Seattle Bubble

• New Enonomy: selling each other houses
• Stop the Mortgage Bailout
• Venting About Housing In Seattle
• Seattle Bubble Announcements
• The Nature of the Mortgage Crisis

Jump to the bottom to add your comment. ↓

79 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bella // Apr 9, 2008 at 9:43 am

  While it does look very pretty, it reminds me of the house I was renting before the one I’m in now, that the owners of then tried to sell for what I thought was an over-inflated price. While this looks great in pictures, I wonder if pieces of the cabinetry might be falling off in a year? Or if the lightbulbs will burn out at an astonishing rate because the owner didn’t re-wire the house, or did it himself? Perhaps the front porch is tilted like mine was, or the wood on the back deck might start to get creaky because it wasn’t sealed properly. It definitely seems as though, much like my old house, that many of the rooms are very small. It probably has a lot of them, but I’ll bet they are all useless. And finally, who in the hell needs 4 bathrooms?!?

• 2 The Tim // Apr 9, 2008 at 9:45 am

  And finally, who in the hell needs 4 bathrooms?!?

  Martin (the NPR interviewer) referred to it as “the coffee drinker’s dream home.”

• 3 Nathan // Apr 9, 2008 at 9:52 am

  I, like many of you, am not in favor of a mortgage bailout. At first, I thought if the government just *has* to do something in order to sleep better at night, they should offer rental assistance instead.

  But now I believe if they offer money for rental assistance, it will only create artificially higher rental prices. Is my thinking sound on that?

  Are us renters and savers just “effed in the ay” by any government involvement, or is there a way government can actually help?

• 4 b // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:24 am

  Nathan -

  The government can help by forcing market transparency and actually enforcing their own regulations of these industries and using the FBI/SEC to really hit bad players hard with jail time. Any rent bailout will just increase rents by that much, much like easy credit has fueled crazy house prices and ludicrous college tuition increases. The government is good at regulation and infrastructure building, not bailouts.

• 5 Bella // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:31 am

  I think a bailout is a giant load of crap. It is rewarding people for using poor judgement. Everyone told me I should buy a house 2 years ago, when things were at their peak. I refused, sure that prices had to drop some (they seem to have), not seeing anything that was worth the asking price, and because I did not feel that it would be within my means at the time to make a purchase.
  Where is my reward for using good judgement and not buying something I couldn’t afford? I would be much more in favor of giving non-home owners something towards a down payment so that some of us could keep the market afloat by buying now. But whatever, it’ll never happen.

• 6 Alan // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:38 am

  But now I believe if they offer money for rental assistance, it will only create artificially higher rental prices. Is my thinking sound on that?

  You got it! It will also make rentals more profitable. It will also put upward pressure on housing prices since more people will want to own rentals. That will displace home owners and make the program more expensive.

  You will also see people trade houses they own so that they can rent from each other and receive the subsidy.

• 7 Buceri // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:44 am

  No different than the airline bailout after Sept. 11th. They should have given taxpayers vouchers to fly instead of free cash for the airlines.

  Now, it’s the same thing; just throwing money to the problem.

• 8 alex // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:03 am

  Bella’s idea (#5) is the way to go! Bail the market out by giving lots of non-homeowners an incentive that is tied to them using that as downpayment for houses. But make that a small incentive.

  That wouldl prompt lots of people to make low offers (don’t want to lose the free money).

• 9 Ubersalad // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:34 am

  “I would be much more in favor of giving non-home owners something towards a down payment so that some of us could keep the market afloat by buying now. But whatever, it’ll never happen.”

  I just caught this… That is not much different than providing interest-only and Optional ARM, which was what fueled this RE bubble.

• 10 The Tim // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:38 am

  Personally I think any government “assistance” that acts on the demand side of things is only going to screw stuff up. Artificially high demand is what got us into this mess. The solution is not to keep demand propped up through even more artificial means.

