Sunday, May 18, 2008

Recently Bought? Or Sold? Why?

There's little doubt that our local RE market has changed recently.

MBC's perception is that the go-go times ended somewhere in 2006, roughly, though prices have only recently begun to degrade noticeably. (More on that later this week, with more DataQuick charts.)

If you're an MBC reader, you've got an above-average level of interest in the state of the local market, and its future. But we know the homeownership status of MBC readers varies widely.

For instance, in comments and private email, we hear from people who are longtime local homeowners, others who are actively looking, folks who have decided to wait, and plenty who have bought or sold homes recently.

So where do you fit? If you have bought or sold a home within the last 2 years, we're particularly interested in your reasoning. Did you perceive a change in the market, and did that play any role in your decisions? Be as specific as you can.

Please vote in the poll, too. There are 4 options: Tell us whether you have, in the past 2 years (May 2006-present), bought a home in MB, sold a home in MB, or stayed put in MB (specify renting or owning). If you both bought and sold in this period, go by the last transaction (i.e., a move-up seller/buyer would be a buyer).

Privately, we've heard from recent buyers of a Sand Section townhome, who told MBC they're "super happy" with their purchase of a "nice home in a great location" after more than 2 years of searching in their price range. We've heard the inside story on some recent short sales. We've heard from people searching for lots and buying new homes at a substantial discount.

In comments at MBC, particularly, you'll hear from people who have sold homes recently – sometimes a personal residence, in other cases a second home in MB held for some time as an investment. Many attribute their decisions to the change in the market. Some are profit-takers, others, perhaps, market-timers hoping to buy back in at lower prices some day.

Whatever your situation, please offer parts of your story here. And please consider creating a nickname via "Name/URL" – no URL necessary – just so we can track and refer to your comments here on this post.

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

Staying put, but very interested in buying. Might buy in near term and have been very interested in a few homes, but clearly there's a lot on uncertainty. I'll probably be more serious after the election. I am also guessing there are many like me (ie qualified buyers just waiting on the sidelines), so I am guessing there will be a recovery once we all jump back in and start competing for good homes.

BTW, You should have just named this "COTC vs. Huggy Part 8,000"

The poll should be how many comments by noon. I am guessing 50.

Anonymous said...

Sold our MB home in the last two years, now just renting and holding tight while we wait to buy again. We were going to be move-up buyers but decided to wait a little when it looked like the market was heading south. Have to say, it sure feels good to be in our current position given what's happened/happening since we sold.

My guess for how many comments by noon: 35.

Anonymous said...

Bought in 2001, and everyone thought we were crazy for buying a two bedroom and one bath home for over $500,000.00. "How could prices ever be greater then $500,000.00 for a cottage," people would ask. We paid full price and wrote the offer before the broker's open. Real Estate was nuts back then.

After 6 years, some significant remodeling we sold this home in 2007, and made a nice little profit (over double what we paid). Rented for 9 months and finally came eye-to-eye with a seller.

What made us finally jump was the right home under the right terms. While it is interesting to look at the charts and all of the data, there are just some things in the market that can change without any warning, which makes trying to time this market extremely difficult. Still look at redfin, the Beach Reporter, and this website, and haven't regretted the decision to sell, rent and then buy. Got a great rent, and found a seller that was, shall we say, "extremely motivated."

Anonymous said...

Out of the range of your poll, but I sold a little over 3 years ago in the spring of 2005. I've been renting ever since. I'll buy again in about 2 years.

Anonymous said...

Sorry that I'm outside the parameter, but we sold a big place almost 3 years ago (made a ton) and figured to rent for a year or so before buying smaller (empty nest - kids off to college). We got a little lazy while renting and then nervous when we started looking around to buy. I'm glad we held off because it looks as though prices in our range are dropping fairly substantially and our realtor expects the downward trend to continue.

Bottom line - Happy renting, making some good dough on investment of previous sale proceeds and not in a hurry unless a great deal pops up. BTW, we have had a couple of "under the radar" offers to sell (through our realtor who is also a family friend) on a couple of very nice larger homes at pretty far under their current or last listing price. We didn't pull the trigger because, as I stated earlier, we'd like something smaller, preferably one story and less than the 3,400+ sq ft homes presented to us.

Thanks.

alan ventures said...

