Features

The Bay Area housing market, in decline for months, will not rebound until late 2002 or 2003, according to a new study conducted by UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. 

The study, “The Bay Area Housing Market: A Buyer’s Market,” finds that Alameda County home values have held up better than its neighboring counties, but reports a decline nevertheless. 

According to the study, written by real estate professor Kenneth Rosen and research associate Amanda Bishop, the median price in Alameda County was $350,000 for a single family home as of November 2001, matching the December 2000 median but marking a 5.9 percent decline from the June 2001 peak price of $372,000. 

The median price in Marin County, by contrast, dropped from a peak of $669,000 in April 2001 to $571,500 in November 2001. Marin’s 14.6 decline was the worst in the Bay Area, followed by 13.9 percent and 11.7 percent drop-offs, respectively, in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. 

Bishop says Alameda County fared better than its neighbors because it was less dependent on the Internet-boosted economy, and therefore, was not hit as hard by the dot.com bust. She added that the county’s market was more affordable during the boom, meaning it did not feel the pinch of dramatic price drops for luxury homes when the recession hit.  

Some local realtors, while acknowledging that Bay Area prices on the whole have declined, say the local market is healthy. 

Arlene Baxter, an agent at Berkeley Hills Realty, cites statistics recently released by the Berkeley Association of Realtors, which show that in 2001 the average price for a single-family home in the city rose 2.4 percent above the 2000 average.  

“What we as agents are seeing in the market differs dramatically from what Mr. Rosen sees,” said Baxter. 

Rosen was not available for comment Wednesday afternoon. But Bishop, the co-author of the study, said the figures cited by Baxter, which focus on Berkeley in particular, do not necessarily clash with the numbers in the university study, which reflect the housing market countywide.  

She also warned that average home prices, like those compiled by the Berkeley Association of Realtors, are not as reliable as medians, like those included in the UC Berkeley study. Average figures are skewed by particularly expensive or cheap sales, while medians are not, she said.  

George Oram, owner of ERI Better Homes & Gardens, a real estate agency on College Avenue, took a darker view than Baxter. He said the declining economy has limited the number of houses on the local market, and depressed values, particularly for high-end luxury homes. But, he said there is a significant silver lining.  

“Prices have fallen,” Oram said. “But there are still multiple offers on any decent house, because there aren’t many houses listed.” 

He added that he expects the housing market to pick up in coming months when the weather improves and more people go house-hunting. 

According to the UC Berkeley report, the economic growth of the mid-to-late ’90s dramatically drove up prices in the Bay Area. In San Jose, for example, home values soared by 110 percent between 1994 and 2000, rising 30 percent in 2000 alone, in the midst of the technology boom. 

The dot.com bust, which contributed to a 117,000-person surge in Bay Area unemployment between December 2000 and November 2001, led to the fall-off in home prices, the report says. 

The number of home sales in the region also declined, according to the report, dipping 25 percent between December 2000 and November 2001. 

The seriousness of the decline, the study suggests, will mean a lengthy recovery period.  

“Due to the recent increase in unemployment and drops in home prices and home sales,” Rosen and Bishop said in the report, “we believe the prevailing opinion that the Bay Area economy, along with the housing market, will rebound in 2002 is overly optimistic. 

“The Bay Area economy,” the report continues, “will not reverse course until late 2002 or 2003.”