By The Tim on October 31st, 2006 at 4:16 PM · 5 Comments
Seattle Times writer Melissa Allison seems a bit too excited about today’s report that retail spending in Washington State grew by 10.5% from spring ‘05 to spring ‘06.
Those were the days, back in the spring when the flowers bloomed and the housing market sizzled.
Washingtonians had such confidence last spring that they spent with abandon on computers, hotel rooms, jewelry and other items.
They spent 10.5 percent more than they had a year earlier, the largest increase for taxable retail sales in Washington since 1990, according to April-to-June data released Monday by the state Department of Revenue.
Rising gas prices didn’t wreck the mood and are not included in the retail-sales data.
Economists say the spending has calmed since then, doused by a slowdown in the housing market and slower employment growth.
…
The state’s economic growth and therefore the spending are propelled by employment gains, particularly in high-wage sectors such as aerospace, software and construction, Sohn said.
So, the spending is “propelled by employment gains,” but when it “calms” it’s because of a slowdown in the housing market? What a delightful contradiction. I fail to see how a 10.5% retail spending increase can be attributed to “employment gains.” Were 10.5% more jobs added? Did everyone get a 10.5% raise? Smells like false assertion to me. I think it’s much more likely that the spending increase is primarily the result of home equity extraction and a declining savings rate.
Maybe it’s just me, but the news that people are spending increasingly more as incomes stay practically flat doesn’t seem like something to celebrate.
(Melissa Allison, Seattle Times, 10.31.2006)
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: tax revenues
By The Tim on October 31st, 2006 at 8:35 AM · 33 Comments
Our local condo enthusiast Matt made a post this morning pointing out an interesting sign of slowing:
For a limited-time, Queen Anne High School is offering a $5,000 BUYER BONUS on all homes under $400,000*!
With its close-to-downtown location, Seattle’s perma-hot real estate market, and all the free fawning press that this project got when it opened last month, you would think it would have sold out in record time.
Of course, I’m sure the local real estate cheerleaders would be more than happy to provide me with a plethora of perfectly rational-sounding explanations about the slow time of year, undesirable floorplans, and a “return to normal” for the market. Still though, does anyone doubt that this would have sold out in a week had it opened in September 2004 or 2005?
I’m just sayin’…
(Matt Goyer, Urbnlivn, 10.31.2006)
Categories: News
Tags: condos
By The Tim on October 30th, 2006 at 12:43 PM · 17 Comments
Research company Morgan Quinto released its latest “safest and most dangerous cities” rankings today, and overall, the Puget Sound did not fare particularly well. The Associated Press story reprinted in the P-I explains a little bit about how the 371 cities were ranked:
Cities are ranked based on more than just their crime rate, Morgan said. Individual crimes such as rape or burglary are measured separately, compared to national averages and then compiled to give a city its ranking. Crimes are weighted based on their level of danger.
While no city in Washington showed up on the “25 Safest” or “25 Most Dangerous” lists, the only Puget Sound city that managed to break out of the bottom third of the list was Bellevue, at #57. Seattle came in at #262, more dangerous than 70% of the cities that were ranked. Federal Way, Everett, & Kent fared even worse, ranking 277, 283, and 289, respectively. However, in what probably comes as no surprise to most of us, the lowest-ranked city in the Puget Sound (and even the whole state of Washington) was Tacoma, coming in at a miserable 324 (more dangerous than 87% of the ranked cities).
Here’s a table with all the cities from Washington State that were ranked:
| Rank |
City |
| 57. |
Bellevue, WA |
| 134. |
Spokane Valley, WA |
| 188. |
Vancouver, WA |
| 220. |
Spokane, WA |
| 262. |
Seattle, WA |
| 277. |
Federal Way, WA |
| 283. |
Everett, WA |
| 289. |
Kent, WA |
| 304. |
Yakima, WA |
| 324. |
Tacoma, WA |
I just thought this would be worth pointing out in the context of the “Seattle is a hugely desirable place to live” argument that we frequently hear regarding home prices. For the record, seventeen cities in California ranked higher than Bellevue, our area’s safest city on the list.
Seattle is a nice place to live (I like it here, really!), but I think we would do well to remember that it’s not some kind of perfect paradise.