SOLD - one year ago. Why?:
- Did not want to remodel
- Wanted to take money off the table as prices felt very unbalanced and high
- The Data told the story of the perfect storm brewing and being harsh and long.
- Been renting and looking but low motivation as all indicators say much higher chance of downward pricing than stable or upward. When stable it will be so for many years.
- Yet ok buying the right thing for the "right" price even though more downward pressure as we will have less money into new home than sale price of old home (lower prices and money off RE table)
- I see another 10%-15% unless the economy really bogs down otherwise 15-20%++ additional decrease if issues w gas prices, inflation, lay offs hit and standard loans continue to fail too.
- Not hoping for the worst – just the right home, right price and to enjoy the beach.

* click on my name link for details on home we are hunting for.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a refreshing morning. 6 Posts and not one harsh word and some really good commentary.

MBW, this must be what you envisioned from the get go.

Anonymous said...

We sold last Fall, by which time the writing appeared very much on the wall to us. We are a young family and could not afford to see over $500k in quickly earned equity vaporize. Our home sold in 4 months for what we wanted and we have counted our lucky stars every day since. We're anxious to buy again, but won't do so until we perceive a clear bottom. In the meantime, the proceeds from the sale are safely tucked away earning a few points. We don't need an appreciating market to buy, just one that is not quickly depreciating as we perceive this one to be.

Just Bought said...

Bought a SFR in April, also own a townhome that we bought in May 2005 and have now rented out. We needed more space for our growing family and began looking toward the end of last year. Definitely wary of continued price declines, but we still got an okay deal and believe we will be in the new property for the next 10+ years. Will look to sell the townhome when the market recovers, whenever that will be.

Anonymous said...

Bought in early 2006 through an Alt-A on a 3-yr ARM. We love our house and don't want to relocate our family. But unless the government forces our lender to keep our ARM rates for another 10 years (let's go Dems!), we may have to sell (hopefully not at a loss). I fear interest rates will be higher when our rates re-adjust.

JustMe said...

I have been in my present Tree Section house (this is my second house in MB) for almost 20 years.
When I bought, I had no idea I would stay this long. However, it is nice not to be "house poor" and to not fund the local schools any more than I have to through real estate taxes (I always vote against school bonds - public schools are like welfare - good to provide basic support, but beyond that, go private).

I thought that the real estate market was crazy here 4 years ago, and therefore bought a weekend house elsewhere instead of upgrading in MB. As it turns out, the market here was not at its peak, so I may have lost out, but in the meantime I have a nice place to live.

MBRealist said...

"not fund the local schools any more than I have to through real estate taxes (I always vote against school bonds..."

- So nice to have you in the neighborhood "justme." If you don't have the scratch to keep MB schools among the best it's likely that you'd be better off in Stockton with people of your class.

sold and waiting to buy said...

Everyone knows RE 101 Great Schools = Higher RE prices because of higher demand and ability to pay more without private tuitions in the budget.

MBrealist - JustMe is Just Baiting you with the School comment, trying to move us off topic of people who recently bought or sold.

Waiting in MB said...

In June 06 my wife's salary tripled and for the first time we were in a position to by a home in MB. We sensed; however, that we were near the top of the mkt and decided to stay put. What we didn't anticipate was the aftermath of the mortgage crash where you now have to put down a minimum of 20% and show another years' worth of mortgage/insurance/tax payments in the bank in order to qualify for a mortgage and make it through escroll.

Anonymous said...

"Justme" is pathetic and exactly the type of folks we don't want living in MB. If they hate kids so much move up to West Hollywood.

Anonymous said...

12:21 - Oh really? Then why is it so hard to even get into the private schools in MB?

And I don't think anyone in Stockton has a leg up on the drug trade at MC.

Anonymous said...

1998 bought first home on the Westside for 500k.

2001 sold it for 750k.

2001 bought #2 on the Westside for 1.2MM

2005 sold #2 2005 2.6MM

2005 moved to MB for public schools and renting, waiting for RE market to stabilize.

Will purchase again when we find the right house at the right price.

Anonymous said...

Escroll is twice as expensive as escrow :)

MBWatcher said...

No more on schools, etc., thanks.

Anonymous said...

