Condemned Silicon Valley home sells for $1.23 million | Waccabuc Real Estate

A condemned home in Northern California — with holes in the roof and mildew inside — recently sold for $1.23 million, becoming the latest example of the Bay Area’s tight housing market.

The home in Fremont was originally listed for $1 million but ended up closing at $230,000 over its asking price, listing agent Larry Gallegos told KTVU.

“We had a couple of offers that were very close. Actually, my client, when I first met them, wanted a little bit more than that with the price they had in their mind. But they ended up being happy with this one,” he said.

A condemned home is seen Wednesday, April 18, 2018, in Fremont, Calif. The condemned Northern California house with holes in the roof and mildew in the pipes sold last month for $1.23 million. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

The condemned Northern California house with holes in the roof and mildew in the pipes sold last month for $1.23 million.  (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

The home, located about 35 miles southeast of San Francisco, has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and was condemned in 2013. The two investors who bought the property design green homes, according to Gallegos, and plan to put a 4,000 square-foot “masterpiece” on the lot in Fremont.

Gallegos told the Associated Press the buyers didn’t even enter the house because they had no interest in the actual building but on its location, which could offer a view of the bay from a second story.

Online property records show its assessment is years out of date — its taxable value is listed as $90,000.

David Stark of the Bay East Association of Realtors told KTVU there was “nothing surprising” about the sale.

“It’s a great example of location, location, location,” he said.

Stark told the television station that buying a tear-down to build a dream home reflects a 10-year trend, and that unlike in 2008, current home prices show no indication a crash is coming.

California Home 1

The home in Fremont was condemned in 2013, and has three-bedrooms, and two-bathrooms.  (KTVU)

“People are purchasing homes. They’re purchasing vacant properties like this. The demand is there. The supply isn’t. These prices are sustainable,” he told KTVU.

The median home price in Fremont, which connects to Silicon Valley through several highways and with easy access to San Francisco and Oakland by train, is $1 million as of late February, according to Zillow.com, compared to $1.3 million in San Francisco and $1.28 million in Berkeley.

For residents that have been in the neighborhood for years, the spike in home prices leaves them in a difficult situation.

 

read more…

 

http://www.foxnews.com/real-estate/2018/04/19/condemned-california-home-with-holes-in-roof-mildew-sells-for-1-23-million.html

Housing starts rise | Katonah Real Estate

U.S. homebuilding increased more than expected in March amid a rebound in the construction of multi-family housing units, but weakness in the single-family segment suggested the housing market was slowing.

Housing starts rose 1.9 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.319 million units, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday. Data for February was revised up to show groundbreaking declining to a 1.295 million-unit pace instead of the previously reported 1.236 million units.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast housing starts rising to a pace of 1.262 million units last month. Permits for future home building rose 2.5 percent to a rate of 1.354 million units in March.

U.S. financial markets were little moved by the data.

Despite the rebound in homebuilding last month, activity appears to be slowing. Single-family homebuilding, which accounts for the largest share of the housing market, fell 3.7 percent to a rate of 867,000 units in March.

A survey on Monday showed confidence among homebuilders fell in April for a fourth straight month. Builders complained about a lack of buildable lots and increasing construction material costs. According to the survey, tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Canadian lumber and other imported products were “pushing up prices and hurting housing affordability.”

Confronted with these supply constraints, homebuilding will probably not increase significantly to eradicate an acute shortage of houses on the market, which is pushing up prices and sidelining some first-time home buyers.

Demand for housing is being driven by a robust labor market, which is underpinning the economy. Despite jobs market strength, wage inflation has remained moderate.

Single-family home construction fell in the Northeast, South and West, but rose in the Midwest. Permits to build single-family homes dropped 5.5 percent in March to an 840,000 unit-pace, the lowest level since September 2017.

With permits lagging starts, single-family home construction could slow further.

Starts for the volatile multi-family housing segment surged 14.4 percent to a rate of 452,000 units in March. Permits for the construction of multi-family homes dropped jumped 19 percent to a 514,000 unit-pace.

The outlook for housing inventory was mixed. Housing completions fell 5.1 percent to 1.217 million units last month, with single-family units dropping 4.7 percent. But the stock of housing under construction rose 0.3 percent to 1.125 million, the highest level since July 2007.

