Archive for the ‘Contra Costa County’ Category
July 3, 2008
If you bought your Contra Costa County house in 2005 or later, the chances are better than 50-50 that you’re underwater. What does that mean? It means the house is worth less than the mortgage, which effectively means you can’t move until prices come back up without losing money…usually a lot of money.
About two out of three East Bay homes that were bought since 2005 are now worth less than the mortgages on the houses, according to a Zillow.com study. In Contra Costa County, an average of 76 percent of the homes bought during those years now suffer from negative equity, the study said.
The good news is that if you can afford your mortgage payments, and you don’t have to move, you can just hang on until prices come back up. And though the landscape is rife with gloom and doom these days, there’s no doubt that in the long run, that will happen in the Bay Area, this best of all possible worlds.
So for some people, the best possible approach is not to worry their pretty little heads about it. Two homeowners interviewed by the Contra Costa Times is taking that approach:
“We’re probably a little upside down now,” said Jeffrey Vandevoir, who owns a Brentwood home that he and his wife, Sara, bought in 2005. Despite the travails, he is determined to pay the mortgage. “We’re going to meet our obligations,” Vandevoir said. “We plan to stick it out.”
Russell LaClair and his wife, Janet, bought their Livermore home for about $600,000 in 2005, according to Alameda County records. An estimate from Zillow.com suggests homes in the vicinity of the LaClair residence are now worth $522,000.
“I know that our house is not worth what we paid when we bought it,” LaClair said about his home. He added, “It is what it is. We made a choice that has left us with a high payment.”
Of course, where the real pain comes in is if you got an adjustable mortgage and soon will be facing payments (or are already confronted with them) that you can’t afford, or if, God forbid, for some reason you should have to move. If it’s for a new job with higher pay, sucking up the loss hurts a lot less. In other cases, not so much.
Readers, are any of you underwater, hanging tight and waiting for the storm to pass? Anyone finding themselves in a position of having to sell and hating it? How long before these homes at least catch up to their mortgages? (Underwater photo: wili_hybrid)
July 2, 2008
On March 30, my fellow blogger David Gordon was posting about a series of bizarre ads the National Association of Realtors was running about what a great time it is to buy a house. The timing seemed, at the least, unfortunate and at the worst, misleading.
Over on the Square Feet blog, Sue McAllister commented Thursday about the naked, indeed bleeding, honesty of various industry spokesmen and associations at a homebuilding trade show in San Francisco’s Moscone Center the day before.
“We have laid off 60 percent of our workforce; it’s been absolutely devastating.” said the chief executive of national homebuilder Pulte Homes. “There’s no question the industry is in dire shape,” said the head of the California Building Industry Association.
Now, that’s the kind of truth-telling that gives an organization credibility. If they’re gonna be this brutal about the raw shape things are in, I’ll believe them when they start saying we’ve reached the bottom, or things are getting better, or whatever.
And by God, John Burns of the CBIA did have a note of hope. One slide from his presentation: “The day is coming when you will make a lot of $$$ again.” Anybody got a guess as to when? (Photo: aussiegall)
June 29, 2008
I am getting skeert. Frequent commenter David, who knows a whole heck of a lot about the real estate market, recently posted a comment, “Basically, now we have home prices and stocks that have gone nowhere for the better part of a decade. Oh, well. So much for that “wealth building” and then people wonder why Americans “don’t save.” Ain’t much to it, apparently.”
This worries me, because David knows what he’s talking about and, you know? He does not sound exactly optimistic in this comment, eh? I imagine perhaps his remark might have something to do with the fact that a new Harvard University study says the housing market is in its lowest slump since World War II and still has a year to go.
If unemployment worsens, there may be “forced sales” that will compete with foreclosures and drive prices down further, said Daniel McCue, a research analyst for Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. Ducky.
