expect to pay in most other states.

KB wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:00 PM:To what about purchasing power? The reason we’re in this whole mess is because financial intuitions got away from the price to income ratio, people can no longer get those crazy loans to buy houses way more than their income can afford, when the financial markets come back the interest only loans will not accompany them.

Floyd wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:57 PM:Since the median income in San Diego County is $45,000 (approximately!), that means the median home price has to drop to $135,000. We've still got a way to go!

SD CDL wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:39 PM:No one is going to pay 100K or 200k for sunshine... Notice everyone mentioning not to wait for further prices want others to buy but do not say they are closing homes in this "great investment opportunity." If it were such a good deal, they would be out buying and not telling anyone else about it. Income/price and rent/price ratios are there just like stocks and they revert to the mean too. I doubt the ones saying "buy now" were the ones saying it was a bubble. *yawn*

Reardon wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:50 PM:This entire conversation is mental masturbation for anyone who owns a home. If the value of your home goes up, or down, the cost of a home you might be interested in buying also went up, or down at approximately the same rate. Only those who rent and might be in a position to buy a home someday, or who must sell to move to another State have any dog in this fight. That number is minimal in any society. If you have a comfortable home that keeps you warm and dry, home prices going up or down is just an intellectual exercise that goes nowhere.

buying Power, NOT wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:34 PM:Unreasonably low interest rate result in high inflation.
Buying power is weakening as we speak. With the cost of food and energy running out of control, it is even harder to afford a house even if the interest rate stay at 6%. Furthermore, we are already in recession, so there are more room for the housing price to drop.

Don't buy now. Buyers can afford to wait until the price become reasonable.

Landman wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:05 PM:San Diego is known for low income and high fuel prices so which is it gasoline or a home? Gold prices rising, dollar falling, jobs deceasing, national debt in the hands of Red China...and everyone perfers the Euro...scary stuff ahead for you that depend of decent jobs...and reasonable prices for food, goods and services.

Senior wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:38 AM:There is another essential item to match besides MEDIAN INCOME AND MEDIAN PRICES for sales to return to normal. This is the SPREAD FROM MEDIAN. For example: The median house home price here could be $400,000. BUT in newly built up communities consider the half of homes priced below $400,000. Most are priced at $395,000 with very few as low as $375,000. Then look at the families with a median income. There will be a much wider distribution of income (a “normal curve”) with only a few of them (maybe only one out of ten of them) will be able to buy a $395,000 or $375,000 home with normal financing at 6 or 7 percent. Thus in newer communities like where I live there are almost no homes very far below the median. Every new tract built since I lived here was larger and more expensive than the previous tract. Perhaps half the town is priced at $375,000 to $395,000, and no house is priced lower. The next quarter is priced at $500,000 and the last quarter built is priced at $600,000. This makes the median about $395,000 But, I repeat, only a small percentage of all the people making the below the median wage will qualify for any home in the entire area.

Owner of a nice piece of dirt wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:22 AM:Wouldn't it be nice if 'pride of ownership' placed more emphasis on society and neighborhood and not just on dollar signs? I am so tired of investors and absentee owners. If you don't live in it, you don't value it.

Understood what the article said wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:46 AM:I couldn't help but comment today. I noticed that there were a few of you who completely missed when it comes to the average home price being equal to approximately 1/3 of the average income. A couple of you extrapolated this to mean "the average income x3" and hence are talking about average home prices of $145K! Folks, please read a little deeper. If you agree with the 1/3 factor (and I'm not sure I do in San Diego), then the point is that the average home price will be that which can be afforded by applying 1/3 of the average annual income towards principal, interest, tax and insurance (PITI). We mostly take out 30 year loans, so that means 1/3 of your annual income x 30 years (average income=$58K; 1/3=$19K; x30 yrs=$570K) Ammortarize this out to reduce by interest, insurance and taxes, and you are left with the purchase cost of a home that can be afforded using 1/3 of income. This is why the average income of $58K can reasonably afford a house of $340K, as stated in the article. Yes, the market is troubling right now, but educate yourselves about it so that you can deal with it.

CrimeHater wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:18 AM: People are moving away from the area because of the increased traffic,crime, and other burdens on our infrastructure created by illegal immigration. In 10 years this will all be little more than Mexico Norte unless we reclaim our country now.

Leo wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:19 AM:"History tells us to take advantage while prices are down."

No, history tell us to get out of the way after a bubble bursts. Many people ruined themselves in the months immediately following the 1929 stock market crash because they followed your type of thinking.

And no, you shouldn't be waiting for the price of a house to reach three times your income. You should wait for the cost of housing to reach one third of your income. That's why the milestone is $340K assuming a 6% interest rate, not $165K.

Manhattanization? Get real. Maybe after another hundred years of densification, San Diego will reach the point where Manhattan is today. Not that it matters. As Mike G notes, population density didn't save the Tokyo real estate market - it was simply priced too high, so eventually, the bubble had to pop.