Single-family units under construction climbed 0.2 percent to the highest level since June 2008.

Realtors estimate that the housing starts and completions rates need to be in a range of 1.5 million to 1.6 million units per month to plug the inventory gap.

 

 

read more…

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/us-housing-starts-march-2018.html

U.S. construction spending barely rises | Bedford Hills Real Estate

U.S. construction spending rose less than expected in February amid a steep decline in investment in public construction projects.

The Commerce Department said on Monday construction spending edged up 0.1 percent after being unchanged in January.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast construction spending accelerating 0.5 percent in February. Construction spending increased 3.0 percent on a year-on-year basis.

February’s marginal increase in construction spending could have implications for first-quarter gross domestic product growth estimates, which are mostly below a 2 percent annualized rate.

In February, spending on public construction projects tumbled 2.1 percent, almost reversing January’s 2.3 percent rise. February’s drop was the largest since June 2017.

Spending on federal government construction projects plunged 11.9 percent, the biggest decline since October 2004, after surging 13.4 percent in January.

State and local government construction outlays fell 1.0 percent after rising 1.3 percent in January.

Spending on private construction projects increased 0.7 percent after falling 0.7 percent in January. Outlays on private residential projects edged up 0.1 percent to the highest level since January 2007. They rose 0.1 percent in January.

Spending on nonresidential structures rebounded 1.5 percent in February after dropping 1.7 percent in the prior month.

 

read more…

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-construction/u-s-construction-spending-barely-rises-in-february-idUSKCN1H918R?il=0

NYS high taxes versus other states | Pound Ridge Real Estate

Tax season can be stressful for the millions of Americans who owe money to Uncle Sam. Every year, the average U.S. household pays more than $5,700 in federal income taxes, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And while we’re all faced with that same obligation, there is significant difference when it comes to state and local taxes. Taxpayers in the most tax-expensive states, for instance, pay three times more than those in the cheapest states.

Surprisingly, though, low income taxes don’t always mean low taxes as a whole. For example, while the state of Washington’s citizens don’t pay income tax, they still end up spending over 8% of their annual income on sales and excise taxes. Texas residents also don’t pay income tax, but spend 1.86% of their income on real estate taxes, one of the highest rates in the country. Compare these to California, where residents owe a little over 4% of their income in sales and excise taxes, and just 0.79% in real estate tax.

As this year’s tax-filing deadline, April 17, comes closer, it’s fair to wonder which states give their taxpayers more of a break. WalletHub searched for answers by comparing state and local tax rates in the 50 states and the District of Columbia against national medians. To illustrate, we calculated relative income-tax obligations by applying the effective income-tax rates in each state and locality to the average American’s income. Scroll down for the complete ranking, commentary from a panel of tax experts and a full description of our methodology.

 

Main Findings

 