The economy is “shaping into a perfect storm” of tight mortgage credit, shrinking credit card limits, higher unemployment and prices for consumer staples, says Oakland’s Center for Responsible Lending. Tell me about it. I may not be able to continue eating my beloved cherries because they are $5.99 a pound! I’ll have to live on actual metal staples if this continues!
Though I’m okay and my house isn’t even underwater (yet), across the street and two houses down there’s an auction sign on a house, which should help drop prices even more. What do you think, readers? I guess the idea is to do as with the stock market, take a deep breath and take the long view?
While we’re doing that, for all you smart, responsible buyers out there, here are some juicy properties in hot, happenin’ Walnut Creek whose prices dropped recently. Enjoy!
2477 Buena Vista Avenue, Walnut Creek: 4 bedrooms/2 baths, 1,414 sq ft, was $549,000, now $499,000. It’s in the hills! It has a fireplace! Single-family detached with a really pretty lawn, at least in the photo, dual pane windows. Original price $799,000. Oof.
2611 Oak Road #A, Walnut Creek: 2 bedrooms/2 baths, 1,208 sq ft, was $425,000, now $399,950. You guys, it’s a condo but it’s two blocks to BART, a characteristic that is going to shine brighter and brighter as gas prices around the pay top $4.50 a gallon for regular. (Which they are doing right now.) HOA dues $277.
2709 Oak Road #P, Walnut Creek: 2 bedrooms/1 bath, 878 sq ft, was $350,000, now $340,000. This is a small condo, but has nice amenities. It’s a penthouse with a vaulted ceiling, woodburning tile fireplace and overlooks the pool. HOA dues $314.
2675 Overlook Drive, Walnut Creek: 5 bedrooms/3.5 baths, 2,644 sq ft, was $799,000, now $775,000. This is a single-family dwelling, a ranch style house (not my personal fave, but whatev) with a wrap-around porch, slab granite and views of Mt. Diablo. So prices are coming down, even at the high-ish end, it seems. (Photo of Mt. Diablo: zeveck)
June 27, 2008
Forget your psychic friend and magic 8 ball. CurbedSF has it that today’s savvy home hunters leave it to programmers to come up with a way to tell them, via scientific survey, whether a neighborhood is a good fit or not. Indeed, Hoodeo is the “neighborhood match maker,” your online connector of human to ‘hood.
So I gave it a spin- God knows I am having a hard time finding a place I can afford in SF; maybe Hoodeo knows something I don’t. Among its questions, the survey asks me if I wanted to stay in this city or if I would go anywhere. Since my job and friends and life are here, I actually do want to stay here, but just for fun, I chose “will go anywhere.” Hoodeo also smartly inquires how much I make and how much I “want to spend” on my next home, as well as how big I want it, cleverly reminding me that those square feet I desire will also have to be cleaned (I picked 1000 square feet, and since I had the option, 2 beds and at least 1.5 baths since I share with a man whom occasionally disgusts me). I decided the fair amount to pay, based on what we make, and that we would like to have money left over to travel and buy beer and such, would be 400 to 450K.
I should be, according to Hoodeo, living in Philidelphia. Wait, but you didn’t ask if I like sub-zero winters! I don’t!
Back to Hoodeo then, this time insisting on staying in the Bay Area. If I am to spend what I want to spend, I will need to think about Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, or– if I want the city proper– Bayview. Wait, you didn’t ask if I like gunfire in my front yard. I don’t!
Needless to say, Hoodeo has left some poignant questions off the list in determining if a ‘hood will fit you. For instance, nowhere am I asked what I think of On Deadline’s report that
Members of the Presidential Memorial Commission tell the San Francisco Chronicle that they’ve already collected 8,500 signatures on a petition to put the proposal before voters this November. If it passes, the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant would be renamed [the “George W. Bush Sewage Plant.]
To which I say: I am home.
June 25, 2008
In an earlier knifecatcher post, folks were speculating that places like Antioch and Pittsburg may be reaching bottom. In support of this theory, there is currently a house for sale in Pittsburg for $120,000.
