Broker puts his Silicon Valley condo on the market for $1 | Inman News
Broker puts his Silicon Valley condo on the market for $1
Ken DeLeon hopes other sellers will consider adopting his pricing strategy
By Paul Hagey, Tuesday, October 23, 2012.http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=104034803" target="_blank">Dollar</a> image via Shutterstock." width="225" />Dollar image via Shutterstock.
A Silicon Valley real estate broker says he'll list an unencumbered condo he owns for $1 in order to let the market decide what it's worth.
"There is no loan on this property, so whatever it goes for that day will be the sale price, even if it's $1," said Kenneth J. DeLeon, broker-owner of DeLeon Realty Inc., in a statement.
Whatever the home ends up selling for, it will be harder to pin down the value of the free publicity the ploy generates.
DeLeon is hoping to draw attention not just to this particular listing -- located in Mountain View, in the shadow of tech giants Apple, Google and Facebook -- but also on his Palo Alto-based business.
Named by Real Trends Inc. as the nation's top-producing real estate agent in 2011 with $275 million in sales, DeLeon announced his intentions by issuing a press release describing the listing strategy as an "unprecedented move" showcasing his "in-depth knowledge of the market and the effectiveness of his unparalleled marketing and advertising."
DeLeon told Inman News that he hopes sellers he represents will consider adopting his pricing strategy when listing with him.
"It's about innovation and change," he said.
Other brokers and agents considering similar pricing strategies may want to double-check state licensing laws and regulations, not to mention those governing advertising. If a seller is not actually willing to accept the price that a home is listed for, underpricing a listing could constitute false advertising, or a breach of the Realtor Code of Ethics.
A broker in Washington state ran afoul of regulators last year for allegedly pricing short-sale listings for less than what he knew the bank was willing to approve.
A spokesman for the California Department of Real Estate, Tom Pool, said California law "does not saying anything about the pricing of listings."
Brokers are obligated to act in the best interest of clients, and carry out their instructions as long as it is legal, Pool said. Licensees may not engage in false or deceitful practices, and can also be disciplined for false or misleading advertising.
"So, if the owner of the condo in question is willing to sell it for a buck, so be it," Pool said. If there is a reserve price, Pool said that should be mentioned.
DeLeon, who practiced law before entering real estate, has no reserve price for the condo, which he estimates has a market value of around $350,000.
When asked if he thought he might be misleading buyers or acting unethically by pricing the condo way under market value, DeLeon said no. The facts of the sale are clearly laid out, DeLeon said, and he will take whatever the highest bid ends up being.
Ken DeLeonDeLeon said he'll begin taking offers on Thursday for the condo via a "silent auction" format. The auction will remain open for two weeks.
DeLeon said on Nov. 8, he'll take the top five bids, and conduct a final quick round of bidding before selecting the highest bid.
DeLeon says he's committed to selling the condo for whatever the high bid comes in at. "I'm hopeful it's more than $1."
He's pretty sure it will be.
This type of listing scenario requires a lot of demand, DeLeon said. And he's seen it recently.
A house DeLeon sold a couple of weeks ago was listed for about $3 million and closed for $300,000 over. And, six weeks ago, he sold his personal home for $2.5 million, $500,000 over list price, he said.
"If (the market's) going there, why don't we go to the next level?" he said.
Still, he's curious how the experiment will play out, he said. Will it sell below, at or above market value?
Next spring, DeLeon has plans to list a $1 million-plus home he owns in the area for $1.
With these two case studies as models, he hopes future sellers will follow. "Whether it works or not, it's worth trying," he said.
Contact Inman News: Copyright 2012 Inman NewsAll rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
This is most certainly an interesting move by this broker. I'd love to know what he ends up getting for his home!
Homebuying wish list lets buyers see the big picture | Inman News
Homebuying wish list lets buyers see the big picture
Experienced agent can help you see beyond staging tricks
By Dian Hymer, Monday, October 22, 2012.http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=112113500" target="_blank">Stged dining room</a> image via Shutterstock." width="225" />Stged dining room image via Shutterstock.
"I'll know it when I see it." "This doesn't feel like home to me." "Someday the right one will come along; I'll keep looking until it does." "It's going to be my home; it has to feel special."
These comments are typical of buyers who've looked for a while but haven't committed to buying. The objections sound sensible. Yet, they could be excuses not to buy.
Homebuying is not for everyone. It's a major commitment and is often the most expensive purchase most people will make in their lifetime. It's understandable that some buyers approach the home search with reservations.
You'll save a lot of time and energy if you can determine if homebuying is for you before you start looking. Then for the best result, approach the house hunt methodically and with the understanding that it will take time.
The first step is to make a list of all the features you need and want in a home. Think about your current home, and others that you've lived in. Consider what you liked and disliked about them.
The next step is to prioritize the list distinguishing what you must have and what you'd like to have. You're unlikely to find all of the items on your list in one home.
HOUSE HUNTING: It will help to prioritize your list if you look at some homes for sale in your price range and in the areas where you'd like to live. Visiting Sunday open houses or looking at listings online can help you to familiarize yourself with the local inventory if you haven't already selected a local real estate agent.
You may find that some of the items you'd like to have in your home don't exist in your target area. For example, let's say you want to live in a neighborhood of charming older homes that are close to shops and transportation. You also want a two-car attached garage. Smaller homes built in the 1920s or earlier usually don't have two-car garages.
This is where compromise comes into play. If the older, conveniently located neighborhood is high on your wish list, you will need to be willing to settle for a one-car garage, or perhaps no garage. If the two-car garage is a must, you may need to consider homes that were built more recently, and are not as conveniently located.