Taxes by State

Overall Rank (1=Lowest) State Effective Total State & Local Tax Rates on Median U.S. Household* Annual State & Local Taxes on Median U.S. Household* % Difference Between State & U.S. Avg.** Annual State & Local Taxes on Median State Household*** Adjusted Overall Rank (based on Cost of Living Index)
1 Alaska 5.67% $3,164 -47.26% $4,353 5
2 Delaware 6.11% $3,407 -43.21% $3,909 1
3 Montana 7.29% $4,066 -32.23% $3,911 4
4 Nevada 7.44% $4,145 -30.90% $4,103 6
5 Wyoming 7.45% $4,155 -30.75% $4,417 2
6 Tennessee 7.98% $4,449 -25.84% $3,667 3
7 Idaho 8.48% $4,730 -21.16% $4,216 7
8 California 8.77% $4,888 -18.51% $7,167 36
9 Florida 8.83% $4,921 -17.97% $4,373 9
10 South Carolina 9.02% $5,030 -16.16% $4,278 11
11 Oregon 9.20% $5,129 -14.51% $5,677 34
12 Utah 9.23% $5,144 -14.25% $5,902 10
13 Colorado 9.27% $5,170 -13.82% $6,100 13
14 Alabama 9.40% $5,241 -12.64% $4,177 8
15 Arizona 9.50% $5,299 -11.67% $4,977 12
16 South Dakota 9.75% $5,439 -9.34% $4,757 16
17 North Dakota 9.84% $5,488 -8.53% $5,493 18
18 District of Columbia 10.00% $5,574 -7.09% $8,811 46
19 New Hampshire 10.27% $5,725 -4.57% $7,221 33
20 Hawaii 10.33% $5,762 -3.96% $8,277 51
21 West Virginia 10.39% $5,791 -3.48% $4,343 19
22 Louisiana 10.39% $5,795 -3.41% $4,757 17
23 Georgia 10.54% $5,876 -2.06% $5,237 14
24 North Carolina 10.64% $5,934 -1.09% $5,167 20
25 Oklahoma 10.75% $5,993 -0.11% $4,848 15
26 New Mexico 10.82% $6,031 0.53% $5,038 23
27 Virginia 10.87% $6,061 1.03% $7,276 27
28 Texas 11.04% $6,156 2.61% $5,347 21
29 Vermont 11.04% $6,158 2.64% $6,800 41
30 Missouri 11.28% $6,291 4.86% $5,435 22
31 Minnesota 11.57% $6,453 7.56% $7,085 31
32 Massachusetts 11.61% $6,470 7.85% $9,390 45
33 Washington 11.68% $6,514 8.57% $8,023 37
34 Maine 11.75% $6,554 9.24% $6,133 42
35 Indiana 11.86% $6,614 10.25% $5,667 26
36 Maryland 11.96% $6,666 11.12% $9,552 44
37 Kentucky 12.06% $6,723 12.06% $5,293 29
38 Mississippi 12.21% $6,810 13.51% $4,954 24
39 Arkansas 12.30% $6,858 14.32% $5,142 25
40 Kansas 12.42% $6,924 15.41% $6,104 28
41 Pennsylvania 12.45% $6,940 15.68% $6,642 38
42 Michigan 12.81% $7,145 19.09% $5,843 30
43 New Jersey 12.87% $7,175 19.59% $11,237 47
44 Iowa 12.92% $7,202 20.05% $6,354 32
45 Ohio 13.09% $7,300 21.68% $6,081 35
46 Wisconsin 13.62% $7,593 26.56% $7,193 40
47 Rhode Island 13.69% $7,634 27.26% $8,697 48
48 New York 13.72% $7,648 27.49% $9,759 50
49 Nebraska 13.83% $7,712 28.55% $6,776 39
50 Connecticut 13.85% $7,720 28.68% $10,419 49
51 Illinois 14.89% $8,299 38.34% $8,330 43

*Assumes “Median U.S. Household” has an annual income of $55,754 (mean third quintile U.S. income); owns a home valued at $184,700 (median U.S. home value); owns a car valued at $24,000 (the highest-selling car of 2017); and spends annually an amount equal to the spending of a household earning the median U.S. income.
**National Average of State and Local Tax Rates = 10.78%
***Assumes “Median State Household” has an annual income equal to the mean third quintile income of the state; owns a home at a value equal to the median of the state; owns a car valued at $24,000 (the highest-selling car of 2017); and spends annually an amount equal to the spending of a household earning the median state income.

Artwork-Best-&-Worst-States-to-be-a-Taxpayer-2018-v1

Red States vs. Blue States

 

State & Local Tax Breakdown

All effective tax rates shown below were calculated as a percentage of the mean third quintile U.S. income of $55,754 and based on the characteristics of the Median U.S. Household*.

State

Effective Real-Estate Tax Rate

Real-Estate Tax Rank ($)

Effective Vehicle Property Tax Rate

Vehicle Property Tax Rank ($)

Effective Income Tax Rate

Income Tax Rank ($)

Effective Sales & Excise Tax Rate

Sales & Excise Tax Rank ($)