11:22 - why do you need the gov't to keep your rates flat for another 10 years? That seems like a pretty long time period to require, especially since you took on a 3-yr ARM to begin with. Did you not think about what you were getting into? Why don't you just refinance now if you're afraid rates will go higher? Your case does not make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Bought last summer with 20% down on a nice 5-year ARM. If I had to sell today, I am pretty sure I'd break-even or lose money given 5% sale cost on top of the debatable correction amount.
It sucks, but I plan to be here a while, so it doesn't hurt too bad.
Someone had to buy at the top -right?
Anyway - does anyone know what the average annual increase in WOS pricing was from 2002 to 2007?
Sorry if that was from another topic - just curious.

Anonymous said...

bought in 2003 right before the final huge upwards price surge (a little outside of MBC's window). will happily stay put unless lending crunch loosens. have 3 years left on mortgage and am very satisfied with quality of life/investment from the home.

Anonymous said...

1:16- 11:22 can't refinance because even if he put 20% down there is likely less than 15% equity. Maybe just guessing.

Bought #1 in 1997 for $318k sold for $384k in 1998

Bought #2 in 1998 for $418k, sold for $549k in 2001.

Bought #3 in 2001 for $625k and sold for $929k in 2003

Bought #4 in 2003 for a little over $1M and sold for close to $1.4M in 2008. Lost probably close to $100-$150k from the peak in 2005/2006.

Still own 2 rentals in the area, not MB, but South Bay.

Sold #4 because we decided we would not move back and saw the market turning last summer, but just missed getting out. I doubt we would have any offers at this point if it was still for sale and did not close when it did. May move back at some point but happy where we are in another coastal city in SoCal.

Don't expect the market to decrease much more than another 15-20% though over the next 2 years.

Anonymous said...

"No more on schools, etc., thanks."
-It's a valid topic MB and extremely relevant to MB Real Estate. Although, with as much time as you spend on this blog I doubt you have any kids.

MBWatcher said...

1:56, just trying to keep this on topic. Agreed schools are relevant to local RE, but not the way some of that talk started to go.

Anonymous said...

does anyone know what moved this weekend? Someone here pointed out a ton of Opens and no lie, there were signs all over the place. Just curious if the new offerings got buyers off the sidelines.
thanks!

ps: sold a few years ago, yep, missed the top but oh well...renting, hate it, wish I liked more of the offerings in my price range but a little nervous on pulling the trigger just yet until I see some stabilizing taking place.

Anonymous said...

2:09

Why do you hate renting? I posted earlier at 9:17. I also sold a few years ago and have been renting ever since. To be honest, I sorta like it. I'm able to live in a better house than I could afford at today's prices (since rental cost per month is less than monthly ownership cost). Plus, I like the flexibility of renting. It's nice not being tied down to a place given today's falling market. I'm renting month-to-month and can move at will. Although the process of moving is a little painful, I've already taken advantage of this flexibility and moved up a few times to better rentals.

Anonymous said...

2:59 - because Huggy makes me feel like a loser!

Anonymous said...

By reading some of the comments I realize that some will have a field day with my dumb question but what is a "short sale?"

Anonymous said...

Simply put, a short sale is when a distressed homeowner is allowed by their lender to sell their home for less than the amount owed on their loan. The full proceeds of the loan go the bank and fully satisfies the note. The lender has the right to approve a disapprove any proposed sale. A short sale is typically executed to prevent a foreclosure. Thus, while the bank is taking a loss; it is less than the potential loss that would be incurred in a foreclosure.

Anonymous said...

JustMe is the perfect example of why Ca should do away with Prop 13. If people can't afford true market real estate taxes, then get them out. If JustMe had kids and benefited from the schools, nice attitude he/she has.

Buffett thinks CA should do away with it, and so do I. People blame the whole immigration problem for the schools, but we are so far behind because our tax increases are capped until the property sells.

Anonymous said...

There are certainly some good arguments for renting, as people here are mentioning, but what about the tax implications? We've looked at the numbers and giving up the tax deduction for mortgage interest would be a major hit, even if our MB home does not appreciate dramatically in the next few years which it probably won't. Am I missing something here?? (If so, we need to have a sharp talk with our accountant! :) )

toolazy2login said...

There are limits on the interest deduction for high-income earners.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch23.html

Money Quote 1: "The mortgage interest credit is intended to help lower-income individuals own a home. If you qualify, you can take the credit each year for part of the home mortgage interest you pay."