Not only that, there are 134 homes for sale here priced between $135,000 and $150,000. As some of our smart commenters have said recently, this could be a great time for a sweet deal, whether as investment property or if you find a ‘hood you could live in. Here’s a sampling of them, plus the infamous $120,000 property, for all you bottom feeders. (Photo of big ol’ elephant bottom: Peter Becker.)
881 East 11th Avenue, Pittsburg: 3 bedrooms/1.5 baths, 1,304 sq ft. $120,000, dropped from $125,000. This is a single family detached dwelling, not a condo, believe it or not, and of course is a foreclosure. Granite countertops, tiled backsplash in the kitchen, though the listing does note that it needs new carpets and a paint job.
345 West 11th Street, Pittsburg: 2 bedrooms/1 bath, 940 sq ft, $134,900. Single-family detached bungalow, foreclosure. Looks clean and new inside in the photos and the listing says most everything inside is new. The outside is pink, gaaaah.
309 9th Street East, Pittsburg: 3 bedrooms/1 bath, 1,332 sq ft, $144,900. Single-family dwelling and bank-owned. Let’s give props to the listing agent, who describes the property as needing a lot of work and “not for the faint of heart.” Still, at $109 a square foot, a DIY-er could do far worse.
346 East 8th Street, Pittsburg: 3 bedrooms/1 bath, 1,306 sq ft, $149,900. This too is a single-family, bank-owned dwelling, but in far bettah shape than the one on 9th Street. In fact, it looks lovely. Granite tile and counters and a very cute living room with a built-in china cabinet.
June 24, 2008
…if you are trying to buy in many parts of the Bay Area. One of our readers has a super-high credit score and great credit history, yet was denied a loan last week when trying to buy investment property in west
Oakland.
For those of you who are newcomers to the mortgage game, banks and other lenders decide how much to loan you or whether or not to loan to you at all based on a number of factors, including credit history.
If you’re looking to buy a house, it’s a good idea to learn your credit score in case you might have some inaccurate information in your file that could jeopardize you getting the best loan. You can learn your score from Equifax, among other places.
Our reader (who asked that her name not be used, since she’s sharing so much financial info) made an offer on a foreclosed property in west Oakland last week. The property had languished on the market for six months, first listing at $370,000 in January and then dropping to $260,000 in April. The reader made an offer of $210,000 that was accepted by the seller.
But when our reader tried to get a loan, despite having a phenomenally high FICO score of 760 (a perfect score is 850, which essentially nobody has), she was denied. This investor bought her first house in 1993 and has never had a late payment; owns three other properties and has never paid late on them, and made $60,000 in 2006. However, she took time off to finish a book in 2007 and that’s why she’s being denied.
Readers, has this happened to you? Or do you know someone it’s happened to? (Photo: kyz)
June 23, 2008
Wahoo! Those of us who live in the Bay Area won’t need to duck and cover this fall after all. Plans to spray pesticides over the area to combat the light brown apple moth were canceled Thursday, after months of protests from folks who were not wild about the idea of being deluged with pesticides from above, especially because hundreds of residents of other areas that underwent the spraying reported getting sick. Secretary of Food and Agriculture A.G. Kawamura announced Thursday that sterile moths will be released to disrupt mating cycles instead.
Why didn’t they just do that in the FIRST place, dude? Instead of a whole bunch of us having to protest loud and long? Oh, well, the news is good anyway, especially for those of us who have respiratory problems and were dreading the spraying. (Photo: California Dept. of Food and Agriculture.)
June 19, 2008
Reader Colin good-naturedly accused me of being a knifecatcher awhile back when I said this is a good time to buy. “Just because you are getting a better deal than folks who bought in ‘02 thru ‘06, doesn’t mean you are getting a good deal now,” Colin said. “Prices have further to fall out there in relation to historic norms versus income/rents, imo.”
