Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM in reply to: Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit #344351
SDEngineer
ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM in reply to: Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit #344673ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM in reply to: Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit #344781ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM in reply to: Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit #344812ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM in reply to: Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit #344909ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343413Participant[quote=nostradamus]Interesting SDEng. I had wondered about that.
What kind of advantage would a “twin home” have over an SFR? The way I see it, you pay SFR price for a condo life!
Yes AN, those sales comps in 2008 are what have me perplexed. Even then there were cheaper houses. I wonder if it’s because this is just about the furthest North-West in Mira Mesa you can get.[/quote]
Oh, there aren’t any advantages really that I can see with a twin home vs. a SFR, other than they’re generally cheaper, for largely the same experience (most twinhomes I’ve seen have similar sized yards to SFR’s, which are different from townhomes which from what I’ve seen generally don’t have much more than a patio if anything at all). You share one wall, and, at least if my brother’s twinhome is representative, the insulation between the twinhomes is enough that you’re more likely to hear your neighbor on the other side through his facing windows. You do give up a side yard though.
There are quite a few advantages compared to a condo – mostly that you are in charge of the exterior upkeep of the home, and the other owners are in charge of theirs – which makes you only resposible for yours. Should a dozen homes in a condo development require re-roofing, the entire HOA would probably get a major assessment.
Generally twin homes and townhomes are also cheaper than an SFR – as I indicated up top, I think these are “wishing prices” based on the most recent comparables, and not really realizing that the market has dropped further since those comparables sold. They are, however, more expensive than condo’s.
According to a number of realtors I’ve talked to, this also holds true long term. True SFR’s appreciate better than twinhomes, which appreciate better than townhomes, with condos bringing up the rear. They’re also easier to sell in about that order.
February 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343733Participant[quote=nostradamus]Interesting SDEng. I had wondered about that.
What kind of advantage would a “twin home” have over an SFR? The way I see it, you pay SFR price for a condo life!
Yes AN, those sales comps in 2008 are what have me perplexed. Even then there were cheaper houses. I wonder if it’s because this is just about the furthest North-West in Mira Mesa you can get.[/quote]
Oh, there aren’t any advantages really that I can see with a twin home vs. a SFR, other than they’re generally cheaper, for largely the same experience (most twinhomes I’ve seen have similar sized yards to SFR’s, which are different from townhomes which from what I’ve seen generally don’t have much more than a patio if anything at all). You share one wall, and, at least if my brother’s twinhome is representative, the insulation between the twinhomes is enough that you’re more likely to hear your neighbor on the other side through his facing windows. You do give up a side yard though.
There are quite a few advantages compared to a condo – mostly that you are in charge of the exterior upkeep of the home, and the other owners are in charge of theirs – which makes you only resposible for yours. Should a dozen homes in a condo development require re-roofing, the entire HOA would probably get a major assessment.
Generally twin homes and townhomes are also cheaper than an SFR – as I indicated up top, I think these are “wishing prices” based on the most recent comparables, and not really realizing that the market has dropped further since those comparables sold. They are, however, more expensive than condo’s.
According to a number of realtors I’ve talked to, this also holds true long term. True SFR’s appreciate better than twinhomes, which appreciate better than townhomes, with condos bringing up the rear. They’re also easier to sell in about that order.
February 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343841Participant[quote=nostradamus]Interesting SDEng. I had wondered about that.
What kind of advantage would a “twin home” have over an SFR? The way I see it, you pay SFR price for a condo life!
Yes AN, those sales comps in 2008 are what have me perplexed. Even then there were cheaper houses. I wonder if it’s because this is just about the furthest North-West in Mira Mesa you can get.[/quote]
Oh, there aren’t any advantages really that I can see with a twin home vs. a SFR, other than they’re generally cheaper, for largely the same experience (most twinhomes I’ve seen have similar sized yards to SFR’s, which are different from townhomes which from what I’ve seen generally don’t have much more than a patio if anything at all). You share one wall, and, at least if my brother’s twinhome is representative, the insulation between the twinhomes is enough that you’re more likely to hear your neighbor on the other side through his facing windows. You do give up a side yard though.
There are quite a few advantages compared to a condo – mostly that you are in charge of the exterior upkeep of the home, and the other owners are in charge of theirs – which makes you only resposible for yours. Should a dozen homes in a condo development require re-roofing, the entire HOA would probably get a major assessment.