Money quote 2: "Limit on itemized deductions. If your adjusted gross income is more than $156,400 ($78,200 if you are married filing separately), the overall amount of your itemized deductions may be limited."

Anonymous said...

If you have made a sizable profit on the sale of a home and can put it in a safe medium earning a certain percent return, while renting a place that is reasonable in price, the tax ramifications of not owning are not quite as bad as one might think.

The problem is how risky do you want to be with that sizable profit and how long are you willing to lock it up. With the price and quality of our rental and the returns we were getting on the money it didn't make sense to keep renting based on the deal we were able to swing with our leg-up.

Plus the rental, with a dog and two kids, wasn't exactly worth it for what we were saving. Of course your tax issues might be different than ours.

Anonymous said...

There's a great article today in the LA Times about declining RE even in affluent areas of CA.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-homes20-2008may20,0,4081478.story

Anonymous said...

GREAT ARTICLE AND LA TIMES IS A OXYMORON

Anonymous said...

The LA Times still has some excellent content, though not as much as in the past. To completely dismiss the entire publication is a mistake.

Anonymous said...

5/19/08 9:11 PM - That is one of the most ignorant comments to date on this site.

Prop 13 is in place in CA because prices do tend to shoot up and down, and as areas become more attractive, prices go up and homes sell.

You should tell that Prop 13 argument to the fixed income elderly in this area that would be crushed if their homes floated on "market" values. They are already getting crushed by interest rates being so low.

You should also read a bit more about Buffet before referring to him as that was not the context of his reference to Prop 13.

new resident said...

As a recently arrived resident of MB, we were lucky we didn't know the market enough to pull the trigger and buy last fall. We moved from the Midwest and the prices were way off, of course. We're qualified buyers, definitely moved here b/c of schools and community feel (liked it better than the Palisades), and are looking forward to finding the perfect place. We are renting a great home near the beach and intend to continue renting until the right house comes up. That being said, we are not waiting to see the "bottom", just waiting for the house that we need, in the location we want (i.e. no refinery views, no steep hills, close to school) at a price we would feel comfortable investing for the next 5 to 10 years.

Hammerhead said...

I had to laugh this morning. There was the article in the LA Times today that prices in affluent LA communities are decreasing. On the same day in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article that prices in affluent LA communities are stable or increasing.

Kinda like politics. You can pick the news coverage that suits your view.

Anonymous said...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-homes20-2008may20,0,4081478.story?page=2
From the Los Angeles Times
At the luxury end, home prices are falling
The region's most exclusive neighborhoods suffered big drops in April, data show. Median sale prices fell 13% in Beverly Hills, 34% in one area of Newport Beach.
By Peter Y. Hong
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 20, 2008

The rich may indeed be like the rest of us. Prices of their homes are now falling too.

Gated mansions and hillside estates have held their own through most of the real estate slump, but data released Monday showed big drops in the region's most exclusive neighborhoods.

Median sale prices fell by 13% in Beverly Hills in April, compared with the same month last year. Rancho Palos Verdes dropped 18% over the same period, while Newport Beach's 92660 ZIP Code took a 34% hit, according to DataQuick Information Systems.

Experts say these areas and others are catching up with price declines that struck first in outlying suburbs such as the Antelope Valley and the Inland Empire, where many first-time home buyers purchased their properties with sub-prime loans.

"You can't have one market hugely cheaper than another forever," said UC Berkeley professor Thomas Davidoff, who specializes in real estate.

Davidoff and others say the time lag stems from the fact that affluent homeowners generally don't have to sell under duress, unlike struggling borrowers facing escalating mortgage payments. But wealthy homeowners are increasingly finding out that if they want to sell their homes, they will need to discount the prices.

O. Bruton Smith, an auto dealership and racetrack magnate, more than a year ago put his stately Italianate house in the Beverly Hills 90210 ZIP Code on sale for $12 million. Buyers were scarce, and so in February he cut $500,000 from the asking price.

In March, Smith breached what realty agents say is the Maginot line of mansions in the area: He slashed the price to below $10 million, to $9.995 million. That may have done the trick.

"It's a psychological break point," Michael Libow, the agent listing the house, said of the $10-million mark.

The reduced asking price has been drawing three or four potential buyers a week to see the house, Libow said, and an offer came in last weekend.