As you're looking at homes for sale, try to see beyond the seller's décor and the staging. A well-staged home can mask floor plan defects. It can be misleading in terms of what you need in a home. For instance, a first-time buyer made the mistake of buying a home that was staged so well that she didn't realize that there was no formal dining room and no eating area in the kitchen.
On the other hand, you may be tempted to turn down a home that's staged to appeal to the widest audience but appears not to suit your needs. Let's say a home has three bedrooms but no home office. If you need only two bedrooms, you could use the third bedroom as an office, even though it's not represented that way.
The best way to see a home you're really interested in is with your agent. Many buyers aren't good at visualizing a home any other way than how it's shown. An experienced agent should be able to show you how you can adapt a home to your needs.
It's often hard to make a good assessment of a home you're serious about at a Sunday open house. Have your agent take you back for a second or third look.
THE CLOSING: Bring your wish list and discuss the pros and cons before you make a final decision.
Dian Hymer, a real estate broker with more than 30 years' experience, is a nationally syndicated real estate columnist and author of "House Hunting: The Take-Along Workbook for Home Buyers" and "Starting Out, The Complete Home Buyer's Guide."
Contact Dian Hymer: Copyright 2012 Dian HymerAll rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Inman News always has just great articles and tips!
Changes to MID seen as increasingly likely | Inman News
Changes to MID seen as increasingly likely
Consequences of eliminating or limiting tax break for mortgage borrowers debated
By Andrea V. Brambila, Monday, October 15, 2012.http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=83573692" target="_blank">House as piggy bank</a> image via Shutterstock." width="225" />House as piggy bank image via Shutterstock.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The burgeoning federal debt makes it unlikely that the mortgage interest tax deduction will survive in its present form, but any proposed changes to the tax break for homeowners will likely spark a fierce debate over the fundamentals of the U.S. housing market, the value of homeonwership, and consumer behavior.
That's according to panelists at a housing forum hosted Friday by real estate search and valuation company Zillow Inc. and the University of Southern California's Lusk Center for Real Estate.
"I think its entirely likely that something big is going to happen (with the MID) starting next year with either administration," said Jason Gold, director and senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Progressive Policy Institute, an independent think tank.
Some members of Congress have proposed eliminating or changing the mortgage interest deduction as one way to help address the nation's $15 trillion debt and a $1.1 trillion federal budget deficit.
See related stories:
Economists bullish on housing recovery
NAR ready to mobilize homeowners to protect federal housing subsidies
At the end of this year, a series of tax increases and spending cuts to address that deficit are scheduled to go into effect automatically, unless Congress acts to prevent or alter them. Revamping the mortgage interest deduction is one of the solutions proposed to head off that "fiscal cliff" scenario.
Two years ago, a bipartisan deficit reduction commission recommended scaling back the mortgage interest deduction, which is currently capped at mortgages worth up to $1 million for both principal and second homes and home equity debt up to $100,000. The deduction is available only to taxpayers who itemize.
The commission, often referred to as Simpson-Bowles, proposed turning the deduction into a 12 percent nonrefundable tax credit available to all taxpayers, capping eligibility to mortgages worth up to $500,000, and eliminating the deduction on interest from second homes and home equity debt.
The National Association of Realtors, which has consistently defended the mortgage interest deduction in its current form, was highly critical of the recommendation, claiming any changes to the MID could depreciate home prices by up to 15 percent, and promising to "remain vigilant in opposing any plan that modifies or excludes the deductibility of mortgage interest."
At the end of July, the trade group launched an email campaign designed to educate roughly 82 million consumers about the value of homeownership and the federal housing subsidies, including the MID, in place that support it.
The MID and home prices
The MID is a "tax expenditure," meaning its cost must either be made up through higher taxes elsewhere or by adding to the debt, and it costs the government about $90 billion a year.
Richard GreenRichard Green, the director of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, told forum attendees that reforming the MID is necessary for fiscal sustainability.
"We need to get revenue," Green said. "You need to make a judgment about what's better or worse for the economy. In my opinion, it's better to do it with tax expenditures, rather than rates, though you may have to do both to get to where we need to be."
Because mortgage interest rates are currently so low, he added, "this may be an opportunity to do less damage by reforming the mortgage interest deduction than at other times."
Christopher Thornberg, founding partner at Beacon Economics, agreed. The current low interest rates mean that changing the MID "will have a more moderate impact on home prices," he said. "With that in mind, it's exactly the time to get rid of it."
He estimated home prices would drop perhaps 6-7 percent overall if the MID were eliminated.
Green declined to estimate how much prices would decrease.
"I have no idea. We're in a world in which to try to make predictions is much harder than it would have been 10 or 15 years ago," he said.
Dowell Myers, a professor and director of the Population Dynamics Research Group at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, said declining prices are "the last thing we want."
"Lower prices are good as long they rise 2 percent per year. I don't want them to fall 2 percent per year," Myers said. "We must rebuild slowly."
Cristopher ThornbergThornberg disagreed. "I weigh 190 pounds. I guarantee you that first day on the StairMaster is going to be miserable. But that doesn't change the fact that I need to lose weight," he said.
Just as food and gas prices should be as low as possible, a household's biggest expenditure -- housing -- should be as inexpensive as possible, he said. "Over the past five years, falling home prices were a symptom of the underlying problem. They didn't cause the recession," he said. "In the long-run basis, cheap housing is good for the economy."
He advocated more homebuilding to drive prices down.
Unintended consequences
Green noted that in some other countries, such as the United Kingdom, there is no mortgage interest deduction. "They get big mortgages just like us, but they pay them off quicker because there's no incentive to carry a lot of debt." Over time, we could see the same pattern in the U.S., he said.
