62 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

This sounds more like you

It's really hard to believe that Citrus Heights is more fiscally sound than Folsom. I wonder where the desirable CH neighborhoods are, because most of it seems pretty run down to me. Some 'hoods are downright scary.

I had a conversation tonight with a Folsomite who told me that Folsom is one of the most financially stable cities in the area. He then proceeded to tell me all the reasons that isolates Folsom from the economic woes that every city is experiencing.

Granted not everyone likes to hear what I have to say, but I do speak the truth and am direct.

CH has zero debt and had about $26 million in reserves. They are also contributing a higher % of pension cost than Folsom. Folsom has whittled their surplus down to about $6 million and has about $220 milion in debt and is paying the lowest amount towards the pension obligations.

Every independent study done on public pensions indicates they are unsustainable. ( SS is also going broke as well but that is another topic) So its only a matter of time until Agencies go under,UNLESS reforms are implemented. Cities like Folsom with higher debt will have less flexibility in dealing with this issue.

Our City fathers have done a GREAT job(there I said it )regarding approving development that generates sales tax dollars for the City. Maybe only Roseville has done better. Revenue is only part of the equation when looking at Cities financial health. When economies slow, cities with lots of debt and deferred legacy costs tend to struggle because they can't cut out paying on these things.

I'm sure you read where our own staff are acknowledging that building additional residential housing doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required for this development. You also know the City will be issuing bonds to develop S50. So we are going further into debt to add more residents that are going to require general funds be siphoned off to provide services to these new residents. This is NOT improving our financial condtion. Actually its making it worse.

Folsom does have a lot of good things going for it, including the opening of the mall. This will be a significant positive for our revenues.

No matter how big, pretty or new a ship is, at some point it can get too overloaded and sink. I'm only trying to raise the awareness of the potential impacts of S50 and how they may affect our current home values and the financially stability of our City.

[old soldier]

Granted not everyone likes to hear what I have to say, but I do speak the truth and am direct.

CH has zero debt and had about $26 million in reserves. They are also contributing a higher % of pension cost than Folsom. Folsom has whittled their surplus down to about $6 million and has about $220 milion in debt and is paying the lowest amount towards the pension obligations.

Every independent study done on public pensions indicates they are unsustainable. ( SS is also going broke as well but that is another topic) So its only a matter of time until Agencies go under,UNLESS reforms are implemented. Cities like Folsom with higher debt will have less flexibility in dealing with this issue.

Our City fathers have done a GREAT job(there I said it )regarding approving development that generates sales tax dollars for the City. Maybe only Roseville has done better. Revenue is only part of the equation when looking at Cities financial health. When economies slow, cities with lots of debt and deferred legacy costs tend to struggle because they can't cut out paying on these things.

I'm sure you read where our own staff are acknowledging that building additional residential housing doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required for this development. You also know the City will be issuing bonds to develop S50. So we are going further into debt to add more residents that are going to require general funds be siphoned off to provide services to these new residents. This is NOT improving our financial condtion. Actually its making it worse.

Folsom does have a lot of good things going for it, including the opening of the mall. This will be a significant positive for our revenues.

No matter how big, pretty or new a ship is, at some point it can get too overloaded and sink. I'm only trying to raise the awareness of the potential impacts of S50 and how they may affect our current home values and the financially stability of our City.

old soldier seconds the vote that old Robert speaks the truth and is as wise on the financial and political issues on the city of Folsom as old soldier is about wisdom and lessons learned with is superior powers of observation

Old soldier thought that charter thing which approved south of 50 said it had to be financed is a way so the bill would not have to be paid by us north of 50 folks....did the council folks find a way to weazle out of that requirment by coming up with the bond idea.

I think its about time for old Fiesty Kerri, the council lady who is not afraid of my folsom to jump in here

[valdossjoyce]

"I'm sure you read where our own staff are acknowledging that building additional residential housing doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required for this development. You also know the City will be issuing bonds to develop S50."

Hey, Robert, I'd like you to clarify. How do you know that the city will be issuing bonds for development south of 50? Even if the bonds are issued, aren't they the kind of bonds that are repaid by the property owners and not the city? Only if the owners default would the city (and all taxpayer generated general fund $) be obligated to repay the bond debt. I guess I just don't know all that much about local government-issued bonds.

