50 cities and not one in CA. I live in a s*h*e in California and the houses are 700k. I don't know how you could pay that mortgage-- The area has been economically depressed for 20 years.
I'm not sure. The people (in the Bay Area) who had not over-extended themselves during the housing-bubble run-up hung onto their homes, did not put them on the market when prices were depressed.
(I was looking myself to move to a larger home in the Bay Area during that period and came up empty.)
In fact, many of those in the Bay Area snatched up 2nd, 3rd, 4th properties as investments from places like Las Vegas where they were practically giving away new homes.
When prices returned to normal (that is, everyone who had to foreclose had done so), then the expensive homes started coming back on the market. Basically, the wealthy could afford to sit out the market lull. There weren't really any excellent deals to be had in the Bay Area after the housing crash. There were still plenty of people with deep pockets showing up at foreclosure auctions and outbidding one another.
But back to the point — perhaps there is simply too much money, too much wealth in parts of California for the prices to ever really fall.
It’s intentional. At every level of government politicians have as avowed goal above the rate of inflation cost growth in single family homes. They make noises about affordability but that’s diametrically opposed to creating a windfalls for incumbents. Which side of that coin they invariably come down on is immediately obvious.
The one and only path to reduced housing costs runs through reduced homeownership. As long as a large majority of likely voters own the problem will only get worse.