Panelists observed that eliminating or limiting the scope of the MID could have unintended consequences. Lower home values could mean fewer property taxes paid. More incentive to pay down a mortgage could mean fewer goods consumed and fewer stocks and bonds invested in in the short run. Each would mean less revenue generated than proponents of cutting the MID anticipate, Green said.
"In the short term, it would have an anti-stimulative impact," Green said.
"In the long run, it means our household balance sheets are better," which means people can retire and have money to spend in the future and also be protected from financial shocks, he added.
A mortgage is "a long-term forced saving that builds a storehouse of wealth," Gold said. "We need to make housing something that people can rely on and not this playpen of speculation."
The panelists noted that most economists are against the MID. "(Economists say) it makes housing more expensive, distorts the market, and the revenue that we could get out of it is more important than what it could do to the market," Gold said.
Narayana KocherlakotaNarayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, has said that the MID acts as an incentive for homebuyers to take on bigger mortgages than they might need, making it harder to safeguard the financial system against systemic risk.
Lowering the fraction of mortgage interest households are allowed to deduct from their taxable income would help protect the financial system in the event of another housing boom and bust, Kocherlakota said last year. To encourage homeownership, policymakers could replace the MID with a tax credit that offsets part of a buyer's down payment on a home.
A Georgia State University study published in May suggested that lenders capture between 9 and 17 percent of the subsidy created by the MID through higher mortgage interest rates.
Because the MID is capped at a $1 million mortgage, the study looked at more than 900,000 "jumbo loans" loans made in 2004 (those for more than $333,700) and found that rates dropped as loan sizes crossed the $1 million mark, and that the larger the portion of the loan that was above this mark, the lower the rates went, SmartMoney reported.
The deduction is projected to cost taxpayers an estimated $609 billion through 2016, and the study results suggested lenders, not homeowners, will receive $55 billion to $104 billion of that subsidy, the publication said,
A recent survey of economists, real estate experts and investment strategists conducted by research and consulting firm Pulsenomics LLC on behalf of Zillow found 60 percent favored getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, with 10 percent saying it should be eliminated immediately and 50 percent saying it should be phased out gradually.
Thirty percent of respondents said the deduction should remain, but that there should be more restrictions on eligibility. Only 11 percent said the deduction should remain as is.
No 'shock treatment'
Panelists noted that the mortgage interest deduction is politically polarizing because there is a disconnect between how people use it and how it is perceived.
For example, Green said most people in Texas do not itemize their taxes (indeed, only about a third of all U.S. taxpayers do), and therefore they cannot take advantage of the MID.
But studies show "they love the mortgage interest deduction," he said. "There's a detachment between how taxes actually affect people and how they feel about it."
Green also pointed out that even if the MID were limited to primary residences with a mortgage of no more than $500,000, the middle class would remain largely unaffected.
"Away from California, $500,000 is not a middle-class (home) -- that's an upper-income house. That's why disproportionately (the MID in its current form) is more beneficial for California, coastal markets, New York, San Diego."
Thornberg agreed. "Clearly this benefits richer people more than it does the middle class."
According to the Tax Policy Center, those in the middle income quintile received $139 from the deduction in 2011, while those in the top income quintile received an average of $2,344. The average benefit overall was $460.
John BurnsJohn Burns, CEO of John Burns Real Estate Consulting LLC, said scaling the MID back to $500,000 "really won't kill the housing market." He added that, because most taxpayers don't itemize, making the MID a 12 percent tax credit available to all taxpayers would probably boost the amount of money in people's pockets. He said, however, that such changes "would hurt the move-up market dramatically."
The panelists seemed to support either a gradual phase-out of the MID or alternatives to the MID.
"I would never prescribe shock treatment, particularly" right now with the current state of the economy, Green said.
Thornberg agreed. "Most policies should be phased in, not done overnight."
Green and Gold said they would support something like a credit to first-time homebuyers as an alternative to the MID, though Gold doubted such an alternative would be politically viable.
Myers suggested a MID targeted only to people under age 35.
"Baby boomers are going to be retiring and selling off their houses. I would worry that if (their children) are spooked away from homeownership because we get rid of the MID, it's a social signal that homeownership" is not for them, he said.
Green said homeownership is "a good thing" for families with children in particular.
"In the U.S., there are two ways you can live in a house -- you can own, or have a one-year lease. If you have kids you care about and want to keep them in the same school district," security of tenure "really leads to good outcomes," Green said.
Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan has said the Obama administration, which has been pushing for changes to the MID that would reduce its value to wealthy families, doesn't advocate getting rid of it altogether.
"This is not the time to be questioning the fundamental pieces [of U.S. housing policy] ... while we're still very much focused on recovering from the crisis," Donovan said. "Anything that would change the system substantially now [would] have a real risk of stopping the momentum that we have in the housing market."
David StevensLast week, David Stevens, president and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, told HousingWire his trade group stands ready to advocate for the survival of the mortgage interest deduction, but that it's too early to react to political slogans about ending the popular tax deduction.
"We need the housing market to recover -- particularly the home purchase market -- to recover for the broader U.S. economy to get back on track," Stevens said. "Any uncertainty around the impact of consumers on the most significant tax benefit that the U.S. tax system has for the U.S. consumer could be very disruptive."
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has not clearly stated his stance on the MID, though has twice has raised the possibility of imposing caps on tax benefits to help lower tax rates, the Wall Street Journal reported.
"Instead of simply cutting the home mortgage interest deduction or the write-off for charitable donations, lawmakers could allow each taxpayer one overall allowance to use as desired. Mr. Romney suggested options ranging from $17,000 to $50,000," the Journal said.
A recent survey conducted by public opinion research firm Belden Russonello Strategists LLC on behalf of The National Low Income Housing Coalition, an affordable housing advocacy group, found that 56 percent of 1,006 respondents favored replacing the MID with a tax credit that would provide the same percentage benefit for all households regardless of income.