Knifecatchers are people who buy in a rapidly declining market (thanks, Colin, Red and dg). The term comes from the foolishness of thinking you can catch a knife without getting cut (thanks, Nadya Peek, for photo of knife cut).
Turns out there’s considerable anti-knifecatcher sentiment out there in the blogosphere, with one commenter on the amazing Irvine Housing Blog (their tagline: “chronicling the seventh circle of real estate hell since September 2006.” Gotta love these people) saying, “Only a deranged knifecatcher would pay $256.7k for this dump.” That’s just one example.
dg pointed out that the reason for the scorn could be because prices don’t just drop, kablooey, then quickly start going up again. They tend to stay low for quite a while, giving smart buyers ample time to move in for the kill.
Well, if the market is still declining, how long must a buyer wait before earning the dreaded title of “knifecatcher?” How soon will it be possible to buy in the Bay Area in full confidence that you’re getting the best deal, the lowest price? Let’s just focus on the East Bay here, since SF is such a different real estate microclimate. What do you think?
June 17, 2008
According to an article in The New York Times, foreclosures are near or at the bottom in the United States. Oh, just one thing: it’s a 1992 article. Some very interesting parallels between then and now:
“The foreclosures reflect the mortgage policy of the mid-80’s. They were allowed to liberally get large mortgages, but now the economic pressures for many, brought on by the recession—such as loss of jobs, loss of income—make it impossible for a lot of them to come up with their mortgage payments,” Roger H. Sirlin, a lawyer in Mamaroneck who represented the lenders in the foreclosures, told the Times.
Sound familiar?
“Many banks are now willing to avoid foreclosure,” he said, “by restructuring mortgages that had originated at a much higher interest rate and by attaching amounts in arrears to the end of the mortgage.” (So why can’t they do this now—attach the amount in arrears to the end of the mortgage? Or is that being done and I just haven’t read about it?)
‘Lenders are more than willing to work with delinquents,” Mr. Sirlin said, “because the last thing they want is to own residential real estate.” When possible, they favor work-outs, which means loans tailored to individual needs. It’s in the banks’ interest to help borrowers avoid foreclosure.
If this is the case, smart readers, why are so many of you indignant about such arrangements? Isn’t it better for the economy? Help me out here. (Photo: Mike Licht.)
June 16, 2008
Someday, we’ll all look back at this period in disbelief—a time when everyone knew that the “foreclosure theme song” meant the chirping of a neglected smoke alarm with low batteries in an abandoned home; and the term “foreclosure bus” referred to busloads of potential buyers visiting such homes, calmly viewing kicked-in doors and abandoned childrens’ toys without a flicker of concern.
Cindi Hagley, a stand-up comic and broker-associate in San Ramon, provides trivia contests, prizes (such as A’s tickets and vacations) and “get to know you” games on her “luxury limo bus” tour of Tri-Valley foreclosures, the San Francisco Chronicle tells us. How fun for the participants as they prepare to cash in on others’ misfortune. Okay, okay, I am happy for those hardworking, thrifty renters who can finally buy a house, I really am. But I feel bad for the children (and abandoned pets) in these scenarios, forced to leave homes and schools they like, their lives disrupted for reasons they can’t understand.
So, having shed a tear for those whose loss is our gain, here’s a list of bank-owned foreclosures in Martinez. This is a city worth considering; it’s home to a Shell Oil refinery, and the smell is perceptible in some parts of town, but not all, so don’t necessarily cross it off your list for that reason. (Photo: respres on flickr.)
920 Walnut Street, Martinez: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath; $269,900. (Square footage not given).
320 Robinson Street, Martinez: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1,184 sq ft; $275,000; $232 per sq ft.
1413 Court Street, Martinez: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1,078 sq ft; $335,000; $312 per sq ft.
730 Palm Avenue, Martinez: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1,116 sq ft; $350,000; $314 per sq ft.