So many are wrong wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:16 AM:In looking at all the comments, I have to comment, that most of you are wrong. If you look at what Santa Barbara became, then coastal Los Angeles, then OC, and in this last cycle San Diego.... all these areas have gone through a sort of Manhattanization. There is only so much land (especially along the coast) and you have to pay a premium for living in any of those areas. It's pretty obvious. And in reading about interest rates vs. inflation...... purchasing power WILL be higher because rates will be significantly lower. Even with different underwriting standards it will be higher than historical norms. This is mostly due to globalization factors beyond any of our control. If you think rates are going to be back to the 10-12% range, then WAKE UP.... we would have a completely different set of problems in our economy and would not even be talking about housing market issues. I can't believe this paper allows some of these education-lacking comments on here.

Oh goody! wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:22 AM:I make $8.00 an hour, but if I say I make $85K a year I get the house, and the government (Tax Payers) make sure it comes down in price so I can stay there....SWEET! :) THANKS GUYS!

clm wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:58 AM:Leo, you make sense generally regarding a bubble. But this is a bubble that has already leaked significantly. Houses in the Inland Empire can be purchased for half previous prices. They can't be built for current purchase price in many cases. Prices in those areas are starting to pencil out for investors. Growth in population will continue. Many coastal communities continue to defy a bursting bubble because inventory remains low in those communities. Some are even seeing appreciation. Low inventory will bring speculators back to the high end markets. Low prices will bring investors back to the lower priced areas. We aren't that far away.

Banks will become more cautious about lending and more stringent regulations will probably be instituted. But as soon as the existing backlog of inventory is usurped and banks restore confidence in their loan portfolios, prices will again begin to rise according to the marketplace. There will be more scrutiny from lenders, but the natural pressure will be on sustainable appreciation.

We are in the worst period in housing we will ever see in our lives, at least for those who bought in the bubble. However, just as it was wrong to follow the crowd into the bubble, it would be just as wrong to follow the crowd out of the real estate market. Opportunities are beginning to unfold. Investors are starting to come back. Don't think this will last forever or that you will be able to use 3 times income formula as a model for Southern California. The market will always push that higher in a popular area where inventory is limited.

Jay Jay wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:38 PM:For the guy talking about buying power, the $340k median takes into account the current low interest rates when they use the 6% number.

And the price does matter to people who currently "own" because may of them, like my neighbor, cannot afford the long term price of their mortgage, they were betting on being able to refinance, but now that the price is down, they have no equity, the suicide loan programs have evaporated, their goose is cooked.

Bill wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:50 PM:"Don't buy now", is good advice. Any so called "renewed interest" in real estate, is probably due to the artificially low interest rates, which must increase back to market level sooner or later.

Conserco wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:56 PM:Reardon

You're conclusion is off. Buying a home at today's inflated prices, even using the equity in your existing home, means that your property taxes go through the roof. For example, my home I bought in 97 for $330k has an annual tax bil of $6k. Last appraisal a year ago had it at $870k. If I traded up to a newer home, my new tax bill would more than double (Heaven help you if you're in a Mello-Roos area). So no, it's not quite that seamless for existing homeowners.

Leo wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:27 PM:"Leo, you make sense generally regarding a bubble. But this is a bubble that has already leaked significantly. Houses in the Inland Empire can be purchased for half previous prices. They can't be built for current purchase price in many cases. Prices in those areas are starting to pencil out for investors. Growth in population will continue. Many coastal communities continue to defy a bursting bubble because inventory remains low in those communities. Some are even seeing appreciation. Low inventory will bring speculators back to the high end markets. Low prices will bring investors back to the lower priced areas. We aren't that far away. “

I disagree with you on this. The bubble may already have begun to leak significantly, but it could be far from done. And in the areas that have not seen significant depreciation yet, one could argue (as you appear to) that there is no bubble, or otherwise, that it simply has not yet begun to leak significantly. I agree with you on the basic mechanism that will bring prices back into balance, but I think we are still very far away.

“However, just as it was wrong to follow the crowd into the bubble, it would be just as wrong to follow the crowd out of the real estate market. Opportunities are beginning to unfold. Investors are starting to come back. Don't think this will last forever or that you will be able to use 3 times income formula as a model for Southern California. The market will always push that higher in a popular area where inventory is limited.”

There’s many different kinds of wrong, but the consequences can range from harmless to fatal. Following people into a bubble isn’t disastrous, just as long as you get out before the whole thing crashes. Following the crowd out of the market isn’t disastrous either, just as long as you don’t do it at the very bottom. We don’t need to be right 100% of the time; we just need to make sure we don’t get burned badly when we happen to get it wrong. And right now, in my opinion, we could get burned very badly.

And like I said, the 3 times income formula is not the right indicator; the metric should be housing cost ~ 1/3 of income. Note that you can skew this in favor of higher housing costs by using a higher downpayment. Incidentally, in high-price areas like Manhattan, downpayments in excess of 50% are not uncommon, so even in Manhattan, this metric is usually not violated. Frankly, I don’t think that the banks are going to give people much choice about this one; they just got a nasty reminder why that used to be their rule.

clm wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:32 PM:Leo, it doesn't matter whether we say a person's payment should be no more than one third of income or if we say a person's income should be at least three times their payment. What does matter is Fannie Mae guidelines, FHA guidelines, etc. Those guidelines will continue to reflect regional and area differences in inventory and market forces, just as we have recently seen conforming limits raised based on those differences.