Nearly two-thirds, 63 percent, supported a $500,000 cap on the size of mortgage for which one can get a tax break. Support for these changes was bipartisan, with nearly equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans and independents favoring both proposals, the NLIHC said. The group estimated the changes would save $20 billion to $40 billion a year.
When asked how the savings should be used, 71 percent said reducing the federal deficit should be a top or high priority, 63 percent said ending homelessness should be a top or high priority, and 62 percent cutting taxes for middle-income people should be a top or high priority.
Sheila CrowleyThe NLIHC recommended directing the savings to the National Housing Trust Fund, which provides communities with funds to build, preserve, rehabilitate and operate rental homes that are affordable for extremely and very low-income households.
"The mortgage interest deduction is very popular, but the American people understand that it can be improved to help more middle- and low-income homeowners. At the same time, the savings from reform can be used to end homelessness and create jobs by building more rental homes that low-income families can afford," said Sheila Crowley, president and CEO of the NLIHC, in a statement.
"The American public is ahead of policymakers on this issue. It is time to enact reforms that will stop the subsidy of million-dollar houses and use the savings to help middle- and low-income families who need it most."
Contact Andrea V. Brambila:
Copyright 2012 Inman NewsAll rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Any changes in this tax break are obviously very controversial!
Bond Funds Can Pump Up Retiree Income
By TOM LAURICELLA
Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the low-interest-rate pinch keeps getting worse for retirees.
But by taking a measured approach to investing in bond funds, all is not lost for those trying to earn a reasonable return on their money without putting their nest eggs in jeopardy.
Nata Metlukh
In this low-yield environment, it may be tempting simply to grab the higher payouts offered by longer-term bonds.
Doing so requires self-discipline; it's easy to get greedy and focus solely on the highest yields available.
"It's hard work to find reliable income in this environment without taking on a great deal of risk," says Lon Burford, a financial adviser at Genovese Burford & Brothers in Sacramento, Calif. However, he adds, "if they are on top of this and careful, investors can get what they are after."
For many investors, this approach may lead them to intermediate bond funds that have a tilt toward corporate bonds.
Many of these funds have yields in the neighborhood of 2% to 3%, which is enough to keep a retiree ahead of inflation. And for some, intermediate municipal-bond funds may be the answer.
Last month, the Federal Reserve said it would pump billions of dollars more into the financial markets until the stagnant jobs market shows significant improvement.
The upshot is that interest rates are likely to stay lower than expected for longer than expected. And this is squeezing investors on safer bond funds.
The average short-term government bond fund is yielding just 1.3%, down from 1.6% a year ago, according to Morningstar. With inflation running at about a 1.7% annual rate, that's what's known as a "negative real yield," which can make such products a losing proposition for investors.
"It's a very deliberate effort on the part of the Fed to force people to take on more risk," says Eric Jacobson, director of bond-fund research at Morningstar.
First, some basics. It's easy for investors to get into trouble with money needed over the next two to five years. On the one hand, you don't have the luxury of time to make back big losses. But it's also enough time to fall behind in the race against inflation. Consider that at a 2% inflation rate, the spending power of $10,000 today amounts to just over $9,000 in five years.
(If you need money within the next year or so, it should be in cash. Longer than five years, wide price swings in stocks or other riskier investments may be more tolerable.)
In this low-yield environment, it may be tempting simply to grab the higher payouts offered by longer-term bonds.
The average long-term bond fund, which usually holds a combination of government, corporate and other kinds of debt, is yielding 4%, according to Morningstar.
But longer-term bonds carry the risk of bigger losses when rates rise.
For example, should interest rates increase by one percentage point over the next year, the total return on a 30-year Treasury bond would be a loss of 18.3%, according to calculations by Vanguard Group. In contrast, a five-year note would lose 4.3%.
To get a reasonable yield, as well as diversification across different types of bonds, many advisers look to low-cost intermediate bond funds from Vanguard, such as the firm's Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade fund (VFICX), which is yielding 2.2%.
Aldo Vultaggio, an adviser at AEPG Wealth Strategies, in Warren, N.J., likes the Vanguard Total Bond Market (BND) exchange-traded fund. "It's yielding about 1.7%, which is going to get you roughly the level of inflation," he says. "It's very high quality…and gives you some diversification."
Mr. Vultaggio says his firm also has been directing some clients to Guggenheim Investments BulletShares offerings, such as the firm's 2017 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCH), which is yielding 1.7%.
Another option for some investors: tax-exempt municipal-bond funds. The Fidelity Intermediate Municipal Income fund (FLTMX), for example, is yielding 1.4%. But after adjusting for the benefit of not paying taxes, an investor in a 33% tax bracket would be earning a taxable equivalent yield of 2.1%.
"Municipals are yielding so much more than Treasury bonds…and rising rates may not hurt munis as badly," says Mr. Jacobson at Morningstar.
Whatever the option, be sure to consider the trade-offs that come with picking up greater yields. "It's crucial to understand that there is no magic bullet," Mr. Jacobson says.
Corrections & Amplifications
—Email: next@wsj.com
A previous version incorrectly stated that AEPG Wealth Strategies was directing some clients to Guggenheim Investments BulletShares 2017 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJH).
Good information!
We Can Do Better Than 12% Mobility | Realtor Magazine
Harry Reid, John Boehner, Herman Cain, Elizabeth Warren, Marco Rubio, Gary Locke. They’re public figures of different political stripes but with something in common: Each started out in relatively humble circumstances. All worked or had a parent who worked in some kind of janitorial occupation, and all strived for something more.
