Median home prices drop below 1989 levels in some parts of Southland

And some of those cities (Santa Ana, for example) or in the core LA-OC metro area, NOT fringe areas.

All i can say is WOW. The writer didnt give context on why it happened in those communities - probably their economies were not as well diversified?

"In April, a slightly larger home two doors away sold for $66,500. That's just over half the $130,000 it went for new in 1992. In 2005, that house sold for $330,000."

So an 80% drop from peak. OMG.

This is impossible. NYCMatt says all real estate only goes up in value over time. He needs to set this reporter straight.

This part has a certain ring to it:

"Some buyers who thought they were getting bargains didn't. In Lancaster, Beatrice's eldest son, Daniel, bought a house near his father's for $175,000 in April 2008; comparable properties are now selling for about $95,000."

More fear....

Got to love it.

That might be true for SOME of the zips out in the exurps, but Santa Ana is smack in the middle of urban Orange County - as in the Angels, right near Disneyland, UC Irvine, Newport Beach, etc.

I know that even in Los Angeles proper lots of zips are at 2000 levels - even in parts of West LA and the nicer parts of the valley (but still south of Ventura.)

But location does count. Although BH, Santa Monica, WeHo, Newport and such are down drastically from the peak, its more like 2003/2004 levels.

Santa Ana is poor. Gang banging territory.

Santa Anna is disgustingly low-class and a plebe infested cesspool.

Who cares? You might as well post median home prices in Detroit.

"And some of those cities (Santa Ana, for example) or in the core LA-OC metro area, NOT fringe areas."

Really? have you looked up the income figures for Santa Ana? In Santa Ana, the per capita income is $12,000 and 25% of the population live below the poverty line. I've never been to Satna Ana before, but the city certainly sounds like a fringe area to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana,_California

So, alpine, you'd remove section of Manhattan fromm "core" because they're poor?

Then again, you don't live here, so that makes sense.

You dummies don't realize that COMPTON AND INGLEWOOD, which thanks to ganster rap have become synomous with the ghetto, have done much better than not just Santa Ana, but than LA County as a whole, both in the run up and in the decline?

As I posted here before, in the last three nyc declins (70s, 80s, 90s), sometimes certain poor areas declined by less or even increased relative to the City as a whole, and visa versa. The authors of that report concluded that there was certainly no certainty that declines could be predicted by neighborhood in Manhattan or NYC as a whole based on the past three periods of decline.

In LA, solidly middle- and upper-middle class (and even Ritzy) areas have seen prices collapse faster than Compton, which had in turn seen faster increases than anywhere else in LA in the bubble years. So its not obvious at all that the poor area would go down faster.

Well I've heard people cite rap as poetry, prose and social commentary but this is the 1st time I've seen someone credit gangsta rap as the basis for his knowledge of regional real estate trends. Who knew Tupac would have such influence ?

"this is the 1st time I've seen someone credit gangsta rap as the basis for his knowledge of regional real estate trends"

Agreed, but is it much worse than the tourist "investors" whose Manhattan RE knowledge comes from TimeOut?

Honestly though - who outside of the Southland had ANY idea about Compton before NWA and their progenitors? I gurentee you very few.