Choosing Sides

One of the not-so-great things about working in the particular market that I do, is that because a lot of the homes out here in the 'burbs were constructed within the last 15 years or so, we see a lot of the faulty construction issues that were common during that period. The major one being LP siding.

Today I had the interesting experience of touring 2 homes in succession that had failing LP, and in both cases neither the sellers nor their agents were aware of it. One agent claimed that it couldn't be LP, because the house was built in 1988, and LP was only sold in 1994 - 1995. In fact, the product was sold and put on more than 800,000 houses nationwide between the period of 1985 - 1995. The earlier product, that is, pre-1992, was the most prone to failure, so in fact, this agent's house is a sitting duck, and he just doesn't know it yet! But, since the failure of the siding is plainly visible to the untrained eye (i.e., mine), I'm sure he will soon find out...

As a Realtor, it only takes one listing with LP siding for you to become something of an expert on the subject because it can be the cause of so much heartache for your sellers. Heaven help the naive seller and agent who go merrily traipsing along, assuming that because the LP "looks okay" to them, that all will be well. There are a lot of different stages of failure, and some are not immediately apparent. The process of breakdown begins with tiny cracks, and without vigilant maintenance of the LP, you may have these cracks which allow water to seep into the siding, and not even know it.

I think it usually pays to know what you may be looking at up front, so a pre-inspection of the property can be beneficial, and having been through it once, I would now recommend any seller with LP siding have this done. In some cases, I can visually determine if damage exists, but I can't as easily determine the extent of the damage...or "how bad is it really?"

That's a big distinction, depending on whether the moisture has penetrated behind the siding and into the actual structure. Is it a matter of replacing all siding on the house, or is it possible to paint, seal and caulk the siding to keep minor damage from progressing? A pre-inspection can help answer these questions, and will allow you to formulate a plan to deal with the problem. The way I look at it, you'll either end up paying for it up front, or in the form of a price reduction or failed sale when the problem is uncovered.

In Washington state, sellers are required to disclose if there is LP (or and fiber-board type siding) on their home, and if the siding has begun to fail, most lenders will not lend on the home. (Clearly, the agent mentioned above either didn't read his seller's disclosure, or maybe the sellers don't know either! ) This can make it extremely difficult to sell, even if the siding only has minor damage, simply because most buyers do not want to put themselves in the position of buying a home knowing that there is a $10K-$15K repair job that will have to be done...and with LP and a lot of similar siding products, it is not a question of IF it will need to be replaced, but when. So, if a homeowner has this siding, they will most likely end up having to make some sort of arrangements to deal with this problem.

I guess the long and short of it is, if you are a real estate agent or a homeowner whose home contains these products, it pays to educate yourself about the products, know your options and have a plan for dealing with any problems that may arise.

The Golden Rule in Real Estate

I was just thinking about a situation that came up recently, and wanted to write a little bit about how I think the golden rule applies in real estate. And no, I'm not talking about that golden rule that says, "he who has the gold makes the rules," but rather, the one that says you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Every real estate agent out there, no matter what company they work for, has the ability to pretty much decide how they are going to do business. Obviously, we all have to obey the law, but within the law, there is a lot of grey area. There are things you can do that are legal, but may not be ethical or proper.

For instance, is it ethical to undertake an action that serves your own client well, but basically "screws" the person on the other side of the table?

For instance, say you are working with an out-of-town investor client who wants to buy a property. Maybe this investor doesn't even come to town to see the properties before making offers. Maybe their agent simply selects three of the best, then the buyer makes offers that are subject to inspection on all three, and no disclosure is made that this is the case. After inspection, the buyer rescinds two of the three offers, selecting only the house that is in need of the least repairs.

Smart, right? But what about working in good faith?

When this is a buyer's strategy, the seller usually doesn't know about it, and then when the inspection is disapproved and the transaction terminated, they now have a house that is less marketable because other agents all know that this is a house where something went haywire during inspection. It's a pretty crappy thing to do to a seller who is working in good faith and would have been willing to make the repairs. It could end up costing them thousands of dollars.

As the buyer's agent, maybe your thinking is that the only person that matters here is your own client. But remember that under the Washington Law of Agency we are required as agents to act in good faith towards all parties. This isn't to say that an agent can't still be a tough negotiator, and get a great deal for their client...neither of those things is precluded by acting n good faith.

I guess the way I look at these things is, if I wouldn't want to have someone do something to me, I'm not going to say it's okay to do it just because it's good for business.

Renovate versus buy new?