One of the great things about America is that individuals who work hard can often improve their prospects. Those who do have often needed to relocate in the process. Historically, one-fifth of the population has moved each year. But in the past 25 years, the mobility rate has steadily declined. Last year only 12 percent of the population moved, a troubling economic indicator.
Inside View
Learn what the latest economic indicators mean for the real estate industry at NAR's Economist's Outlook blog.
Our lawmakers and policymakers in Washington should remove unnecessary barriers to economic expansion. One such barrier is the proposed bank capital standards, which are creating uncertainty among lenders and making it difficult for entrepreneurs to get funds to start businesses and buy and lease commercial real estate. Another is something most real estate practitioners can relate to: the difficulty even creditworthy households have obtaining mortgage financing, thanks in part to proposed residential mortgage rules that are casting a pall on lending. Buying a home within one’s means and steadily paying down the mortgage is a familiar path to accumulating wealth in America.
To be sure, the pendulum swung too far the wrong way when prices were high and loans were easy for anyone to obtain. Underwriting standards should be tighter when prices are high and more accessible when prices are low. Instead, mortgage loans have become impossible for many qualified buyers to obtain because of overly restrictive underwriting standards.
Will the present state of affairs mean fewer people will ascend the economic ladder? It might, unless we convince regulators to apply capital and lending rules that honor the important roles of free enterprise and private property ownership.
It would be nice to do much better but we need listings to be able to do that!
Larkspur, Corte Madera Still Concerned About Highway 101 Project - Larkspur-Corte Madera, CA Patch
The impact of the construction on Doherty Drive just outside Redwood High School could be just a preview to things to come, some fear.
The Transportation Authority of Marin and CalTrans are fine-tuning plans for construction of the Greenbrae Interchange project on Highway 101. "The purpose of the project is to reduce traffic congestion within the Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor by alleviating the short merging, diverging, and weaving areas along US 101," according to a message from TAM.
TAM's open house at Redwood High School showed residents its proposed changes to the current Twin Cities Corridor, a dangerous area prone to traffic jams during heavy commute hours. Pretty much everyone at the open house agreed that there is likely no "silver bullet" that would fix all the problems, but not everyone agreed TAM's proposal is the best solution.
"The conditions that are occurring now with Doherty Drive closed are an illustration of what might happen under this project," argued Larkspur Vice-Mayor Dan Hillmer after touring the presentation. He believes the project will increase traffic congestion on surface streets, just as traffic on other major arteries has increased during the Doherty Drive shutdown.
TAM and CalTrans staff were on hand Monday to guide residents through a display of engineer's drawings, models and photos. The highlight was a slick computer animation projection of what drivers could expect to see while driving along the new corridor.
What they would see southbound coming off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard is an auxiliary lane with an exit onto Fifer and an extended merge onto Highway 101. An overpass, meanwhile, carries southbound Highway 101 traffic to an exit onto Wornum Drive.
More information on the project is available through the TAM website.
The presentation listed the project benefits as:
- Reduced traffic congestion along US 101
- Improved local roadway access to and from US 101
- Improved accessibility to local and regional transit
- Improved pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor
- Improved safety and operation of US 101 and the local roadway network
Most people who have seen the proposal seem to be satisfied with the plans for northbound Highway 101 which would eliminate the dangerous entrance from Lucky Drive. The plans for southbound Highway 101 have generated significant concern among residents, businesses and council members.
Hillmer and Corte Madera Vice-Mayor Diane Furst agreed that the proposed project would likely create congestion on Tamal Vista Boulevard. That same congestion could cause traffic backups on Magnolia Avenue, according to Hillmer, as people try to find alternative routes between Larkspur and Corte Madera. TAM executive director Dianne Steinhauser said traffic on Tamal Vista Boulevard might actually be eased with the project.
"The project doesn't recognize the impacts to surface streets in Corte Madera and Larkspur," Hillmer said. "It's like taking water flowing from a one-inch pipe into a quarter-inch pipe."
The project also calls for additional or improved access for cyclists and pedestrians. Part of the project adds bike lanes to Tamal Vista Boulevard.
CalTrans is currently reviewing the Draft Environmental Document, which is expected to be released in October for a 45-day public comment period.
"I look forward to seeing what the draft environmental document reveals," Furst said.
The agencies currently have about $50 million of the estimated $150 million needed for the project, according to Betcy Joseph of CalTrans.
Corte Madera is also preparing for the redevelopment of the former WinCup property on Tamal Vista Boulevard. The property borders the elevated section of Highway 101 under TAM's proposal.
Larkspur, meanwhile, has several projects on its radar, including the SMART Ferry Connector that will cross Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in the Larkspur Landing area.
Don’t be left out of the conversation! Sign up for our daily newsletter, “like” us on Facebook and “follow” us on Twitter to get news, blogs, announcements and events. Catch up with us on Foursquare. Want to share your opinions with your community? Start your own blog here.
What do you think about this upcoming construction project? I'm not happy about it but I can understand why it is being done. Considering I travel that way at least twice a day, this project won't be much fun for me.
Buying A Home Is 45% Cheaper than Renting | Trulia Trends
The most important housing decision that most consumers face is whether to rent or to buy. So to help them with this decision, we took a look at the key market factors affecting the cost of homeownership. First off, asking home prices have started to rebound and have risen by 2.3% year over year in August (3.8% excluding foreclosures); however, rents have risen more (4.7%). This means that prices are lower relative to rents than they were a year ago. But more importantly, mortgage rates have fallen: the best rates this summer have been around 3.5%, while last summer rates were closer to 4.5%. Based on asking prices and rents during the summer of 2012, buying is now 45% cheaper than renting in the 100 largest U.S. metros, on average – that’s a savings of $771 a month. If you plan to stay in a home for 7 years, which is the average time that Americans traditionally live in a home before moving again, it is more affordable to buy than to rent in ALL of the 100 largest metros in the U.S.