I don't believe we really are too far in disagreement. My main concern, after witnessing several real estate cycles, is that many people who by all rights should become homeowners miss the boat. As a landlord, over the years I have counseled many tenants with good credit and decent jobs to consider buying when prices were low. Few do in low ends of cycles. Too often, when prices are at their lowest, they choose to continue renting because no one else is buying.

We need to use caution, but we need to also remember that the best buys often seem counter intuitive to human nature, especially when the news is so bad and coming so quickly. The fact that it is happening quickly will catch many with their eyes closed.

Roberto1 wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:29 PM:You have to live somewhere..might as well buy it. As for the negative comment about rental property. I take of it like it was my own because it is.

Leo wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:31 PM:"Leo, it doesn't matter whether we say a person's payment should be no more than one third of income or if we say a person's income should be at least three times their payment. "

That is not what I meant. I thought you were referring to the rule that a house should cost no more than three times one's annual salary, which many people on this discussion were quoting. You can easily support a $5 million Manhattan condo on a $1 million income if you have a $2 million downpayment. This is how it worked in the super-high-cost areas even when banks were using traditional lending standards, so it is indeed quite possible to support very high housing prices that are greater than 3x annual income without resorting to loose lending standards.

"What does matter is Fannie Mae guidelines, FHA guidelines, etc. Those guidelines will continue to reflect regional and area differences in inventory and market forces, just as we have recently seen conforming limits raised based on those differences. "

I would also point out that the recent adjustment of conforming loan limits was NOT an adjustment by market forces. The market had quite clearly decided (whether it was the right decision or not) that large loans should demand a very large premium in interest rates. The Federal government in essence overruled market forces by raising the conforming loan limits. So you can already see that the "Manhattenization" of many areas was not sustainable by the market fundamentals; the market is in the process of "de-Manhattenizing" them, but the government is intervening.

Regardless of conforming loan limits, I don't see lenders straying from the 1/3 of income rule again. It had worked for them for decades, and when they deviated from it, they got burned badly. In real "Manhattenized" areas, this will simply cause people to save a little longer for a downpayment. In "Faux-Manhattenized" areas, it will cause people to stop buying or move.

I agree with you in principle that real estate should be bought during down cycles. I just think this particular down cycle has a long way to go before we hit bottom. You don't have to time the bottom perfectly, but it's a lot less risky to buy a little after the bottom than to buy a little before what you think is the bottom.

Given what I expect to happen in the next few months, I cannot in good conscience recommend anyone to get into the RE market. People work hard to save for their downpayments.

Don wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:36 PM:Don't buy something you can not afford! Too many of you are weak in the mind because you think you need a big house as a status symbol because you have no self esteem. Buy a 1200 sq ft home and you would not have been foreclosed on. Its all on you look in a mirror.

clm wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:34 AM:Leo, it is possible to parse different factors that contributed to this bubble. Obviously the fed lowered rates too far and too long. Low and no down payments and looser standards contributed but did much good to help get people who actually could afford payments into their own homes.

The problem came more from NO standards and out and out fraudulent lending practices. The greatest culprits were the stated income loans and income statements that loan agents never bothered showing applicants, the reverse mortgages, the short term teaser rates that had affordable numbers written on the dotted lines and time bombs written in very small print. We need more regulation without throwing away some of the creative lending that would have worked well if it hadn't been abused.

We can keep some of the creative lending without adversely impacting risk. Loan packaging was a great idea that still has merit, although it will take time for investors to bite. Regulation and oversight is needed.

You are probably right about the market generally still having much room to go down. But there are bargains right now. There are new 3000 square foot houses in the Inland Empire that even first time buyers can afford on par with rent they may currently be paying. It is like any fire sale when a store is going out of business. Make your best deal while there is a ton of inventory. Prices may go lower but once the inventory is gone, it won't take long until people are wishing for the times after the crash when you could buy for less than cost.

On the coast, it makes much more sense to look to the numbers of other developed coastal cities to determine where prices are going. North County beach areas still lag other coastal communities. Carlsbad is starting to catch up. Oceanside is probably one of the most undervalued beach communities in Southern California. The upward pressure of growing coastal development does much to offset, or even overwhelm any bubble effect those communities are suffering.

Don, you are right. Don't buy more than you can afford but when buying real estate at the bottom, don't pinch a few pennies that you will regret down the road. The extra few thousand might seem like alot now, but if you can afford it, it will seem like a very small stretch in the future.

Senior to Don wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:49 AM:To Don at 10:36 PM. You have identified a major problem. They have built no 1,200 sq foot homes on your own lot with a garage, driveway and yard to call your own in many years around here, and not in most populated area of California.