In the last few weeks, one topic has come up repeatedly among people I've talked to who are thinking of buying a new home, so I thought I would mention it here. With home prices rising so fast, people are really excited to hear about the values of their own home, but when they think of what the money they will clear in a sale will actually buy them in today's rising market, the excitement tends to fade a bit.

In a lot of cases, people ask, "well, what if I stay put and take the money I might have used to buy a new home and use it to renovate the one I'm already in?"

The answer from a realtor's point of view is that it depends why you are doing it. Do you want to stay put because you love the house, love the location, love the schools and can't imagine living anywhere else? Are you thinking it will increase the value of your home? Or are you doing it because you are concerned about the cost of a new mortgage?

Whether you decide to renovate or move, the cost to do either can be considerable. Some factors to consider in your decision include:

• Do you need more space, or a larger yard?
• Do you want better schools, parks and community facilities?
• Do you want to be closer to family or friends?
• Are you looking for less expensive housing or wanting to downsize?
• Do you want a better neighborhood or a new lifestyle?

Before deciding to renovate, make sure the improvements you are considering are not overimprovements. Consider the neighborhood and market prices of comparable homes in the area. If your home is currently worth $300K and you are considering spending $80K to renovate, will the home be marketable in the $380K range? If not, you may be taking on a great deal of additional debt that you may not be able to recover upon sale. It might be time to accept that this home may have met your needs once, but perhaps it is time to consider moving to a home that fits your needs now.

My advice as a realtor to those faced with this choice is to speak with a contractor and get a valid cost estimate for the improvements you are considering. Then speak with a realtor to find out whether there are any homes currently on the market that meet your needs better than your current home, and ask whether the planned improvements would add enough to the value of the home to merit the cost.

A general rule of thumb is to never spend more than 25% of the value of your home on renovations or improvements. Kitchen and bathroom renovations are usually a safe bet, because they often add more to the value of the home than they cost to accomplish, but other types of renovations can be riskier.

Some guidelines for those considering renovations include:

• It costs 50 percent more to demolish a brick wall than timber
• It is cheaper to extend out than up
• Swimming pools rarely add value (especially in Seattle!), though in some parts of the country, most notably Florida and California, not having one can detract from value
• Architects cost less than you think and can actually save you time and money
• Get at least three quotes from reputable builders and contractors, check references, and check their work
• Consider all your options thoroughly--including moving to a new home--before making a decision.
• If you are doing the work yourself, be sure to get a permit! This will ensure that you don't run into any marketability issues later--and this point is absolutely critical for those on septic considering adding bedrooms to their home.

Here's some more information on the cost vs. value of a variety of remodeling projects.

Seattle Mayor Pulls Support From Monorail Project

Transportation issues aren't really my forte, but there is something about the whole monorail project that has never made sense to me. I don't have an issue with the cost, because it seems like any large-scale transportation project of this nature, whether it's monorail or light rail or roadway improvements or whatever, is going to cost a lot of money and take a long time to pay off. The problem I have had with it is that the proposed monorail project would not really do very much to alleviate what I perceive to be the major traffic problem facing the Seattle metropolitan area.

Combine that with the fact that we have a light rail system also going in. Now to me, as a person living in the 'burbs, it makes more sense to have one mode of transport capable of alleviating our traffic problem not just in the city, but out in the 'burbs as well. And, as a person who has at one time or another done just about every commute you can think of (Eastside to Seattle, Queen Anne and Capitol hill into the city, Capitol Hill to Eastside, Bothell to Kirkland, Fremont to Kirkland, Mukilteo to Kirkland and even Whidbey Island to Seattle!) I don't think the in-city commute is the most pressing transportation problem. The more pressing problem is the people sitting in stop and go traffic from Seattle or Bellevue to points as far north as Marysville and Arlington, as far east as North Bend, and as far south as Pierce County.

People who do those commutes don't do them just because they like their cars, they do them because decent affordable housing is hard to find in Seattle. A family looking for a 3 bedroom house with a yard and in a good school district that only has $300K to spend is going to have a hard time finding that in the city. So they feel they are forced to make the longer commutes. Snohomish county is now one of the 5 fastest growing counties in the nation and Pierce is right up there as well. So you end up with more and more people making these long treks every day. Bus service out to these areas exists but it can literally take hours both ways, only runs at limited times, and just isn't a very viable option for most people.

So, we have these huge traffic jams on I-5 and I-405. It's even a problem for businesses like Boeing that have to use the roadways to move products around. So, it isn't just a quality of life issue for the people who've "chosen" to live in these areas, it's a jobs issue as well.

So just to throw my hat into the ring on this, I'm in favor of the light rail system, and would rather see us spend 11 billion to make that a viable option (for instance, more service on the north-south lines so that it actually becomes convenient to use, and getting the east-west lines built), than continue putting that money into a transportation system that only benefits a small number of neighborhoods.

