September 1, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my complete satisfaction with the services provided by Donna Moulton for representing me in the sale of my former residence in Tucson, Arizona. Donna first provided me with a fair and reasonable estimate of the market price for my residence. Because I had not personally occupied the residence for some time, she also took responsibility for coordinating and supervising minor repairs and improvements that substantially increased the selling price of the residence, at no additional commission. After the improvements, the house was listed for one week and I received two offers, both for more than the asking price. Without her honest recommendations and support, I am sure I would have received a reduced price for the residence.
I strongly recommend Donna as a real estate agent because she will provide an honest assessment of the market value of the property and has the marketing resources and know-how to promote the sale.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Walter, Ph.D.
San Antonio, Texas
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Plan to Freeze ARM Rates
The Bush administration recently announced a plan that would allow the interest rate on some sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) to be refinanced or frozen for five years. Like so many things this administration does, the plan is based on unfounded hopes, and the consequences have not been thoroughly evaluated.
In the next two and a half years, the interest rate on as many as 1.8 million sub-prime owner-occupied ARMs will increase. The Bush administration estimates that nearly two-thirds of those borrowers were able make their payments with the low introductory interest rate, but will be unable to afford the increased rate.
Under the administration’s proposal, only borrowers with FICO scores under 660 who face an increase in monthly payments of greater than 10% will be eligible for the program. Borrowers who are behind on their payments, who have other mortgages that prevent renegotiation of the ARM, and borrowers with ARMs that have already increased from the initial “teaser” interest rate will not benefit.
The plan is supported by the American Securitization Forum, the companies that issue mortgage backed securities, as well as investors and loan servicers.
Consumer advocates and Standard and Poor’s rating agency are skeptical.
The administration estimates the program will provide debt relief for up to 1.2 million borrowers. The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) states that perhaps only 145,000 borrowers will qualify. CRL notes that the plan is only a set of voluntary guidelines for mortgage servicers. If lenders decide that will be more advantageous to them to foreclose, they are under no obligation to renegotiate home loans.
In this market, I don’t think lenders will be eager to foreclose and take possession of houses with negative equity. However, lenders will be concerned about lawsuits from the investors who bought these mortgages with the expectation that the interest rate will increase to a profitable level within the next two years.
Standard and Poor’s stated that freezing interest rates on ARMs could discourage investment in mortgage backed securities, which will make the home loan credit crunch worse.
I think this idea is short-sighted grandstanding. It just delays the inevitable. Wage increases have not kept up with inflation, and it’s unlikely that trend will reverse within the next five years. If borrowers are unable to absorb a few hundred dollars increase in their mortgage payment now, it is unlikely they will be able to afford the increase five years from now.
The other big problem with this plan is that it is so unfair to the millions of people who don’t meet its very narrow guidelines.
In the next two and a half years, the interest rate on as many as 1.8 million sub-prime owner-occupied ARMs will increase. The Bush administration estimates that nearly two-thirds of those borrowers were able make their payments with the low introductory interest rate, but will be unable to afford the increased rate.
Under the administration’s proposal, only borrowers with FICO scores under 660 who face an increase in monthly payments of greater than 10% will be eligible for the program. Borrowers who are behind on their payments, who have other mortgages that prevent renegotiation of the ARM, and borrowers with ARMs that have already increased from the initial “teaser” interest rate will not benefit.
The plan is supported by the American Securitization Forum, the companies that issue mortgage backed securities, as well as investors and loan servicers.
Consumer advocates and Standard and Poor’s rating agency are skeptical.
The administration estimates the program will provide debt relief for up to 1.2 million borrowers. The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) states that perhaps only 145,000 borrowers will qualify. CRL notes that the plan is only a set of voluntary guidelines for mortgage servicers. If lenders decide that will be more advantageous to them to foreclose, they are under no obligation to renegotiate home loans.
In this market, I don’t think lenders will be eager to foreclose and take possession of houses with negative equity. However, lenders will be concerned about lawsuits from the investors who bought these mortgages with the expectation that the interest rate will increase to a profitable level within the next two years.
Standard and Poor’s stated that freezing interest rates on ARMs could discourage investment in mortgage backed securities, which will make the home loan credit crunch worse.
I think this idea is short-sighted grandstanding. It just delays the inevitable. Wage increases have not kept up with inflation, and it’s unlikely that trend will reverse within the next five years. If borrowers are unable to absorb a few hundred dollars increase in their mortgage payment now, it is unlikely they will be able to afford the increase five years from now.
The other big problem with this plan is that it is so unfair to the millions of people who don’t meet its very narrow guidelines.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tucson Green News Magazine
Tucson Green News Magazine is a free, two month old newspaper intended to bring together Tucsonans who want to live in greater harmony with the planet. The November issue contains articles about a group of bicycle recyclers, the energy-efficient features of Amory Park del Sol, bamboo farming, biodiesel, organic cotton, book reviews, a calendar of events and lots more.