The decline in the high-end market can be seen in both the Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area markets, according to a study released Monday by First Republic Bank of San Francisco.

The weak economy suggests that prices will remain depressed for some time, said First Republic's president, Katherine August-deWilde.

"People worry about their jobs and incomes -- even rich people," she said.

Orange County's more expensive neighborhoods are also seeing price declines, DataQuick figures show.

"The market over $1 million has definitely changed," said Aliso Viejo broker Steven Thomas.

Thomas said his review of local data found that the number of Orange County homes going into escrow at selling prices above $1 million was down 30% in April from a year earlier.

Foreclosures, which had been almost unheard of in high-end markets a year ago, now account for a substantial share of listings. In Coto de Caza, where the average listing price is $2 million, 17% of the 167 homes for sale are either foreclosures or "short sales," in which the listing price is below the amount owed on the property, Thomas said.

In Mission Viejo and Laguna Hills, Thomas added, foreclosures and short sales make up more than 40% of the homes for sale. Elsewhere in Orange County, "there is tremendous activity below $500,000," Thomas said.

Despite the recent declines, home values in affluent areas still tend to fare better than in the region as a whole. The median price for a home in Southern California last month was $385,000, DataQuick said. That's the same as it was in March but down 24% from the $505,000 median a year earlier.

DataQuick said 15,615 homes sold in the six-county region last month, down 19% from a year earlier and the lowest number of homes sold in April since 1995.

Though sales were down from a year ago, they did increase sharply -- by 22% -- from March, DataQuick said. Two-thirds of that sales gain was from homes priced at less than $500,000, DataQuick said, suggesting that bargain hunters are snapping up homes being sold at steep discounts or through foreclosure.

Despite widespread declines, a few high-end enclaves are seeing increases in median sale prices.

Although home values declined 18% in Rancho Palos Verdes, for example, homes in the adjoining 90274 ZIP Code (which includes Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills) saw their values rise by the same percentage.

In Newport Beach, the coastal 92663 ZIP Code saw an April price increase of 66%, to $2.49 million, DataQuick said. However, only 10 homes were sold, which means that a few extraordinary transactions could account for dramatic percentage changes.

Expensive markets often resist declines for several reasons. Sellers in high-priced areas often have a large amount of equity in their homes or own them outright. That makes them more able to sit on their houses and ride out a market downturn than people desperate to unload a house with a mortgage they can't handle.

But with the passage of time, sellers who want to move but have been waiting for a market turnaround grow weary of waiting, Berkeley professor Davidoff said.

"It's like being in a teakettle. People eventually want to get out," he said.

The weakening overall economy will be another likely drag on prices at the high end, said John Burns, an Irvine real estate consultant.

"Executives are now losing their jobs too," Burns noted.

Finally, tighter lending standards and higher interest rates for jumbo mortgages -- those for more than $729,000 -- are making it harder for some people at the high end to get loans, said USC real estate professor Delores Conway.

Conway believes "sales activity will go up if there is more liquidity."

But some affluent buyers say high prices, not tough credit standards, are keeping them from purchasing a home. It's simple, they say: Just as in the under-$500,000 market, buyers will come forward in expensive neighborhoods when prices fall.

Simon Lee, a commercial real estate investor who has been shopping for a house in Bel-Air, Pacific Palisades and Brentwood, said he believes that prices in those areas are still inflated in today's market.

"I think it needs a major adjustment, 25% or 30%," he said.

Lee said he was among a small group of bargain hunters scouring those Westside neighborhoods for homes priced under $2 million.

"I see the same people every week at the open houses," he said.

peter.hong@latimes.com

Anonymous said...

Thank you anon 11:28 - we couldn't of just used the link above.

Hammerhead said...

Here's the link to the WSJ article (free content) stating the opposite of the LA Times article on the same day.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121122333682304367.html?mod=hpp_us_personal_journal

Anonymous said...

11:43: Stick a sock in it.
11:28;:Thanks for the very informative cut and paste.
The information contained therein is very
pertinent to what is discussed/debated on this
blog!

Anonymous said...

9:43am - Prop 13
I don’t agree with 9:11pm communications style..
...but I do have to do pick a fight with you 9:43am!.

Warren Buffett believes that Prop 13 causes bad taxation variances that are not economically sound, and I agree.