Over-improvement

We had my husband's parents in town last week, and it is always fun when they come to visit. Went to Whistler for a couple of days and hiked around, watched crazy mountain bikers...it was lots of fun.

While they were in town, we got to talking about the house they just built. It's a beautiful log home, built overlooking a river and 200 acres of federally protected original prairie that the family owns. My parents built the home for a retirement house, because it's near their parents and brothers and sisters. The area has great pheasant hunting as well, so there is some business potential for using the house as a hunting lodge.

Sounds great, right? The only downside is that building costs overran their original loan and when they went to the bank to try to get a second loan, the bank would not lend them any more, since they already had a loan out for about the max of what comparable properties in the area were selling for. It had nothing to do with whether they were good for it or not, or how nice the house was, it simply had to do with the bank being unwilling to take the risk on further improvements to the property in a market that might not support it.

People over-improve their homes all the time, and that's okay as long as they are clear that the improvements are for their enjoyment and that they may not recoup their costs. It's important to remember that there are improvements the market will bear, and ones that it won't. If you have the nicest home in the neighborhood, that may not mean that you can sell your home for significantly more than your neighbors. The value is in the enjoyment of the property while you live there.

To know if your improvements are over-improvements, it helps to make sure you understand whether the local market will pay for the work you have in mind. Talk to a real estate agent or appraiser that specializes in your neighborhood and ask what the value of your planned project will be when completed. Then decide if you want to do the improvements for your own enjoyment or not.

First of all--welcome to my blog! I hope that this will be a great resource for you if you are looking for information about what is going on in the north King and south Snohomish counties, which are the primary areas that I work with as an agent with Windermere Real Estate in Mukilteo.

I'm a long time resident of the Puget Sound area (born and raised here), and as such I never cease to be amazed at the changes this area has undergone in my lifetime, which doesn't span THAT long a period of time (I'm in my 30s). One of the things that particularly gets my attention is our current real estate market which is, as anyone will tell you, a crazy one at times.

One topic that comes up with great regularity is whether or not the current trend in rising prices is just the market at work, or if it is a bubble that is about to pop. Anna, of the Rain City Guide, recently discussed this in her Seattle-based blog, saying that frankly, she doesn't find such talk to be all that interesting. She and I both tend to be in agreement with David of the City Comforts blog, that Seattle has space limitations that are largely behind our rising prices, and since those limitations are not going away, we are somewhat insulated against a popping bubble type of scenario. In other words, the rise in prices is simply the law of supply and demand at work. Other cities, such as Las Vegas, are also experiencing rising prices but pricing there is more affected by outside forces such as speculation that lead to rising prices but may not be supported by the market once those forces pull out.

That's a lot for a first entry, so I will close with this comment, which I initially posted over at Anna's site:

...Two thoughts. One is, to me a “bubble” signifies a rise in prices that is brought about by outside forces and which is not sustainable over a long period. The behavior of housing prices in places like Las Vegas is a good example, where you see a lot of outside investors coming in and driving up prices beyond what the area might normally be able to sustain. This is not the case here in Seattle because the forces driving up prices are inherent to our market. The little usable space and unhospitable topography combined with growth restrictions result in a lack of supply, and a relatively healthy employment base and low mortgage rates results in lots of demand, therefore, prices go up. Even when rates go up and we go through challenges with the local economy, the long term trend will still be upwards…barring any sort of economic or natural disaster.

As an aside, it cracks me up that folks are freaking out about bubbles when we are sitting right in the middle of one of the most seismologically active regions of the world, less than 100 miles from one of the worlds most dangerous volcanoes… It seems like if you want to worry about something, Mt. Rainier blowing up or a 7-9 richter-scale earthquake might be just as valid a concern.

The other is, the rise in prices is not limited just to within the Seattle city limits–we’re seeing it across the eastside and Snohomish county as well. I think one of the things we are going to see over time if Seattle can’t get this traffic situation figured out and as gas prices keep going up, is a real solidification of the neighborhoods and suburbs, with folks making more of an effort to keep their commute distances as short as possible. People will be trying to live and work in the same place. We’re already seeing this to some extent as what used to be bedroom communities (Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, etc.) have grown to become commercial centers, and as gas prices continue to rise people will be forced to make choices about where they are going to work and live. Which, frankly, is why I don’t particularly mind that gas prices are now topping $3 a gallon. The sooner we get to the point where people stop thinking it’s okay to drive their cars 100 miles a day roundtrip, the better for the environment and for people’s sanity too!