Generally twin homes and townhomes are also cheaper than an SFR – as I indicated up top, I think these are “wishing prices” based on the most recent comparables, and not really realizing that the market has dropped further since those comparables sold. They are, however, more expensive than condo’s.
According to a number of realtors I’ve talked to, this also holds true long term. True SFR’s appreciate better than twinhomes, which appreciate better than townhomes, with condos bringing up the rear. They’re also easier to sell in about that order.
February 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343870Participant[quote=nostradamus]Interesting SDEng. I had wondered about that.
What kind of advantage would a “twin home” have over an SFR? The way I see it, you pay SFR price for a condo life!
Yes AN, those sales comps in 2008 are what have me perplexed. Even then there were cheaper houses. I wonder if it’s because this is just about the furthest North-West in Mira Mesa you can get.[/quote]
Oh, there aren’t any advantages really that I can see with a twin home vs. a SFR, other than they’re generally cheaper, for largely the same experience (most twinhomes I’ve seen have similar sized yards to SFR’s, which are different from townhomes which from what I’ve seen generally don’t have much more than a patio if anything at all). You share one wall, and, at least if my brother’s twinhome is representative, the insulation between the twinhomes is enough that you’re more likely to hear your neighbor on the other side through his facing windows. You do give up a side yard though.
There are quite a few advantages compared to a condo – mostly that you are in charge of the exterior upkeep of the home, and the other owners are in charge of theirs – which makes you only resposible for yours. Should a dozen homes in a condo development require re-roofing, the entire HOA would probably get a major assessment.
Generally twin homes and townhomes are also cheaper than an SFR – as I indicated up top, I think these are “wishing prices” based on the most recent comparables, and not really realizing that the market has dropped further since those comparables sold. They are, however, more expensive than condo’s.
According to a number of realtors I’ve talked to, this also holds true long term. True SFR’s appreciate better than twinhomes, which appreciate better than townhomes, with condos bringing up the rear. They’re also easier to sell in about that order.
February 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343967Participant[quote=nostradamus]Interesting SDEng. I had wondered about that.
What kind of advantage would a “twin home” have over an SFR? The way I see it, you pay SFR price for a condo life!
Yes AN, those sales comps in 2008 are what have me perplexed. Even then there were cheaper houses. I wonder if it’s because this is just about the furthest North-West in Mira Mesa you can get.[/quote]
Oh, there aren’t any advantages really that I can see with a twin home vs. a SFR, other than they’re generally cheaper, for largely the same experience (most twinhomes I’ve seen have similar sized yards to SFR’s, which are different from townhomes which from what I’ve seen generally don’t have much more than a patio if anything at all). You share one wall, and, at least if my brother’s twinhome is representative, the insulation between the twinhomes is enough that you’re more likely to hear your neighbor on the other side through his facing windows. You do give up a side yard though.
There are quite a few advantages compared to a condo – mostly that you are in charge of the exterior upkeep of the home, and the other owners are in charge of theirs – which makes you only resposible for yours. Should a dozen homes in a condo development require re-roofing, the entire HOA would probably get a major assessment.
Generally twin homes and townhomes are also cheaper than an SFR – as I indicated up top, I think these are “wishing prices” based on the most recent comparables, and not really realizing that the market has dropped further since those comparables sold. They are, however, more expensive than condo’s.
According to a number of realtors I’ve talked to, this also holds true long term. True SFR’s appreciate better than twinhomes, which appreciate better than townhomes, with condos bringing up the rear. They’re also easier to sell in about that order.
February 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343347Participant[quote=nostradamus]I guess it’s subjective what one calls a condo, for me if you pay an HOA and share any walls and share common areas, that’s a condo. Sellers/owners/agents use nice euphemisms like “duplex” or “townhome” but… these are subsets of the definition of condo.
They are very nice condos but the houses are in the same locale, bigger, better, and cheaper. IMO.[/quote]
Actually, my mother (an ex-realtor) corrected me on this. There is in fact a substantial legal difference between a townhome/twinhome and a condo.
In a townhome, you own the house fee-simple, meaning you also own the land under it – even though you have an HOA taking cared of the shared elements. Unlike a condo, though, you actually own the entire home, and the land underneath it – so the owner, and not the HOA, is responsible for their exterior walls, their roofs, and so on. There are more shared elements than a SFR, but a lot fewer than a condo, where the HOA takes care of the exterior roofs, the walls, etc.