Much of the Nation home owners pay property tax based on current market value - this makes Cali the wild exception. Any homeowner paying property taxes below market because of Prop 13 is truly being subsidized with taxes in numerous other ways to fill a large void created by Prop 13.

Don’t you find it odd that date of purchase is the determining factor in Taxation vs value?

Don’t you find it odd that a billionaire maybe paying a few thousand dollars a year on property that is now worth $10million, while the person struggling in Hawthorn is paying more as well as encumbered with a myriad of Prop 13 make up taxes to balance out the lack of tax revenue from the Billionaire with the $10M home?

I am all for easing sharp tax increases, especially for the elderly, but this can be done with annual tax increase caps not Prop 13.

Here is what Warren Said:
1. Residential property taxes in California are wildly capricious, tied as they are to the date of purchase rather than the value of the property or financial circumstances of the owner.
2. In the case of properties that a homeowner has held for a long time, residential property tax rates in Omaha are far higher than in California.

Here is Warrens own statement:
http://wealthandwant.com/docs/Buffett_Prop13.html

Anonymous said...

Just as has been discussed here many times, the samller sample numbers now available due to far fewer numbers of transactions because of various economic factors are likely skewing "medians" to the point at which they are not a good indicator of trends.

Anonymous said...

9:43 here.

Does everyone on this site have to fight?

You have done what I suggested 9:11 to do - look into what Buffet actually said rather than making a blanket statement. (BTW, your link doesn't work).

Buffet first came under fire when he was an advisor to Ahhhnold and suggested that he first look into changing Prop 13 protection, as he was paying more taxes on his home in Omaha than in Laguna. He never said just do away with it.

Also, Prop 13 is good for CA. It keeps the taxable value of a home at a constant growth rate of 2% per year. Do you really want your taxes growing at 20% per year? This is what would have been the case in MB for the past 5 years.

In addition, is anyone's income guaranteed or constant? No. So this is why voters in this state passed the proposition, and the same reason is will never be changed.

What you are really trying to do is debate something that will never change - kind of like Huggy's opinion on anything.

Anonymous said...

Oh I forgot to add:

All of you that bought in 2006 through 2008 should look into Prop 8.

HeHe ;)

Anonymous said...

9:43- Yeah you are right, the other 49 states in the country are wrong. Why should the elderly get a break? And comments like JustMe are just ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I'm 9:11 and you guys seem to have much more time than me to look up articles, so good for you. I read it a while ago, and the gist is to do something with Prop 13, but thanks for the refresh.

And you're reference to fight. If you really think JustMe is justified in anything he said, you really have a problem.

Anonymous said...

1:00pm - do the other 49 states have a 9% income tax or the same RE values?

No - so you're just an ignorant poster just like 9:11 and 12:07.

Anonymous said...

1:10-Hmm NY-6.85%, DC- 8.5%, NJ- 8.97%. Pretty close and their RE taxes are not 1.2%.

And you're right CT, NY and DC are so much cheaper than Bakersfield or Palmdale.

Anonymous said...

Hi 1:30pm,
I am apples and this is my friend oranges. Would you like to play with us today? It appears that you have a real grasp on debate, and we've been trying to convince people we are the same for years. Please help us!

Anonymous said...

1:48,

What happened to your reading comprehension? 1:30 was posting areas of the country that (like CA) have higher state tax rates as well as expensive real estate, but do not have Prop 13.

Anonymous said...

5/20/08 12:07 PM:

I would suggest that a good portion of MB residents could not live in their own homes if not for Prop 13. Prop 13 limits property taxes to 1% and no more than a 2% increase yoy by the way. Many long time MB residents have paid property taxes for decades--some the better part of a century--and have already paid their fair share many times over.

Here's a link for you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

Anonymous said...

2:14pm

Yo comprendo!

The RE tax laws in those 3 states are vastly different than that of CAs; therefore, apples and oranges. They are also vastly different than CAs previous RE tax laws.

It's a silly debate regarding Prop 13. After 30 yrs, you could have the same average cost and growth of RE taxes. Their systems, like CAs are set to protect the consumer from wide swings in RE values. CA just happens to be the simplest version.

Anonymous said...

1:30 Here- 1:48 you really lack any kind of comprehension whatsoever as pointed out by 2:14. In my haste of quickly typing, I typed in CT rather than NJ. But again CT pretty high real estate with a 5% tax rate.