Effective Total State & Local Tax Rates on Median U.S. Household*

Alabama 1.42% 2
($791)
0.29% 28
($163)
2.68% 28
($1,494)
5.01% 39
($2,793)
9.40%
Alaska 3.93% 33
($2,190)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.10% 6
($56)
1.65% 4
($918)
5.67%
Arizona 2.56% 16
($1,427)
0.72% 38
($403)
1.57% 13
($873)
4.66% 35
($2,595)
9.50%
Arkansas 2.08% 10
($1,161)
0.43% 29
($239)
2.66% 27
($1,483)
7.13% 50
($3,975)
12.30%
California 2.62% 17
($1,461)
0.28% 27
($156)
1.40% 11
($781)
4.47% 30
($2,491)
8.77%
Colorado 1.90% 7
($1,058)
0.77% 40
($428)
2.54% 25
($1,414)
4.07% 24
($2,269)
9.27%
Connecticut 6.70% 48
($3,733)
1.09% 47
($609)
2.25% 19
($1,255)
3.81% 18
($2,123)
13.85%
Delaware 1.81% 4
($1,009)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.03% 33
($1,689)
1.27% 3
($708)
6.11%
District of Columbia 1.84% 5
($1,026)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.72% 46
($2,072)
4.44% 28
($2,475)
10.00%
Florida 3.38% 27
($1,885)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.00% 1
($0)
5.45% 44
($3,037)
8.83%
Georgia 3.07% 25
($1,712)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.17% 35
($1,768)
4.30% 26
($2,396)
10.54%
Hawaii 0.90% 1
($501)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.85% 47
($2,147)
5.59% 46
($3,115)
10.33%
Idaho 2.52% 13
($1,404)
0.00% 1
($0)
2.13% 16
($1,185)
3.84% 20
($2,141)
8.48%
Illinois 7.69% 50
($4,288)
0.00% 1
($0)
2.82% 30
($1,572)
4.37% 27
($2,439)
14.89%
Indiana 2.88% 23
($1,606)
0.54% 33
($300)
3.71% 45
($2,068)
4.73% 36
($2,640)
11.86%
Iowa 4.95% 38
($2,762)
0.43% 30
($240)
3.03% 34
($1,691)
4.50% 31
($2,509)
12.92%
Kansas 4.63% 37
($2,580)
0.89% 43
($495)
1.78% 15
($994)
5.12% 40
($2,855)
12.42%
Kentucky 2.83% 21
($1,579)
0.52% 31
($292)
4.87% 51
($2,716)
3.83% 19
($2,135)
12.06%
Louisiana 1.68% 3
($934)
0.04% 25
($24)
2.17% 18
($1,212)
6.50% 49
($3,624)
10.39%
Maine 4.38% 35
($2,444)
1.03% 45
($576)
2.54% 26
($1,416)
3.80% 17
($2,117)
11.75%
Maryland 3.64% 31
($2,030)
0.00% 1
($0)
4.30% 49
($2,395)
4.02% 23
($2,241)
11.96%
Massachusetts 4.01% 34
($2,238)
0.97% 44
($540)
3.67% 44
($2,046)
2.95% 6
($1,646)
11.61%
Michigan 5.66% 43
($3,158)
0.25% 26
($142)
3.32% 37
($1,850)
3.58% 11
($1,995)
12.81%
Minnesota 3.86% 32
($2,155)
0.56% 35
($311)
2.94% 32
($1,640)
4.21% 25
($2,347)
11.57%
Mississippi 2.64% 19
($1,470)
1.46% 49
($813)
2.34% 21
($1,303)
5.78% 47
($3,224)
12.21%
Missouri 3.30% 26
($1,842)
1.08% 46
($600)
2.91% 31
($1,625)
3.99% 22
($2,224)
11.28%
Montana 2.82% 20
($1,570)
0.55% 34
($307)
2.76% 29
($1,541)
1.16% 2
($646)
7.29%
Nebraska 6.05% 45
($3,371)
0.69% 36
($383)
2.53% 24
($1,410)
4.57% 32
($2,548)
13.83%
Nevada 2.56% 15
($1,425)
0.76% 39
($423)
0.53% 8
($295)
3.59% 12
($2,002)
7.44%
New Hampshire 7.24% 49
($4,038)
0.77% 41
($432)
0.60% 9
($335)
1.65% 5
($920)
10.27%
New Jersey 7.96% 51
($4,437)
0.00% 1
($0)
1.40% 11
($781)
3.51% 9
($1,957)
12.87%
New Mexico 2.53% 14
($1,408)
0.00% 1
($0)
2.16% 17
($1,204)
6.13% 48
($3,419)
10.82%
New York 5.48% 42
($3,057)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.49% 40
($1,945)
4.75% 37
($2,647)
13.72%
North Carolina 2.84% 22
($1,581)
0.54% 32
($299)
3.62% 43
($2,018)
3.65% 15
($2,035)
10.64%
North Dakota 3.49% 28
($1,947)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.78% 10
($432)
5.58% 45
($3,108)
9.84%
Ohio 5.18% 40
($2,890)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.34% 38
($1,862)
4.57% 33
($2,548)
13.09%
Oklahoma 2.94% 24
($1,638)
0.00% 1
($0)
2.44% 23
($1,360)
5.37% 42
($2,994)
10.75%
Oregon 3.53% 30
($1,970)
0.00% 1
($0)
4.74% 50
($2,640)
0.93% 1
($519)
9.20%
Pennsylvania 5.14% 39
($2,867)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.90% 48
($2,174)
3.40% 8
($1,898)
12.45%
Rhode Island 5.46% 41
($3,047)
2.05% 51
($1,144)
2.30% 20
($1,282)
3.88% 21
($2,162)
13.69%
South Carolina 1.89% 6
($1,056)
1.17% 48
($651)
2.35% 22
($1,310)
3.61% 14
($2,013)
9.02%
South Dakota 4.39% 36
($2,446)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.00% 1
($0)
5.37% 41
($2,992)
9.75%
Tennessee 2.47% 12
($1,376)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.10% 6
($56)
5.41% 43
($3,017)
7.98%
Texas 6.16% 46
($3,435)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.00% 1
($0)
4.88% 38
($2,720)
11.04%
Utah 2.22% 11
($1,240)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.35% 39
($1,869)
3.65% 15
($2,035)
9.23%
Vermont 5.89% 44
($3,285)
0.00% 1
($0)
1.61% 14
($896)
3.55% 10
($1,977)
11.04%
Virginia 2.63% 18
($1,467)
1.74% 50
($971)
3.49% 41
($1,947)
3.00% 7
($1,675)
10.87%
Washington 3.52% 29
($1,962)
0.00% 1
($0)
0.00% 1
($0)
8.16% 51
($4,552)
11.68%
West Virginia 1.94% 8
($1,082)
0.71% 37
($398)
3.29% 36
($1,833)
4.44% 29
($2,478)
10.39%
Wisconsin 6.46% 47
($3,602)
0.00% 1
($0)
3.56% 42
($1,985)
3.60% 13
($2,006)
13.62%
Wyoming 2.03% 9
($1,130)
0.77% 41
($432)
0.00% 1
($0)
4.65% 34
($2,593)
7.45%