(Christopher Leonard, Associated Press, 10.30.2006)
(Full Rankings: Associated Press, 10.30.2006)
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Uncategorized
By The Tim on October 30th, 2006 at 10:36 AM · 6 Comments
Here’s a bit of balance for you after that rental horror story. Astoundingly, today’s “home buying isn’t always a walk in the park” story comes to you courtesy of the Seattle Times (but not E. Rhodes of course).
Katherine and Robert McCartney thought they’d found the perfect first home in a 1,400-square-foot 1950s rambler in Boise, Idaho, a few years back. They thought they were getting a deal.
They actually were getting in way over their heads.
A few months after they bought the house, the couple had to move to Washington for work. But before they put the house on the market again, they spent thousands of dollars on a new roof, garbage disposal, paint job, window screens and sand for the oil furnace.
…
In the process of buying and reselling quickly, they discovered one of the cardinal rules of homeownership: That cool condo or cozy craftsman likely will cost thousands more than you paid for it, most notably for maintenance and repairs, furniture and fixtures — expenses that buyers should plan on but don’t.
Which is one of the many reasons that stretching your budget to buy a home is never a good idea. You never know what will come up, and you are pretty much guaranteed that there will be something that you didn’t expect. The “rule” that you shouldn’t spend more than 30% of your gross income on housing wasn’t just pulled out of thin air. If you don’t leave a financial buffer in your budget, you’re setting yourself up for problems down the road.
Home ownership is great, and I’m all for people buying houses—as long as they can actually afford to. There’s more to “affording” a house than the simple [INCOME] > [MONTHLY PAYMENT] equation.
(Heather Rae Darval, Seattle Times, 10.28.2006)
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Rhodes
By The Tim on October 28th, 2006 at 10:12 PM · 21 Comments
Maybe all those reports about the rental market getting tighter and tighter were true. In fact, the market is getting so tight, people are paying thousands to rent places that aren’t even available!
Imagine checking on a vacant rental house you own, only to find a family you don’t know living there.
It happened this week to a King County man. But the people who were living on his property insist they paid another man they thought was the owner nearly $6,000 to move in.
…
Mike and Lia Lester claim that they and another couple rented the house after seeing an ad on the Craigslist web site.
They met a man they thought was the owner of the house and paid him $5,700 in rent and security deposits and he gave them the keys to the home.
Now, they say they’ve been scammed.
…
Sean Stewart doesn’t know who they paid — but it wasn’t him. Stewart owns the house and he’s never met the Lester’s.
“I feel sorry for anyone who gets screwed like this,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that.”
The problem is Stewart has other renters moving in next week, so he says the Lesters have to go.
Doh. Seriously though, that would really suck. How would you even protect yourself from a scam like this? Demand to see the title to the property before moving in?
Of course, if the Lesters had just gotten on the equity escalator, they wouldn’t have put themselves into such a vulerable situation to begin with.
(KOMO Staff, KOMO, 10.28.2006)
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Uncategorized
By The Tim on October 27th, 2006 at 8:06 AM · 56 Comments
Hissssssss…
Thanks to the reader / college mate that sent this in. Seattle got a mention in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal story: Home Prices Keep Sliding; Buyers Sit Tight.
The air continues to seep out of the U.S. housing market, according to the latest data, and some economists are warning that prices will keep declining through much of 2007.
The National Association of Realtors yesterday reported the biggest drop in home prices since the trade group began compiling price data in 1968. Specifically, the association said the median price for home sales completed in September was $220,000, down 2.2% from a year earlier. That matched a revised 2.2% decline in August. In addition to being the largest price drops in at least 38 years, the back-to-back declines are the first time median home prices have fallen since 1995.
…
Seattle has been one of the strongest markets in recent months but is showing signs of losing some steam as inventories of unsold homes rise. In 17 counties of western and central Washington State covered by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, the median price in September was up 9.4% from a year earlier, the first single-digit increase in two years.
Mike Skahen, owner of real estate brokerage Lake & Co. in Seattle, says inventory is still lean in good neighborhoods near the area’s biggest employers. But the overall market is slowing to a more normal pace as “buyers are feeling they can be more selective.”
That seems to be the line I’ve been hearing a lot around here lately. We’re just “returning to a normal market.” That is certainly possible, but with the increasing rates of declining YOY sales and building YOY inventory, I’m not quite ready to accept that assertion.
(James R. Hagerty, Wall Street Journal, 10.26.2006)
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: Uncategorized