Real estate General topic

[plowhog]

I don't understand any of it.

The recent court decision which upended the real estate industry is going to make such stories much more common.

 

[WinterDeere]

The recent court decision which upended the real estate industry is going to make such stories much more common.

Many countries stipulate than only citizens can own real estate. It not only protects the rights and wallets of the citizenry, but also provides incentive for alien residents to pursue citizenship, and all of the burdens and rights that come with it.

 

[ultrarunner]

The recent court decision which upended the real estate industry is going to make such stories much more common.

It's upending some markets because as mentioned for a lot of Real Estate buyers this isn't their first Rodeo not realizing things have changed.

Still remember viewing a property a few years back and the listing agent refused to show unless I submitted financials to pre qualify me.

It was her loss because I bought but not through her so she was unable to collect both sides.

She protested saying I had reached out to her which was true but then I showed her Broker the email where she stayed she couldn't work with me unless pre qualified and that was that.

A family friend mortgage broker said anytime I need a pre qualified letter just ask.

He said they really mean nothing more than the person had spoken to a lender...

He went on to say the letter is dated so anything after that date is subject to change.

 

[WinterDeere]

Still remember viewing a property a few years back and the listing agent refused to show unless I submitted financials to pre qualify me.

This is common here, on higher end properties. I remember having to submit financials on some of the properties we were shopping 12 years ago, as those we were viewing were priced around double the market average.

Of course, where you live in SF Bay, the price of our "high end" properties is your market average.

 

[plowhog]

A family friend mortgage broker said anytime I need a ore qualified letter just ask.

This is so true.

I once saw what I describe as the "cheesiest" pre-qual letter ever written. To "pre-qualify" a buyer as being financially qualified. I knew the prospective buyer was *not* qualified at all, but it said something like:

"we have spoken with Mr. xxx, and we may be able to provide a loan on the property he is viewing based on provision of further information such as a review of credit and income history."

 

[plowhog]

the price of our "high end" properties is your market average.

The average price of a 3br 2ba residence in Northern Nevada is now $600k. That's probably 1,350 sq ft +/-.

"High end" in any market is subjective. But around here, that's probably $1.5-$2M and up.

Needless to say, higher interest rates affect properties on the higher end a lot. But even so, my neighbor recently put her house on the market for $2.M+, and it sold in two days ....

 

[WinterDeere]

The average price of a 3br 2ba residence in Northern Nevada is now $600k. That's probably 1,350 sq ft +/-.

That's not a house... that's an apartment!

Just checked median for our closest major town, and it's $787k. The house I grew up in was nothing special, typical 1950's cape cod of about 3500 sq.ft. on 3/4 acre, but in a supposedly "more desirable" borough. My parents paid $125k for it in the early 1980's, and it's presently valued at $1.5M.

The constant new building where I grew up was going a little nuts, so I moved 30 minutes west, where median is only $550k. This allowed us to afford a larger home on a larger property, than staying "in town".

But I'd bet 3k sq.ft. stand-alone homes on 1/2 acre lots in ultrarunner's SF Bay area are closer to $1M median.

 

[kenmbz]

In my town, they got smart and changed to 5 acre min lot for new builds.
Next town over in either direction, apartments and condos bloom like flowers.

Latest "luxury" condos at 1million plus, just wow.....

 

[paulsharvey]

In my town, they got smart and changed to 5 acre min lot for new builds.
Next town over in either direction, apartments and condos bloom like flowers.

Latest "luxury" condos at 1million plus, just wow.....

Just to play devils advocate; making everything in a town 5 acre min is a terrible move from a city/town infrastructure. It decreases the ability to hook up multiple homes on utilities, increases the lane miles of roads to provide service, ect. You can also make an argument that it decreases the overall available land for property owners. Say a small rural ag parcel sells, that's 50 acres; with that kinda rule, you pretty garantee it will be 10 5 acres pieces, each too small foe productive use; instead of maybe 2 20 acre pieces, and 10 1 acre pieces.