Costs aside, the decision to rent or buy a home is very personal. There’s a strong emotional component: some people want the security of homeownership and others want the footloose freedom of renting. But the financial factors are also very personal because the decision to rent or buy depends on:
- Can you qualify for a mortgage at the best rate available?
- Which tax bracket are you in, and do you itemize your deductions?
- How long will you stay in your home?
To calculate whether renting or buying costs less, we assume people can get a low mortgage rate of 3.5%, itemize their federal tax deductions and are in the 25% tax bracket, and will stay in their home for seven years. (Below, we’ll show how changing these assumptions can affect the rent-versus-buy math.) We do the following calculations:
- First, we looked at all the homes for sale and rentals listed on Trulia in June, July and August 2012. On for-sale homes, we took the asking price and estimated what it would rent for; for rentals, we took the asking rent and estimated what it would sell for. That way, we can calculate the average rent and asking price for an identical set of properties in a metro area, for a direct apples-to-apples comparison. By looking at homes currently for sale or rent, we’re able to illustrate the actual housing options that consumers face right now.
- Second, we estimated the total costs of renting and buying for the typical property in a metro over a seven-year period. We factored in all the costs of homeownership (e.g., closing costs, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc.), along with the tax benefit of deducting mortgage interest and property taxes, as well as the proceeds from selling the home after seven years with modest home price appreciation. On the rental side, we factored in renters’ insurance and the security deposit. Finally, we calculate the net-present-value of all those costs to capture the opportunity cost of tying your money up in a down payment. This gives us the total cost of buying versus renting. We then calculated the dollar difference and percentage difference between renting and buying.
- Finally, we looked at alternative scenarios of the costs of renting versus buying, by changing the mortgage rate, the income tax bracket for tax deductions, and the time horizon.
Where Buying is a Slam Dunk
With a 20% down payment, a 30-year fixed mortgage rate at 3.5% and at the 25% federal tax bracket, homeownership is cheaper than renting in all of the 100 largest metros by a wide margin. There is no market where the financial decision is even close, so long as you plan to stay in the home for at least seven years, get 3.5% mortgage, and itemize your tax deductions. However, how much cheaper it is to buy a home than to rent really depends a LOT on where you live.Buying is 24% cheaper than renting in Honolulu, 28% cheaper in San Francisco, and 31% cheaper in New York. On the other end of the spectrum, homeownership is extremely affordable in Detroit, where buying a home is 70% cheaper to buy than to rent, and 63% cheaper in both Oklahoma City and Gary IN. Check out the top 10 lists below to see where the cost differences between buying and renting are smallest and largest.
Where the Financial Advantage of Buying Over Renting is Smallest U.S. Metro Monthly cost of home ownership ($) Monthly cost of renting ($) Difference ($) Difference (%) Honolulu, HI $1,519
$2,007
-$488
-24%
San Francisco, CA $2,327
$3,226
-$899
-28%
New York, NY-NJ $1,857
$2,687
-$831
-31%
San Jose, CA $1,819
$2,646
-$827
-31%
Los Angeles, CA $1,379
$2,020
-$641
-32%
Ventura County, CA $1,516
$2,274
-$759
-33%
Orange County, CA $1,610
$2,423
-$813
-34%
San Diego, CA $1,314
$1,981
-$667
-34%
Albany, NY $999
$1,535
-$536
-35%
Long Island, NY $1,603
$2,513
-$910
-36%
Note: Cost of homeownership assumes that the home is sold after 7 years and includes closing costs, maintenance, insurance, property taxes and other costs. Cost of renting includes security deposit and renters insurance. Monthly cost is based on net present value of costs over 7 years. Monthly costs are based on the average across all properties listed in the metro area, including those for sale and those for rent, in summer 2012.
Where the Financial Advantage of Buying Over Renting is Huge U.S. Metro Monthly cost of home ownership ($) Monthly cost of renting ($) Difference ($) Difference (%) Detroit, MI $349
$1,149
-$800
-70%
Gary, IN $616
$1,649
-$1,033
-63%
Oklahoma City, OK $590
$1,576
-$987
-63%
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL $495
$1,276
-$781
-61%
Toledo, OH $476
$1,222
-$746
-61%
Dayton, OH $524
$1,332
-$808
-61%
Warren-Troy-
Farmington Hills, MI$588
$1,494
-$907
-61%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR $548
$1,389
-$841
-61%
Cleveland, OH $585
$1,464
-$879
-60%
West Palm Beach, FL $723
$1,764
-$1,041
-59%
Note: Cost of homeownership assumes that the home is sold after 7 years and includes closing costs, maintenance, insurance, property taxes and other costs. Cost of renting includes security deposit and renters insurance. Monthly cost is based on net present value of costs over 7 years. Monthly costs are based on the average across all properties listed in the metro area, including those for sale and those for rent, in summer 2012.
What does this mean in dollars? Buying is cheaper than renting by several hundred dollars a month in every large metro. The charts above show how the percent difference in buying versus renting may be smaller in San Francisco (-28%) than in almost all other metros, but the annual dollar savings is big ($899) because the rents and home prices there are so high – so even a smaller percentage difference means a big dollar difference. (Remember that we’re looking at the annual cost of buying or renting the typical listed home. Most homes listed are for-sale, and for-sale homes tend to be much larger than rentals, on average. That’s why the monthly cost of renting the typical home is higher than the actual amount most renters pay.)
Scroll through the table below to see the cost of buying versus renting in major metros across the country below.