[Robert Giacometti]

"I'm sure you read where our own staff are acknowledging that building additional residential housing doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required for this development. You also know the City will be issuing bonds to develop S50."

Hey, Robert, I'd like you to clarify. How do you know that the city will be issuing bonds for development south of 50? Even if the bonds are issued, aren't they the kind of bonds that are repaid by the property owners and not the city? Only if the owners default would the city (and all taxpayer generated general fund $) be obligated to repay the bond debt. I guess I just don't know all that much about local government-issued bonds.

A couple of months ago there was an article in the Telegraph where David Miller talked about all the creative financing that was being arranged to build the infrastructure. Yes, in theory the bonds would be paid back by the new Homeowners. However if the project doesn't pan out, then the city would be on the hook for these...since the city owns the infrastructure. I suspect the developer would form an LLC to limit their exposure to loss to this project, so if the project went belly up, they would be limited to their investment in this project only.

[valdossjoyce]

A couple of months ago there was an article in the Telegraph where David Miller talked about all the creative financing that was being arranged to build the infrastructure. Yes, in theory the bonds would be paid back by the new Homeowners. However if the project doesn't pan out, then the city would be on the hook for these...since the city owns the infrastructure. I suspect the developer would form an LLC to limit their exposure to loss to this project, so if the project went belly up, they would be limited to their investment in this project only.

thanks. that makes sense.

[caligirlz]

Have you heard about Chase's incentive to underwater homeowners? They will pay the owner between $10,000-$35,000 to short sale the house. There's some realtor in Roseville blogging about it.

"Some underwater homeowners being offered overwhelming offer from Chase"
http://sacramento.cb...y/watch-listen/ --go to latest videos

[Redone]

Have you heard about Chase's incentive to underwater homeowners? They will pay the owner between $10,000-$35,000 to short sale the house. There's some realtor in Roseville blogging about it.

"Some underwater homeowners being offered overwhelming offer from Chase"
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/category/watch-listen/ --go to latest videos

I know of 2 of these letters and it's real. However on both they were Chase portfolio held loans, not Fannie Mae , VA, FHA , etc.

[caligirlz]

Just read a Gary Shilling piece which predicts another 20% fall in RE prices 2011-2013

http://www.safehaven.com/article/21022/still-home-sick

[Robert Giacometti]

Here is some more news

http://finance.yahoo...8&asset=&ccode=

Does anyone know if foreclosures that are bought at auction are counted in the numbers that get reported through MLS? If NOT, then we really aren't seeing the true picture of what is happening in the market.

[Darth Lefty]

Have you heard about Chase's incentive to underwater homeowners? They will pay the owner between $10,000-$35,000 to short sale the house.

The banks need to provide some incentive to buyers of "short sales" - because that's a laughable thing to call them. I know a couple who have been in limbo for about six months buying their house in Gold River.

[Johnny_come_lately]

Here is some more news

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Foreclosures-for-sale-Big-cnnm-2801454840.html;_ylt=Ash2jhpFpyInOVDi1B0Eg8i7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2cjRwcGZqBHBvcwMxMQRzZWMDdG9wU3RvcmllcwRzbGsDZm9yZWNsb3N1cmVz?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

Does anyone know if foreclosures that are bought at auction are counted in the numbers that get reported through MLS? If NOT, then we really aren't seeing the true picture of what is happening in the market.

Steve is probably a much better source of info, but i think you're comparing apples and oranges. The article mentioned above is based on data collected by RealtyTrac. They collect data from many sources, one of which may be the MLS. The MLS is a subscription service that the Realtors and Brokers use for listing properties. Not all properties (e.g. For Sale By Owner) are listed on the MLS.

There are a lot of different data providers out there that collect data in a lot of different ways. The hard part is figuring out what they are, and aren't, counting.

[M.E.G.]

The MLS does not list or track properties that are foreclosed on at the courthouse steps. The times that those properties would show on the MLS, is either when they were on the market as a short sale, or if the bank foreclosed on the home and had an agent list the property for sale.