*Assumes “Median U.S. Household” has an income equal to $55,754 (mean third quintile U.S. income); owns a home valued at $184,700 (median U.S. home value); owns a car valued at $24,000 (the highest-selling car of 2017); and spends annually an amount equal to the spending of a household earning the median U.S. income.

 

Ask the Experts: Best Tax Advice

For more insight into the impact state and local taxes have on migration and public policy, we turned to a panel of leading tax and policy experts. You can check out their bios and responses below.

  1. Do people usually consider taxes when deciding where to live? Should they?
  2. How can state and local tax policy be used to attract new residents and stimulate growth?
  3. Which states have particularly complicated tax rules for families?
  4. How has the total amount families pay in state and local taxes changed as a result of the new tax code?
  5. Which states have the best mix of taxes and government services?
  6. Should people pay taxes based on where they live or where they work?

read more…

 

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

Home sales rise 3% | Bedford Real Estate

Sales of previously owned houses in the US jumped 3 percent mom to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.54 million in February of 2018 from 5.38 million in January. It compares with market expectations of a 0.5 percent rise to 5.4 million. Sales of single family houses went up 4.2 percent to 4.96 million, following a 3.8 percent drop in January while sales of condos shrank 6.5 percent to 0.580 million after a 1.6 percent rise. The median house price increased to $241,700 from $240,800 in January and the months’ worth of supply was steady at 3.4. In addition, the number of houses available in the market increased to 1.590 million. Year-on-year, existing home sales went up 1.1 percent. Existing Home Sales in the United States averaged 3925.48 Thousand from 1968 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 7250 Thousand in September of 2005 and a record low of 1370 Thousand in March of 1970.