No idea where you are going with your statement. Enlighten me.

Anonymous said...

CT income tax is less than 5% as the fisrt $10-$20k is at 3%. CT RE tax varies. Not sure what your point is 2:26pm.

Anonymous said...

2:24,

Thank you for the link to wikipedia. We're not debating the what Prop 13 is, just that it should be revamped. So you're fair share at $2,000 or so property taxes you currently pay a year on that house you bought for $50k in the 1970s compared to someone who recently bought a median priced home of $1.5M who pays around $17,000 a year is equal. I like your math logic. Where did you learn that? From Arenda?

Anonymous said...

2:57: Most state's RE taxes vary depending on what county/city/etc you are in as well, but thanks for the clarification. All, I'm pointing out is that in other state's you are not going to have the inequity of property taxes being paid based on when the property was bought that you have in Ca.

Anonymous said...

Do you think it's fair that I paid $350k in taxes last year, but I get no more benefit than the guy who paid $2k?

This Prop 13 argument is really off base. Do you realize what you would do to the RE market if you changed the RE tax structure to be more in-line with current values. Talk about an implosion!

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:24,

"Have already payed their fair share"??? Are you kidding me. These taxes are used to pay for services EVERY year. Schools, roads, etc. need cash every year. This attitude is what's pulling down the entire state. To put it simply, the $600 that John Doe payed in 1960 has already been spent.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the WSJ article, what a riot that it comes out on the same day. Just thought I'd copy/paste the section here about LA. I actually disagree that the quoted monthly price increases are meaningful, given the small data set, but I do think it's very possible that we will not have a serious decline in the South Bay as everyone here seems to be wishing for.

Los Angeles

L.A. is an anomaly. No real urban core exists. The area is just a sprawling string of suburbs that run together.

And most of that sprawl is bathed in red ink. Median prices in communities throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties -- the distant, inland suburbs that are at the epicenter of the region's subprime and foreclosure crises -- are down, often sharply.

Lower-priced homes in tony Palm Springs have lost about 24%, though more-expensive homes are up slightly. Less-affluent cities such as Ontario, Chino and Rancho Cucamonga are all down between 15% and 31%. Los Angeles County, Orange County to the south and Ventura County to the north are suffering equally.

The only notable area of strength: high-end real estate. L.A.'s Westside, home to affluent neighborhoods such as Brentwood and Westwood, "tends to be more insulated because this is where people with money want to be," says Madison Offenhauser, regional director in Los Angeles for Keller Williams Realty.

Median prices in Brentwood are up 16%. The Hollywood Hills, up 26% to a median price of more than $2.1 million. Rancho Palos Verdes and the Palos Verdes peninsula, up 17%. Parts of Newport Beach, one of Orange County's poshest addresses, are up as much as 67% to $2.75 million. The coastal village of Laguna Beach is up 6%.

Lee Ann Canaday, owner of the Canaday Group, a Laguna Beach real-estate firm, says "almost every deal I've done this year" in Laguna and Newport Beach has had multiple offers.

Anonymous said...

So shouldn't the new family in the new home pay for the new road, school, etc?
Why should the old lady in her paid for 1950's cottage in the tree section pay taxes on a $1M value because builders are will to pay that "market" value.
Or why should the young family that could afford the tax bill on their $1.3M house in 2000 have to pay a tax bill for the market value of $2.3M? Do you want to force them to move because their incomes didn't grow in proportion to the market run up?
3:31 - you're simply simple.

Anonymous said...

Please stop posting articles. We know how to go to differnt sites to read articles.

Waiting to Buy said...

9:15pm said:
We've looked at the numbers and giving up the tax deduction for mortgage interest would be a major hit, even if our MB home does not appreciate dramatically in the next few years which it probably won't. Am I missing something here?? (If so, we need to have a sharp talk with our accountant! :) )

You do need to have a sharp talk with your accountant. I can't say I'm surprised by his opinion, though, as I've had many an accountant tell me that I need to buy a home because I "need the write-off."

There are a number of factors at play when deciding between owning and renting. And I'll be the last person to tell anyone what option is right for them. But I can tell you that far too many people overestimate the benefit of the deduction they receive from interest on their mortgage.

I think the easiest way for me to explain my point is to ask the following question: when you purchased your home, did you try to get the highest interest rate on your mortgage that you could? If you did, you'd get an even bigger write-off.