I think Realty Trac main focus is distressed properties, following them from the Notice of Default to foreclosure. They also say they have mls listings, so it may be a bit of a "mashup". I don't use Realty Trac myself, I like ForeclosureRadar to keep track of the distressed properties and where they are at in the foreclosure process.

M.E.G.

[Steve Heard]

Does anyone know if foreclosures that are bought at auction are counted in the numbers that get reported through MLS? If NOT, then we really aren't seeing the true picture of what is happening in the market.

No, MLS only reports on homes listed and sold through MLS by MLS subscribers. When a bank auctions a property at the courthouse steps, the data is picked up by other companies.

You are correct, we aren't getting the true picture. I'll run the local numbers to see how Folsom stacks up.

Steve is probably a much better source of info, but i think you're comparing apples and oranges. The article mentioned above is based on data collected by RealtyTrac. They collect data from many sources, one of which may be the MLS. The MLS is a subscription service that the Realtors and Brokers use for listing properties. Not all properties (e.g. For Sale By Owner) are listed on the MLS.

There are a lot of different data providers out there that collect data in a lot of different ways. The hard part is figuring out what they are, and aren't, counting.

True.

Foreclosures are devastating home values

There's a three-year inventory of homes in foreclosure for sale, and that's devastating home prices.

Las Vegas has so many foreclosures that 53% of all the homes sold in Nevada are in some stage of foreclosure, according to a report from RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed properties.

Foreclosures represent 45% of sales in California and Arizona, and 28% of all existing home sales during the first three months of 2011.

What's more, the homes are selling at steep discounts, especially so-called REOs, bank-owned homes that have been taken in foreclosure procedures.

The average REO cost on average about 35% less than comparable properties, according to RealtyTrac.

But in some areas, the discounts were ever greater: In New York State, the discount for REOs was 53% during the first quarter. And it was nearly 50% in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Also weighing on market prices are "short sales," homes where the selling price is less than what is owed by the borrowers. These sales sold at an average 9% discount.

Wow, sounds depressing. This report is saying that when banks sell their REO, they are selling for 35% less than comparable properties and over 50% more inn some other states, but is it true for Folsom? These are numbers pulled directly from our local MLS showing actual reported and recorded sales.



This graph shows average price per square foot for all traditional or 'equity' (non REO or Short-Sale) sales of Folsom homes sold through MLS for the past year. As you can see, we are down, with minor fluctuations by month. Current average is $165 per square foot.



This shows the average price per square foot of Folsom REO (foreclosed properties sold by banks). At 146 per square foot this past month, that is 12% less than equity sales, not the 35% nationwide average as described by Realtytrac.



These are the short-sale numbers. Right at about the same 12% discount as expected for equity sales, and rightly so. Short-sales can take months to close.

I have 3 closing in the next week or so, the longest of which we've been in contract since September. The 2 others have only been about 3 months, but this 3 times longer than the typical 30 day equity sale. Buyers should expect to be rewarded for their patience with a nice discount.

Folks, the numbers fluctate from deal to deal and market to market, and although it ain't all rainbows and butterflies, it's not doom and gloom either.

The low prices may not be good news for sellers, but for buyers, they have a very rare opportunity to purchase homes at low prices with low interest rates and end up paying in some cases, less than they are for rent. They couldn't be happier. Sellers, not as happy, but about half of all sales are equity sales.

I could go on and on and on, but I'm off to list a property. Talk atcha later!

[caligirlz]

National Home Prices Hit New Low in 2011 Q1 According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices (lots of graphs & other info)

LINK

Despite the greatest infusion of Fed money into the housing market of all time ... despite the government’s massive rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... and despite all the happy talk of economic recovery ...

U.S. home prices have just suffered their worst decline in 16 months, plunging BELOW the LOWEST level of the entire 2007-2009 housing debacle!

This means that the entire housing market recovery since that time is now gone, wiped out.

It means that millions of homeowners who purchased homes anytime in the past eight years are now under water.

BUTTTT, so far, my experience with house hunting in Folsom does not reflect these realities. New listings are getting offers practically immediately, and current inventory is decreasing due to buyer demand. The summer buying frenzy has begun.