 

Calendar GMT Actual Previous Consensus TEForecast
2018-01-24 03:00 PM Existing Home Sales 5.57M 5.78M 5.7M 5.5M
2018-02-21 03:00 PM Existing Home Sales 5.38M 5.56M 5.6M 5.63M
2018-03-21 02:00 PM Existing Home Sales 5.54M 5.38M 5.4M 5.45M
2018-04-23 02:00 PM Existing Home Sales 5.54M
2018-05-24 02:00 PM Existing Home Sales
2018-05-24 02:00 PM Existing Home Sales MoM

 

United States Housing Last Previous Highest Lowest Unit
Building Permits 1298.00 1377.00 2419.00 513.00 Thousand [+]
Housing Starts 1236.00 1329.00 2494.00 478.00 Thousand [+]
New Home Sales 593.00 643.00 1389.00 270.00 Thousand [+]
Pending Home Sales -3.80 0.40 30.90 -24.30 percent [+]
Existing Home Sales 5540.00 5380.00 7250.00 1370.00 Thousand [+]
Construction Spending 0.00 0.80 5.90 -4.80 percent [+]
Housing Index 0.30 0.50 1.20 -1.80 percent [+]
Nahb Housing Market Index 70.00 71.00 78.00 8.00 [+]
Mortgage Rate 4.68 4.69 10.56 3.47 percent [+]
Mortgage Applications -1.10 0.90 49.10 -38.80 percent [+]
Case Shiller Home Price Index 204.45 204.11 206.52 100.00 Index Points [+]
Home Ownership Rate 64.20 63.90 69.20 62.90 percent [+]

 

read more…

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/existing-home-sales

So California prices keep rising | Bedford Corners Real Estate

Southern California home prices jumped 10.2% in February compared with a year earlier, while sales remained nearly flat as the region and the state grapple with a shortage of homes for sale.

The median price across the six-county region clocked in at $506,750 last month, real estate data firm CoreLogic said Wednesday. That’s up from a revised $495,500 in January but below an all-time high of $509,500 in December.

It’s not unusual for the median — the point at which half the homes sold for more and half for less — to fluctuate month to month, and prices are up solidly from last year. In Los Angeles County, the median hit a new all-time high of $580,000 in February, up 10.5% from a year earlier.

Elsewhere in Southern California, median prices increased as well.

  • Orange County: The price tied a record of $710,000 and was 10.1% higher than a year earlier.
  • Riverside County: The price rose 8.7% to $375,000.
  • San Bernardino County: The price leaped 16% to $336,500.
  • San Diego County: The price rose 8.7% to $535,000.
  • Ventura County: The price rose 6.7% to $555,000.

A growing economy and a shortage of homes listed for sale are helping drive the increases. That’s spurring a political debate about whether state government should restrict local authorities’ ability to limit housing construction.

California, largely because of its housing costs, has the nation’s highest poverty rate after accounting for cost of living. Many cities, including Los Angeles, have proved too expensive for some low-income residents, causing them to move away or end up in tents that line streets.

According to online real estate brokerage Redfin, there was less than a four-month supply of homes for sale in every Southern California county last month. That means there would be no properties left at the end of that time frame if no new listings popped up and sales continued at their current pace.

Real estate agents generally consider a six-month supply of homes to be a balanced market, in which neither sellers nor buyers have an advantage. Lower supply gives an edge to the sellers. In Los Angeles and Orange counties, inventory stood at 3.1 months.

Across the region, sales rose 0.6% in February compared with a year earlier.

Exacerbating the supply shortage, rock-bottom mortgage rates have supercharged the market in recent years, enabling borrowers to afford more than they otherwise could as long as they can scrape together a down payment.

Rates remain low historically, although they have shot up this year because investors fear inflation will pick up.

That uptick essentially makes homes more expensive. But some real estate agents say that it hasn’t hurt demand yet — instead, they say, it’s is spurring families to buy, for fear that rates will just keep rising.