You probably didn't because intuitively you realize that what you're trying to do is to minimize your after-tax cost of ownership as opposed to maximize your tax deductions.

What I think confuses people is the fact that at the end of the year, particularly in the earlier years of their mortgage, they get a big check from the gubmint and say "Hey! What a great deal!" But you'd also get a big check if you made a $100k charitable contribution. You'd get twice as much if you made a $200k charitable contribution.

Thinking that giving up your mortgage because you wouldn't have an interest deduction doesn't make financial sense. Think of the deduction this way: if you're in the highest federal tax bracket, and you have a 6% mortgage, then your after-tax (which is what you really care about) interest rate is roughly 4%.

Or put another way, if I made a $100k charitable contribution every year, and then said I need to make it so that I can save $35k on my federal tax bill, would that make financial sense?

I'm not trying to be critical -- just trying to offer you a different point of view (that is largely in the minority, but I believe is based on sound financial logic). If your tax accountant tells you that you need to own a home specifically for the tax benefit, I'd recommend finding another accountant.

12:07p here said...

Why should people pay taxes on market value - because that is the way the world works? Otherwise you shift your burden to others - is that fair?

CA has the same cost structure (or more) than other states, what they don’t collect in property tax they make it up elsewhere. So the new buyer pays their fair share in new assessed property tax BUT also carries all the other higher tax burden... while the old home owner pay much less to get the same benefits...now is that fair?

Ok, so you are saying that it should feel sorry for people who have a massive 20% per year gain on their home value (in MB that is $300k yr) but don’t want to pay the extra 3k/yr?

I could envision a law that for certain reasons allowed a deferment of the tax increase beyond a cap.. Deferred until you sold, then you chip in your share that you deferred from your sale.

I agree with the other poster, can you imagine how many more house would hit the market IF there was non Prop 13 and people were forced NOT to sell?

Also 9:43 - the link does work - I think you just need to learn to cut and paste - http://wealthandwant.com/docs/Buffett_Prop13.html

Anonymous said...

5/20/08 3:04 PM/5/20/08 3:31 PM

The present value of the property taxes paid by long-time property owners is much greater than the $600 you suggest. Their contribution is more like 10x the amount of your yearly taxes of 17K over a 60 year period.

True these have been used for past services and these still need to be paid today but this is not entirely true for older property owners who no longer use these services or have already substantially contributed to the public facilities supported by property taxes.

The property they own is still the same one they originally bought 30-60 years ago. These long-time property owners are the ones who through their efforts and taxes have built the community into what it is today--the place you want to live in. Why should they have to sell their property because they cannot afford the taxes ONLY because you are willing to pay up for the land and put as big a home as possible on it?

Prop 13 is not perfect. But as I alluded to, it is accomplishing its intended effect especially here in MB which is to allow long-time property owners to remain in their homes (as well as children).

JR said...

3:40,

In new developments, in CA, the new owners do pay for the incremental infrastructure through mello-roos. However, in towns, like MB, that exist and don't require public infrastructure build-out to accomodate population movements the current property-tax structure seems punitive. Essentially, new and recently new homeowners in MB have to shoulder the great majority of the costs for the upkeep of existing infrastructure, maybe grandma is no longer sending children to school but she is using the roads, flushing the toilet, and calling the cops on those pesky teens from MC who leave butts in front of her house. On it's face it is discriminatory.

But, then again, I'm somebody who believes that individuals belong to communities not vice versa.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:40,

Save us your sob stories about the "little old lady" and the "young family with a 1.3 million dollar house. Should they pay for new roads, schools, etc.? Of course they should. And if they can't afford to they should move. Why should teh new guy that paid 2.5 million have to subsidize the previous residents. This is a big reason why schools in CA have fallen behind and why I'm paying into the MBE Fund every year so that my kids can go to a "great" public school. Simple is right.

Anonymous said...

4:45pm - Are you really that clueless? Do you really think that our schools are the way they are because of prop 13? Do yourself a favor and go back to earn a degree in something! Anything!

Don't look at prop taxes as the problem. Look at our state govt as the problem. If home prices hadn't increased, what would you say? "Darn home prices. If we only had a rally, we'd have better schools!" It doesn't work that way, nimrod. The problem is useless democrats spending up in Sacramento. Don't kid yourself.