My friend and house buying and selling client, Mary Sisson Eibs, writes the Desert Gardening column. In the current issue, she discusses composting. Mary also writes beautifully illustrated articles for Tucson Lifestyle.
You can pick up Tucson Green News Magazine at health food stores, coffee shops and most of the commercial establishments where tree huggers congregate. Distribution of the new issue starts on the 15th of the month and takes three days.
My friend and house buying and selling client, Mary Sisson Eibs, writes the Desert Gardening column. In the current issue, she discusses composting. Mary also writes beautifully illustrated articles for Tucson Lifestyle.
You can pick up Tucson Green News Magazine at health food stores, coffee shops and most of the commercial establishments where tree huggers congregate. Distribution of the new issue starts on the 15th of the month and takes three days.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Fourth Avenue Street Fair
The Fourth Avenue Winter Street Fair is this Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and takes place between East Ninth Street and University Blvd. along North Fourth Avenue. Free to the public, the Fourth Avenue Street Fair brings together 400 arts and crafts booths, 35 food vendors, 3 stages, street musicians, food, jugglers, street performers, kids entertainment, face painting, balloons and tons of other fun activities, and then packs them into three days of celebration.Among the fine art available are the fascinating photographs of my good bud and home buying and selling client, John Villinski. John specializes in close ups of mysterious objects like the car shown here. He also has images of landscapes, desert plants, minerals and much more. His works are still affordable, even to novice art collectors. You can buy one now and be able to say you knew him before he became famous, as I have no doubt he will be before long. You could also pick up some of his original greeting cards. Check out the amazing things on his web site, and then go meet him and buy his wares at booth 660 on the east side of North Fourth Avenue between East Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Home Value and Schools
In the December issue of DesertLeaf, the free magazine about Catalina Foothills living, is an article about how proximity to a school affects property values in Tucson. Chad A. Hartley, AICP, looked at average dollar per square foot sale price of single family houses sold in 2006 in eleven submarket areas in the greater Tucson area, and compared that to the $/sf sale price of houses within one quarter mile of a school.
The average sale price in the entire metro Tucson area was on average $10/sf less for houses located within a quarter mile of any type of school. The largest impact was in Northeast/Tanque Verde, where houses near schools sold for $20/sf less. The lowest impact was seen in Central/West Tucson, where houses near schools sold for only $1/sf less than the average house in that area.
Hartley suggested that one possible explanation could be that schools tend to be located on busy streets. Prospective buyers may also be concerned about kids hanging around and causing mischief before or after school. The study did not evaluate whether the price effect was greater near high schools.
The average sale price in the entire metro Tucson area was on average $10/sf less for houses located within a quarter mile of any type of school. The largest impact was in Northeast/Tanque Verde, where houses near schools sold for $20/sf less. The lowest impact was seen in Central/West Tucson, where houses near schools sold for only $1/sf less than the average house in that area.
Hartley suggested that one possible explanation could be that schools tend to be located on busy streets. Prospective buyers may also be concerned about kids hanging around and causing mischief before or after school. The study did not evaluate whether the price effect was greater near high schools.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Rainfall Data
Lovely weather we're having, isn't it? We got 0.21 inch of rain at our house yesterday. How much did you get? You don't have a rain gauge? Maybe you'll consider getting one now. It's fun to be involved with our fabulous climate, and you can even be a citizen scientist.
SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology) collects and reports rainfall data at 1,300 sites in Arizona, with 373 in Tucson alone. You can be a passive or active participant. You can sign up to receive a map by e-mail showing the amount of precipitation that fell the previous day at various places around the city, with your home location highlighted. You can also report your rainfall data.
It's fascinating to see how widely the rainfall varies from one neighborhood to another. Of course, you already know about that if you've ever had the experience of talking on the phone to a fellow Tucsonan, and marveling at the intensity of the rain, only to have your skeptical friend tell you it's not raining at all at his house.
SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology) collects and reports rainfall data at 1,300 sites in Arizona, with 373 in Tucson alone. You can be a passive or active participant. You can sign up to receive a map by e-mail showing the amount of precipitation that fell the previous day at various places around the city, with your home location highlighted. You can also report your rainfall data.
It's fascinating to see how widely the rainfall varies from one neighborhood to another. Of course, you already know about that if you've ever had the experience of talking on the phone to a fellow Tucsonan, and marveling at the intensity of the rain, only to have your skeptical friend tell you it's not raining at all at his house.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Grant Road Widening
Tonight I went to a meeting at Councilwoman Nina Trasoff's office in order to learn more about the proposed widening of Grant Road. The future of Grant Road is of great concern to me because my rentals are nearby and I frequently sell houses near Grant Road.
Only three things are known at this point -- Grant Road will be six lanes from Oracle to Swan; the budget is $166 million; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
I was hoping to learn which properties will be demolished, but I found that the purpose of the meeting was to get public input on priorities. The city says they will consider public opinion when determining which houses and businesses will be saved.
I have frequently heard people say that the houses on the north side of Grant will be demolished. According to Trasoff, this has not been decided. In fact, the road may curve several times in the interests of preserving the most important buildings and making the road more aesthetically pleasing. The final alignment will be selected by fall 2008.
