In all economic matters, context and perspectives are important. We’ve all heard, for example, that real estate is cyclical, but the cycles of boom and bust vary in length and depth. Where there are the highest peaks, there are also the lowest values.

By way of perspective, I want to share with you some excerpts of a feature story on real estate that I penned for a regional magazine just over 10 years ago on Oct. 5, 2000. Some of this makes me look like a sage, some is painful for me to read today.

But the context is a lesson for all of us. At the time this was written, the folks at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim were poised to hire 8,500 new “cast members” to help support the opening of the new California Adventure theme park. Their challenge, as I noted then, was not only finding these people in a tight market, but also finding affordable housing for these new employees.

Here are the excerpts: “Orange County needs an additional 75,000 homes for people of all income levels by 2005 to meet the population growth expectations. We will fall far short of that goal.”

Context: Today, affordable housing is not the challenge, it is the norm. The case could be made that even the word “affordable” no longer applies: Housing is cheap.

Next: “… [housing] demand remains high, interest rates have remained below 8%, making the loan a value. Yet, without homes to buy, the mortgage rate value is a moot point.”

Context: The interest rate on a 30-year, fixed loan is hovering around 5%, making the money cheaper than it has been in decades. Today, there are plenty of homes to buy. Perfect real estate conditions, no?

Unfortunately, the roadblock to the sale of many homes is tougher loan qualification criteria. But even the qualifications have their context: When the housing market was on fire 10 years ago and loan rates were around 8%, the qualification requirements were the same as the “new” ones buyers are experiencing today, that is, a significant down payment and solid evidence of an income that will make the payments affordable.

Next: “Already, workers have had to move outside the county to find homes they can afford,” I wrote in 2000. “That relocation translates into expensive and time-consuming commuter costs, which eventually will take their toll in the workplace as absenteeism and lateness increase.”

Context: That was written at a time when job growth was rising about 2.5%, not falling, as it has been in recent years. (Note: The California Employment Development Dept. reported last January that Orange County’s unemployment rate for December 2010 had dropped to 8.9%, the third lowest in the state.) Today, many of the homebuyers in the Inland Empire who commute to Orange County are not considered candidates for relocation closer to work because the decline in their home values has not provided them with the equity to trade up.

Like the broken clock that is right twice a day, I did manage to predict a real estate development that has come to fruition.

In response to the end of virgin home building land, I wrote, “Look for the land crunch to create Orange County homes that are smaller — and taller.”

Context: High rise condominiums, once unthinkable in Orange County, have sprung up in several areas, including in Irvine and in South Coast Metro. In infill areas, multiple homes are squeezed into tight places, as they are in the 69-home Standard-Pacific development in the Mesa Verde neighborhood of Costa Mesa.

These excerpts are provided to help buyers and sellers understand what real estate agents have known for years: Eventually, balance will return. With gas prices around $4, retail sales up strongly and unemployment decreasing, we may just see that balance returning sooner rather than later.

STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer. Send story ideas to smi161@aol.com.