 

[paulsharvey]

What I was trying to say, Many times, what sounds like a good rule has unintended negative consequences that noone really thought about.

 

[Sigarms]

What I was trying to say, Many times, what sounds like a good rule has unintended negative consequences that noone really thought about.

No different than many other laws

 

[paulsharvey]

Several years ago, the medium sized college city 30 minutes west of me tried to pass a rule banning new construction of single family homes within the city limits. With out bringing left vs right knoda talk into it, the side pushing this idea really thought that it would make apartments/town homes/duplexes pop up, and drop housing costs. I also have no doubt it was driven in part by green issue, as well as reducing the costs to bring city services to customers. Now, if we assume a city did do that, can you imagine the effect it would have on existing single family homes.

Historic protection/zoning also; I get the intent, keep all the historic (not just Old, but having historic relevance) buildings from being destroyed. The flip side, often this prevents people from buying/remodeling and Using the historic buildings, leading to them just sitting there to decay and become drug houses.

 

[LouNY]

Just to play devils advocate; making everything in a town 5 acre min is a terrible move from a city/town infrastructure. It decreases the ability to hook up multiple homes on utilities, increases the lane miles of roads to provide service, ect. You can also make an argument that it decreases the overall available land for property owners. Say a small rural ag parcel sells, that's 50 acres; with that kinda rule, you pretty garantee it will be 10 5 acres pieces, each too small foe productive use; instead of maybe 2 20 acre pieces, and 10 1 acre pieces.

That's what private wells and septic systems are for, and good gravel roads.

 

[kenmbz]

Just to play devils advocate; making everything in a town 5 acre min is a terrible move from a city/town infrastructure. It decreases the ability to hook up multiple homes on utilities, increases the lane miles of roads to provide service, ect. You can also make an argument that it decreases the overall available land for property owners. Say a small rural ag parcel sells, that's 50 acres; with that kinda rule, you pretty garantee it will be 10 5 acres pieces, each too small foe productive use; instead of maybe 2 20 acre pieces, and 10 1 acre pieces.

yep, its awful. All the larger farms are preserved now.
Taxes are stable.
Roads are pretty good.
No new condos, no new apartments. Only houses.

Well/sceptic for all.
No gas lines though.

 

[paulsharvey]

yep, its awful. All the larger farms are preserved now.
Taxes are stable.
Roads are pretty good.
No new condos, no new apartments. Only houses.

Well/sceptic for all.
No gas lines though.

Hmm, how does 5 acre min preserve farms? If anything, I would expect it to create a short supply of build able lots, and encourage more farms to be divided.

Or, are we implying that blocking development completely preserved the Town for a period of time.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, or that it did or didn't work. I'm just saying that the end result of splitting 400 acres into 80 home sites or 80 acres into 80 home sites and the remaining 320 acres remaining in Ag are different, but both results.

 

[paulsharvey]

Also, speaking on unintended consequences; many times rules/zoning/laws, intended to preserve Ag (often by well intended but uninformed folks), end up killing it. Basically, when you remove the ability to get loans against the 'highest and best' value of a property, you remove the ability foe an existing ag operation to modernize/expand/invest/continue.

Let's say you inherited your folks old, small,
200 acre potatoes field, and some tired old equipment. You need a $250,000 loan to get it back in production; if you can't borrow against the only asset the ag operation has, you simply won't be able to put it back into production.

Also, as much as people hate to hear this; in that same case above, maybe instead of risking the whole 200 acres with a loan against it, maybe you section off 2 5-10 acre pieces to sell; and you have the operating money, and still have 180-190 acres that went from unused to a business.

 

[paulsharvey]

Rules about having a second residence on a property are meant to prevent everything from turning into a trailer park; but it also prevents you from adding a cheap single wide to your property for your aging parents to live in, close to assistance/family.

It's all Issac Newton's fault; every action had an equal and opposite reaction.