The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 4.44% last week, up from 3.95% at the beginning of the year, according to Freddie Mac.

read more…

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-home-prices-20180321-story.html

NYC housing survey | Chappaqua Real Estate

Ask New Yorkers and they’ll tell you that our city is expensive. Housing costs are high. And sometimes it feels like everything is going up but your paycheck.

With that in mind, StreetEasy.com surveyed 1,000 New Yorkers across all five boroughs to get an idea of what people were thinking in terms of their real estate priorities, plans, and preferences.

StreetEasy senior economist Grant Long says half of New Yorkers find the city to be unaffordable, but only 1 in 6 say their own home is unaffordable.

Budget is the No. 1 real estate concern for New Yorkers, followed by space. But they couldn’t care less about modern amenities. The survey found that, at the end of the day, doormen and in-building gyms had no impact on people’s home-buying decisions, Grant says. They’re not concerned about those perks at all.

According to the survey, New York City millennials might finally be ready to settle down: 1 in 3 millennials is considering buying a home in the next 12 months.

Grant says they’re either settling down or starting a family for the first time. A lot of them are building up the savings required to afford a home so it makes sense, he says, that they’re now looking to capitalize on the home-buying trend.

But with home prices so high in the city, renting might not be such a bad idea. Grant says the average home price in Manhattan right now is about $1 million.

With rent growth slowing down and a lot of new rental construction, you can find a lot of deals right now. So that remains a really attractive option for New Yorkers.

 

read more…

 

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-housing-priorities-survey

Pending home sales drop | Cross River Real Estate

Contracts to buy previously owned homes in the United States shrank 4.1 percent year-on-year in February of 2018, following an upwardly revised 4 percent drop in January. It is the biggest decline since June of 2014 as contracts fell in all main regions: Northeast (-5.1 percent), Midwest (-9.5 percent), South (-1.5 percent) and the West (-2.2 percent). Compared to the previous month, pending home sales increased 3.1 percent, rebounding from an upwardly revised 5 percent fall in January and beating forecasts of a 2.1 percent gain. Pending Home Sales in the United States averaged 1.03 percent from 2002 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 30.90 percent in October of 2009 and a record low of -24.30 percent in April of 2011.

 

Calendar GMT Actual Previous Consensus TEForecast
2018-01-31 03:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY 0.5% 0.8% -0.2% -0.3%
2018-02-28 03:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY -3.8% 0.4% 0.4%
2018-03-28 02:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY -4.1% -4% -0.2% 0.5%
2018-04-30 02:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY -4.1% -2.11%
2018-05-31 02:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY -1.60%
2018-06-27 02:00 PM Pending Home Sales YoY -1.35%

 

read more…

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/pending-home-sales#alerts

NYC’s oldest bathhouse | Armonk Real Estate

Google Maps

After over 40 years of abandonment, the city’s first public bathhouse may be reactivated for public use. At the Lower East Side’s Community Board 3 subcommittee for parks meeting on March 15, the Parks Department, who controls the bathhouse site, discussed issuing a Request for Expressions of Interest for the site, the Lo-Down reports. The RFEI is intended to get the ball rolling on redeveloping the property, which has been closed to the public since 1975.

The Parks Department hasn’t advanced any ideas about how it would like the site to be reactivated, but the Lower East Side community has made its wishes clear that it wants to see the former bathhouse become a community center. But after sitting unused for so many years, the building may be beyond repair. A 2001 inspection of the site at 326 Delancey Street by the New York City Housing Authority, who controls the Baruch Houses surrounding the property, determined that the building suffers from serious structural insufficiencies as well as mold and flooding in the basement.

The most likely course of action, a parks representative told the subcommittee last week, would be to demolish the building at a cost of $2 million. “Based on the 2001 inspection, we believe that’s probably what needs to be done,” Deputy Parks Commissioner Alyssa Konon said of demolishing the building. “However, if somebody wants to respond with some ideas around either restoring the building, or building on the historical elements there, of course, we’re open to that.”

Baruch Houses resident and founder of Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) Damaris Reyes suggested creating a stakeholder committee that could be designated by the community board that would help guide the property’s redevelopment with meaningful input from the community. “You could go a long way towards soothing some of the fears and making sure that the community is happy with the (outcome),” Reyes said.