Why Mortgage Rates, Tax Brackets and Timing Matters in the Rent vs. Buy Debate
But what if you can’t get the best mortgage rate, don’t itemize your tax deductions or stay in your home for less than seven years? Each of those raises the cost of homeownership, so buying wouldn’t be quite as good of a deal relative to renting. Here’s why each matters:
- The best mortgage rates are available for people with the best credit scores – and a not-so-hot credit score could make your mortgage a full percentage point higher, which translates to at least a 10% difference in your monthly mortgage payment.
- Itemizing your tax deductions lets you subtract your mortgage interest and property tax payments from your pre-tax income, which lowers your tax burden especially if you’re in a higher tax bracket. How much does not itemizing raise the cost of homeownership? It depends on your tax bracket and the amount of mortgage interest and property taxes you would deduct.
- Selling a home in less than seven years after buying it means that you’re spreading your buying and selling closing costs overfewer years – making the average monthly cost of homeownership higher.
To see how your mortgage rate, tax bracket and time horizon affect the cost of renting versus buying, let’s look at several scenarios for a few large metros:
SCENARIO New York
LA
Boston
Atlanta
3.5% mortgage, 25% tax bracket, stay 7 years (baseline) -31%
-32%
-41%
-57%
4.5% mortgage * -23%
-24%
-34%
-53%
Not itemizing tax deductions * -18%
-21%
-30%
-50%
Stay 5 years * -21%
-22%
-32%
-52%
4.5% mortgage, not itemizing, AND 5 years 3%
-1%
-12%
-40%
* For these scenarios, the factors not mentioned are the same as the baseline.
Take Los Angeles, for instance. The top row shows that if you can (1) get a 3.5% mortgage, (2) are in the 25% tax bracket and itemize your deductions, and (3) stay 7 years, it’s 32% cheaper to buy than to rent.
Change any one of those scenarios, and buying is still cheaper than renting but less so:
- With a 4.5% mortgage instead of a 3.5% mortgage, buying drops from 32% cheaper than renting to 24% cheaper.
- Failing to itemize tax deductions drops buying from being 32% cheaper to 21% cheaper.
- Staying 5 years instead of 7 makes buying 22% cheaper.
- But all three – the 4.5% mortgage, not itemizing, and staying only 5 years – makes buying just 1% cheaper than renting – as the bottom row shows.
In New York, these same differences make buying 3% MORE expensive than renting instead of 31% cheaper. In fact, with a 4.5% mortgage, not itemizing and staying only 5 years, buying is more expensive than renting in Honolulu (by 13%), San Francisco (by 10%), and San Jose (by 4%), too.
In the other 96 of the 100 largest metros, though, buying is still cheaper than renting. In Atlanta, for instance, where buying is 57% cheaper than renting in the best of circumstances (3.5% mortgage, itemizing, and staying 7 years), buying remains 40% cheaper even with a 4.5% mortgage, not itemizing, and staying only 5 years. In fact, today’s low mortgage rates make it financially better to buy even if you only stay put for 3 years in many metros. But buying a home also involves a lot of time, emotional energy and financial risk, so we can’t really recommend buying a home that you plan to live in for just 3 years even if the financial calculation is in favor of buying. Money isn’t everything.
If Buying is So Cheap …
… why isn’t everyone doing it? Home sales are still less than halfway back to normal, and the homeownership rate continues to fall. The big obstacle holding back renters who want to buy is the down payment – even more than getting a mortgage. And keep in mind, in the metros where the cost of buying is less than half of what it would cost to rent over the long term, it still takes years to save enough for a down payment. It may be 56% cheaper to buy than to rent in Denver, for instance, but it takes more than 8 years to save enough for a down payment there. And high unemployment during the recession made it even harder than usual for people to save for a down payment. On top of that, people who lost their homes or took on lots of debt might not qualify for a mortgage. Bottom Line: Buying may beat renting in every major metro by a wide margin, saving consumers thousands of dollars a year, but buying still remains out of reach for many would-be homeowners.
All we need here in Marin County is more homes for sale!
Is there still a “Buying Season”? | Bay Area Real Estate Trends
Over the last few years distressed properties have been coming on the market at a pretty steady rate all year ’round. And being purchased year ’round. This year I saw no big spike in inventories during the spring and I am not seeing the drop off in new listings starting in august that has been usual during my adulthood. For many years there was both a seasonality to listings and prices, with the lowest prices and the lowest number of new listings coming September through November. This seems to be changing, at least in my area. I can speculate about what has changed this pattern, my best guess is that is a combination of the steady flow of distressed properties and the increased transparency that the internet has brought to the Real Estate market.
Share This Post:
I agree with these comments but here in Marin County California, the flow of distressed properties has decreased and I don't see that as the main issue changing the pattern. Our main problem here is lack of inventory which has been the case for about a year and the demand for the good, well priced homes remains quite high. The month supply of inventory for Marin SFR is 2.4 months, has been this level for several months, and a balanced market should see that number closer to 4 months. Buyers are a bit frustrated! I hope our inventory is strong through the fall so that we can get a more balanced market and place our buyers in homes.
Change the Top Google Search Result For Your Name for Free
So this totally sounds like a scam. The fact that Mashable posted this makes me lose a bit of respect for them as well.
Norton can’t guarantee what will show up in SERPS for your name by simply putting your name into a form created by Norton, unless it is paid advertising. There are something like 6 or 8 people with the exact same name as me in the US. Who gets to be on the top then if there is no money involved. Furthermore, using ‘Todd Wasserman’ is a poor example if for no other reason than the fact that he is a writer for Mashable.