Theoretically, this would place more of the burden on home maintenance of the exterior variety on the individual townhome owners, and thus makes it less likely the HOA would levy large assessments for upkeep, but I have no idea how that plays out in real life.
Of course, there are a lot of “townhome” developments that are really condos – just have to check to see whether it’s a condo ownership, or a fee-simple ownership to tell which type you’re looking at.
February 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343668Participant[quote=nostradamus]I guess it’s subjective what one calls a condo, for me if you pay an HOA and share any walls and share common areas, that’s a condo. Sellers/owners/agents use nice euphemisms like “duplex” or “townhome” but… these are subsets of the definition of condo.
They are very nice condos but the houses are in the same locale, bigger, better, and cheaper. IMO.[/quote]
Actually, my mother (an ex-realtor) corrected me on this. There is in fact a substantial legal difference between a townhome/twinhome and a condo.
In a townhome, you own the house fee-simple, meaning you also own the land under it – even though you have an HOA taking cared of the shared elements. Unlike a condo, though, you actually own the entire home, and the land underneath it – so the owner, and not the HOA, is responsible for their exterior walls, their roofs, and so on. There are more shared elements than a SFR, but a lot fewer than a condo, where the HOA takes care of the exterior roofs, the walls, etc.
Theoretically, this would place more of the burden on home maintenance of the exterior variety on the individual townhome owners, and thus makes it less likely the HOA would levy large assessments for upkeep, but I have no idea how that plays out in real life.
Of course, there are a lot of “townhome” developments that are really condos – just have to check to see whether it’s a condo ownership, or a fee-simple ownership to tell which type you’re looking at.
February 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343777Participant[quote=nostradamus]I guess it’s subjective what one calls a condo, for me if you pay an HOA and share any walls and share common areas, that’s a condo. Sellers/owners/agents use nice euphemisms like “duplex” or “townhome” but… these are subsets of the definition of condo.
They are very nice condos but the houses are in the same locale, bigger, better, and cheaper. IMO.[/quote]
Actually, my mother (an ex-realtor) corrected me on this. There is in fact a substantial legal difference between a townhome/twinhome and a condo.
In a townhome, you own the house fee-simple, meaning you also own the land under it – even though you have an HOA taking cared of the shared elements. Unlike a condo, though, you actually own the entire home, and the land underneath it – so the owner, and not the HOA, is responsible for their exterior walls, their roofs, and so on. There are more shared elements than a SFR, but a lot fewer than a condo, where the HOA takes care of the exterior roofs, the walls, etc.
Theoretically, this would place more of the burden on home maintenance of the exterior variety on the individual townhome owners, and thus makes it less likely the HOA would levy large assessments for upkeep, but I have no idea how that plays out in real life.
Of course, there are a lot of “townhome” developments that are really condos – just have to check to see whether it’s a condo ownership, or a fee-simple ownership to tell which type you’re looking at.
February 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa half-mil $ condos vs. bigger, better, cheaper sfrs #343805Participant[quote=nostradamus]I guess it’s subjective what one calls a condo, for me if you pay an HOA and share any walls and share common areas, that’s a condo. Sellers/owners/agents use nice euphemisms like “duplex” or “townhome” but… these are subsets of the definition of condo.
They are very nice condos but the houses are in the same locale, bigger, better, and cheaper. IMO.[/quote]
Actually, my mother (an ex-realtor) corrected me on this. There is in fact a substantial legal difference between a townhome/twinhome and a condo.
In a townhome, you own the house fee-simple, meaning you also own the land under it – even though you have an HOA taking cared of the shared elements. Unlike a condo, though, you actually own the entire home, and the land underneath it – so the owner, and not the HOA, is responsible for their exterior walls, their roofs, and so on. There are more shared elements than a SFR, but a lot fewer than a condo, where the HOA takes care of the exterior roofs, the walls, etc.
Theoretically, this would place more of the burden on home maintenance of the exterior variety on the individual townhome owners, and thus makes it less likely the HOA would levy large assessments for upkeep, but I have no idea how that plays out in real life.
Of course, there are a lot of “townhome” developments that are really condos – just have to check to see whether it’s a condo ownership, or a fee-simple ownership to tell which type you’re looking at.
-
AuthorPosts