Once applications are received through the RFEI, which is expected to go out in three weeks, the department will return to CB3 to vet the options. If the proposals are warranting, a Request For Proposals will be issued.

read more…

 

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/3/19/17139066/new-york-baruch-houses-bathhouse-lower-east-side

 

3D printed homes for the poor | North Salem Real Estate

Imagine building a stronger, cheaper home in as little as 12 hours. That goal now appears feasible with the help of a 3-D printer. A 3-D-printed home was unveiled in Austin, Texas, during the South by Southwest (SXSW) technology conference and music festival this week.

“So I’m standing in front of the first permanent 3-D-printed home in America,” said Jason Ballard, co-founder of Austin-based ICON, a construction company that uses robotics, software and advanced materials to build houses.

The two-bedroom prototype contains space that can be used as a living/dining area, as well as three rooms that can be converted into bedrooms, a study or a bathroom, depending on where the home is located and the resources available. The homes will be anywhere from 56 square meters to 74 square meters in size.

At 35 square meters, the prototype home was successfully printed in a neighborhood near downtown Austin during a rainstorm, as strong winds kicked up dust in the area, according to Ballard.

3-D-printed homes for the poor

The goal is to print homes in developing countries during extreme weather conditions and amid the unpredictability of having electricity and water.

“We work with really the poorest families in the world that don’t have shelters,” said Brett Hagler, founder and chief executive officer with the nonprofit organization New Story. It aims to bring 3-D-printed homes first to Latin America and then expand to other developing countries. Hagler notes that using innovation and new technology will change how homes are manufactured to meet the need for housing around the world.

“The magnitude of the problem that we face is so big, it’s about a billion people that don’t have one of life’s most basic human needs, and that’s safe shelter,” he said.

“What we really need for the size of the issue is exponential growth,” he added, “and that has to come through significantly decreasing cost, increasing speed while doing that without sacrificing quality.”

ICON says the 3-D printer is 4.5-meters tall, 9 meters wide and made of lightweight aluminum. ICON created the device, software and unique mortar material it describes as “proprietary small-aggregate cementitious material” used to print the house. The 3-D printer is transportable because homes are printed on site. Ballard said he can imagine having many 3-D printers scattered around the world making homes.

“It’s actually a lot more simple to build a printer than it is to build a house,” Ballard said.

This rendering shows how a 3-D printer can print homes and create communities. A construction company based in Austin, Texas, and New Story, a nonprofit that aims to end homelessness globally, have teamed up to provide safe, permanent shelters.
This rendering shows how a 3-D printer can print homes and create communities. A construction company based in Austin, Texas, and New Story, a nonprofit that aims to end homelessness globally, have teamed up to provide safe, permanent shelters.

Faster and cheaper

“We ran this printer at about a quarter speed to print this house, and we were able to complete the house in less than 48 hours of print time,” Ballard said.

At full speed it could be as little as 12 hours to print a house. Building a traditional New Story home would take 15 days.

“Instead of it taking about a year to build a community, we could do it in just a few months,” Hagler said.

A 3-D-printed home is also less expensive.

“Traditional style on a New Story home is about $6,500 per home. We believe over time, we can get the new home below $4,000,” Hagler said.

Ballard said the material used to print the home is another highlight to this innovative way of building the property.

“We believe the comfort and the energy dynamics of this building are actually going to be once again better than conventional buildings. These houses should be more comfortable and they should require less energy to stay comfortable.”

Ballard said that a 3-D-printed house, “is a complete paradigm shift that has unbelievable advantages in speed, affordability, resiliency, sustainability, waste reduction, you name it. This isn’t just a slight improvement. This is a revolutionary improvement that I think is going to be quite disruptive in the industry.”

This new building technology will be brought to the world’s poorest and underserved first. New Story is working with local nonprofits, governments and families to help fund these homes. The nonprofit plans to start printing homes in El Salvador this year.

The goal is to create permanent 3-D-printed homes and communities in developing countries and beyond that will last for generations.

 

read more…

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/three-d-printed-house-quick-cheap-solution-poor-worldwide/4301324.html?trk1&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=2018-03-16&utm_source=archives