Furthermore the article referenced about “me on the web” is very misleading as well. Google doesn’t offer a service to get your name at the top of search nor does it offer a service to remove content that they don’t control. Here is a quote from “me on the web”: “Google doesn’t own the Internet, and we don’t control the content of unrelated sites that appear in our search results. Our search results simply reflect what’s already out there on the web.” You can read more about this by searching “Keeping personal information out of Google.” They even go further to say that it can only be removed from their results when the problematic content is removed from the internet (i.e. removed from the site where it is found).
So, don’t fall for this “service.” The best way to fight unwanted information online is to either contact whoever has posted it and ask them to remove it. Or take control of your online brand by setting up profiles on the major social media platforms as well as with the search engines. This will help bring your name to top and push down the competition and unwanted results.
Now this seems like something I should really learn!
REO inventories drop even as banks hold on to them longer | Inman News
REO inventories drop even as banks hold on to them longer
Foreclosure starts drop in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon
By Inman News, Wednesday, August 15, 2012.http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=19084246">Home and hourglass</a> image via Shutterstock." width="225" />Home and hourglass image via Shutterstock.
Inventories of bank-owned properties fell year over year across four Western states in July even as lenders took longer to get those properties off their books, according to the latest report from real estate data company ForeclosureRadar.
The report covers foreclosure trends in California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington and Oregon. Of the five states, only Oregon did not see its bank-owned inventory drop last month.
In California, the number of homes repossessed by lenders but not yet resold, known as bank-owned or real estate owned (REO) inventory, was down 36.4 percent to 66,000 properties last month. Banks sold REOs in 283 days on average, up from 232 days in July 2011. By contrast, homes bought by third parties at auction, usually investors, were resold in an average 138 days, up from 128 days a year ago.
Nonetheless, there are some signs the pipeline of foreclosures in the Golden State is speeding up a bit. Foreclosure starts rose 12.3 percent year over year in July to 21,175. The average number of days between the initial notice of default and the end of the foreclosure process (with the property either sold to a third party or repossessed by the bank) was 276 days last month (equivalent to about nine months), down from 310 days (about 10 months) a year ago.
Among the California homes in the foreclosure process whose fates were decided in July, most (10,398) experienced a cancellation of the process due to a successful loan modification or short sale, among other possible reasons. The number of properties that went back to the bank as REOs declined 54.2 percent on an annual basis to 4,512. Foreclosure sales to third parties fell 6.6 percent to 3,269.
In Arizona, foreclosure starts fell 28.2 percent year over year in July, to 4,433. Foreclosure cancellations were down 4.4 percent annually, to 3,575. The number of properties that went back to the bank as REOs decreased 33.8 percent year over year, to 2,191. Those sold to third parties rose 3 percent on an annual basis, to 1,630.
Arizona's REO inventory fell 38.1 percent last month, to 14,784. While the time to foreclose declined to an average 136 days from 175 days in July 2011, the time between when the bank took back the property and the property was resold rose a whopping 64.9 percent, to an average 244 days in July. Third parties resold properties in less than half that time, 107 days, up from 94 days a year ago.
Foreclosure activity in Nevada has slowed to a trickle, likely as a result of a Nevada state law that went into effect in October designed to crack down on documentation irregularities by foreclosing lenders.
In July, Nevada foreclosure starts were down 61.8 percent, to 1,618, compared with 4,235 a year ago. Foreclosure cancellations were down to 800, a nearly 60 percent drop from July 2011, but the number of properties becoming REOs dropped even more precipitously, 77.8 percent, to only 394 properties. The number of properties sold to third parties on the courthouse steps fell 34.4 percent, to 429.
The state's REO inventory was down 63.8 percent to 5,541 in July with the number of homes in the foreclosure pipeline dropping by more than half year over year. It took nearly 46 percent longer to foreclose on a property last month than it did in July 2011: an average of 471 days -- the equivalent of nearly 16 months. Banks also took considerably longer to sell homes once they'd repossessed them -- an average 221 days, up from 154 days a year ago. Third parties resold in an average 133 days, up from 98 days.
In Washington state, time to foreclose was virtually unchanged from a year ago in July: 102 days on average. Foreclosure starts were up 13.1 percent to 2,527. Cancellations fell 59.5 percent to 601. The number of properties that went back to the bank as REOs fell 67.1 percent to 595. Foreclosure sales to third parties fell 36 percent to 151.
As in the aforementioned states, REO inventory in Washington fell substantially last month: down 42.2 percent to 6,554. Banks took an average of 249 days to resell an REO property, up 25.9 percent. By contrast, third parties took an average 107 days to resell, down 24.1 percent.
In Oregon, foreclosure starts were down 58.6 percent year over year in July, to 426.
"This is most likely related to both the new Oregon law, SB 1552, that gives homeowners at risk of default, or in default, the right to request mediation to avoid foreclosure, as well as the Oregon Court of Appeals ruling that may force some lenders to proceed judicially with foreclosures," the report said.
"It is still not clear whether this is a temporary decline or part of a move toward judicial foreclosure in Oregon."
Nonetheless, time to foreclose fell to an average of 143 days from 162 days a year ago. Foreclosure cancellations in Oregon fell 11.9 percent on an annual basis last month, to 761 properties. At the same time, the number of properties reverting to REOs rose 93.6 percent year over year, to 395. Sales to third parties rose 73.7 percent, to 66 properties.
In contrast to the other four states in the ForeclosureRadar report, REO inventory in Oregon rose in July, up 39.7 percent to 3,153 properties. Banks also resold REOs at a quicker pace -- an average of 203 days, down from 219 a year ago. Third parties resold in an average of 79 days, up from 66 in July 2011.
Contact Inman News: Copyright 2012 Inman NewsAll rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
We are certainly seeing fewer Foreclosure properties here in Marin County CA.












Nata Metlukh






