People don't move like they used to.
This lack of mobility is often spun negatively in California because it suggests there aren't enough good living alternatives, so folks "age in place" instead of relocating. Staying put in turn is blamed for limiting the supply of homes for sale. That slim inventory supposedly helps nudge up prices and lower so-called affordability.
This logic puzzles me. Take a recent California Association of Realtors survey, for example, that found just one in four California homeowners plans to move. Apparently many folks are happy with their housing arrangements with 86% of owners polled saying they're satisfied with their home. So, why should they move? And if more folks did sell these owners would become house hunters, too, boosting competition for available properties.
Roughly speaking, folks this century have nearly doubled how long they own homes. Perhaps this lack of mobility should be seen as a vote of confidence in a region, noting that Californian owners are among the nation's most stable.
My trusty spreadsheet tracked the average length of ownership in 108 major U.S. markets using
I found local ownership is getting longer — a common trend across the U.S. That helped push down Southern California's national ranking.
Nationally, the typical seller since 2015 owned their home an average 7.6 years between purchase and sale — that's up from 4.3 years in 2000-04, a gain of 3.3 years during the century's first two decades.
In Los Angeles and Orange counties, sellers on average owned a home 9.34 years before selling — No. 25 in Attom's study of 108 big U.S. markets. But at the start of the century, L.A.-O.C. ownership was the nation's 16th longest at 5.59 years. This extension of ownership — 3.74 years isn't much bigger than the national pattern and was the 91st longest expansion out of 108 markets tracked.
Same was true in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Typical sellers in the last five years owned for 8.71 years — ranked No. 39 nationally. That's up from 5.4 years at the century's start when the Inland Empire ranked No. 24th nationally. Relatively speaking, it's a small increase, too: 3.31 years — ranking 98th out of 108.
Extended ownership, in some ways, is not surprising. As a state and nation, we're getting older — and older folks don't move as much. And the Great Recession's devastation of housing values may have kept folks stuck in their homes longer than the norm.
These longer-term owners may be changing communities, too, economically and politically.
As owners' kids move away, retail spending may migrate to goods and services targeted for older residents. That demographic shift may nudge government funds toward safety and senior care, for instance, and away from housing or education.
And long-time owners may instinctively have "not-in-my-backyard" tendencies, wanting to preserve personal housing values.
Let's not forget, too, it's a major headache to find new housing, selling your current abode — no less, packing and then unpacking! And it can be costly, too. Then there could be a hefty tax bill, to boot. When you don't move, numerous real estate pros — not to mention the tax collector — lose out on a payday.
To me, this declining mobility feels more like a moment of clarity. Considering all those relocation hurdles, what were people thinking years ago when they moved more frequently?
Perhaps this "aging in place" is a signal of growing mental health, if not added fiscal responsibility.