People who own homes or businesses on or near Grant will be in limbo until the alignment is announced. Who wants to buy a house or start a business if it will be condemned in a few years? If Grant ends up in your back yard, will your property value decrease?
Participants in the meeting were very concerned about preserving the unique character of Grant Road. Support for small, locally-owned businesses was as strong as dislike of chains. Somebody must be supporting all those McDonald's and Walgreen's, but no one at the meeting would owe up to it.
Some people thought the houses along Grant should be saved. Having been inside many of those houses, I can say that because of the intense traffic fewer than 30 feet away, they are not relaxing places to be. Few people would buy a house on Grant with the intention of living in it. An investor may buy it to rent out, but rentals, especially those that can't command high rent because of an undesirable location, are notorious for lack of maintenance. A drive down Grant will confirm this. I don't think those houses are going to look any better when Grant Road is six lanes.
I have talked with a few clients about converting a cute old Grant Road house to commercial use. It seems like a good idea, but because the lots are so small, most houses can not meet city requirements for business ingress, egress and parking.
Grant Road is not pedestrian friendly. It is already too wide to walk across easily, and the noisy, speeding cars are tranquility killers. The city planners told us that walls are not the answer. They may block some of the noise on one side of the street, but it just bounces over to the other side. With walls on both sides, we have the echo corridors that make Furnix, that inferno two hours to the north, so oppressive.
Rubberized asphalt is proposed for the sections of Grant where the houses will remain. This doesn't mitigate the noise and pollution of trucks, busses and motorcycles, but it will cut down on the tire noise of most cars.
Other concerns were the need for better drainage, shorter waits at the lights, making it easier to turn left, buried utiliies, landscaping, and enhancement and creation of parks.
The city planners say preservation of Bobo's Restaurant at Country Club and Grant always shows up on citizens' lists of concerns. I've never been to Bobo's, so I can't vouch for the food, but its fans do seem to be legion, given the traffic jams of cars trying to turn into their parking lot.
To learn more about the planning process for the Grant Road widening, go to www.grantroad.info. If you want to offer your two cents, attend one of the planning meetings to be held at the Tucson Association of Realtors, 2445 N Tucson Boulevard, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM on January 14, 16 and 17.
Only three things are known at this point -- Grant Road will be six lanes from Oracle to Swan; the budget is $166 million; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
I was hoping to learn which properties will be demolished, but I found that the purpose of the meeting was to get public input on priorities. The city says they will consider public opinion when determining which houses and businesses will be saved.
I have frequently heard people say that the houses on the north side of Grant will be demolished. According to Trasoff, this has not been decided. In fact, the road may curve several times in the interests of preserving the most important buildings and making the road more aesthetically pleasing. The final alignment will be selected by fall 2008.
People who own homes or businesses on or near Grant will be in limbo until the alignment is announced. Who wants to buy a house or start a business if it will be condemned in a few years? If Grant ends up in your back yard, will your property value decrease?
Participants in the meeting were very concerned about preserving the unique character of Grant Road. Support for small, locally-owned businesses was as strong as dislike of chains. Somebody must be supporting all those McDonald's and Walgreen's, but no one at the meeting would owe up to it.
Some people thought the houses along Grant should be saved. Having been inside many of those houses, I can say that because of the intense traffic fewer than 30 feet away, they are not relaxing places to be. Few people would buy a house on Grant with the intention of living in it. An investor may buy it to rent out, but rentals, especially those that can't command high rent because of an undesirable location, are notorious for lack of maintenance. A drive down Grant will confirm this. I don't think those houses are going to look any better when Grant Road is six lanes.
I have talked with a few clients about converting a cute old Grant Road house to commercial use. It seems like a good idea, but because the lots are so small, most houses can not meet city requirements for business ingress, egress and parking.
Grant Road is not pedestrian friendly. It is already too wide to walk across easily, and the noisy, speeding cars are tranquility killers. The city planners told us that walls are not the answer. They may block some of the noise on one side of the street, but it just bounces over to the other side. With walls on both sides, we have the echo corridors that make Furnix, that inferno two hours to the north, so oppressive.
Rubberized asphalt is proposed for the sections of Grant where the houses will remain. This doesn't mitigate the noise and pollution of trucks, busses and motorcycles, but it will cut down on the tire noise of most cars.
Other concerns were the need for better drainage, shorter waits at the lights, making it easier to turn left, buried utiliies, landscaping, and enhancement and creation of parks.
The city planners say preservation of Bobo's Restaurant at Country Club and Grant always shows up on citizens' lists of concerns. I've never been to Bobo's, so I can't vouch for the food, but its fans do seem to be legion, given the traffic jams of cars trying to turn into their parking lot.
To learn more about the planning process for the Grant Road widening, go to www.grantroad.info. If you want to offer your two cents, attend one of the planning meetings to be held at the Tucson Association of Realtors, 2445 N Tucson Boulevard, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM on January 14, 16 and 17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