• 11 rose-colored-coolaid // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  I agree with Tim. You can’t add incentives to solve a market which has grown overly large. In fact, the government should almost never provide any incentives at all. Look at what happens in Iran when they provide oil incentives, the demand spikes, exports drop, and suddenly they can’t afford the incentives they are giving out. Homeownership already has enough incentives, the government does not need to add more.

  Now, if the government provided incentives for something which is actually valuable, that might be another story. For instance, people prefer suburbs over cities, but cities tend to be far more efficient (mass transit, reduced total land use, etc). If incentives were provided for living in downtown and extra taxes levied for suburban homes, I might support that. Instead, we’ll probably just create weird land use restrictions…

• 12 bbcaddict // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  awesome segment this morning! I’m very glad to have caught it - Crown Hill/ N. Ballard (98117)seems to be a neighborhood where people still think that it’s OK to nudge tiny houses to over half a million just because they’ve “added value” to it.
  There’s many that couldn’t be worht more than 300K in “real” terms even with all the glamour added.
  I second that those gloaters on this blog were very annoying.
  I’m hoping that they will “correct” more as the year rolls on.

• 13 SeattleMoose // Apr 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm

  All “bailouts” to date consist of handing Joe Homeowner a piece of wood to hang onto as the Tsunami approaches. All are just token efforts to give the illusion of help.

  In the end all government efforts to help will be futile if not harmful. Besides, they got bigger bear to fry as more financial institutions start to fall like dominos.

  Nobody wants to take their medicine…but that is precisely what is needed.

• 14 Rhonda Porter // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  I’m so upset watching news blips of Barney Frank demanding that banks write down troubled mortgages 85% and let the borrower keep the home. :( If the home goes to short sale, it’s still may be a loss for the bank but at least they have the house. I think there are other options besides a write down…otherwise, shouldn’t all homeowners deserve a write down? I think it would be easier for lenders to offer those in trouble interest only payments at their note rate for a certain period of time. Or if they do “forgive” a certain percentage of the mortgage, the bank should be allowed to record a second mortgage for the amount forgiven on the property. Just a few thoughts…

• 15 Buceri // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Amazing piece on NPR about subprime loans sales, etc. Listen at 10 minutes after the hour in today’s “All things Considered”. A 28 year old making $500K a year and how they screwed poeple.

  Those of you in the industry will enjoy it (or hate it).

• 16 Affluent Bitter Renter // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  “I think there are other options besides a write down…otherwise, shouldn’t all homeowners deserve a write down?”

  Obviously, the only owners who deserve a writedown are ones who got in way, way, over their heads - I’m especially partial for writedowns for couples who bought his and her Lexuses with HELOC money. They’re victims, after all…

• 17 afferent input // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  The UW professor said that “people depend on their home equity,” which is certainly true, but should they? This needs to be allowed to play out naturally so we can get back to a rational, sound economy.

  Well said. The housing bubble was all a ponzi scheme. There was no new innovation that led to skyrocketing prices. It’s not like granite counter top technology made leaps and bounds the last few years. Housing has outstripped incomes. Builders made the problem worse by building too many houses/condos trying to cash in.

  The gunk needs to work itself out of the economy. The worst thing that could happen would be to keep the ponzi scheme going using tax dollars.

  That’s not to say that govt won’t need to help, but govt should help those that really need it, like food stamps, homeless shelters and job training. These services will need to be enhanced the next few years in order to lessen the pain and get people back on their feet. But money should NOT handed over to the shark on Wall St. They made bad bets, and they should pay for it.

• 18 Andy // Apr 9, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  I was happy to hear the segment this morning myself, though I was annoyed that the reporter made it sound as though all we are doing is reveling in the misfortunes of others. The reality is these folks who are underwater brought their misfortunes on themselves. No one forced them to buy these overpriced houses. It is unethical for the government to force those of us who made sound financial decision to bail out those who didn’t. Forget “I told you so.” It’s a matter of fairness. It’s not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars to shield people from the consequences of their decisions. In a free market economy stupid ought to hurt.

• 19 EconE // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  “I think there are other options besides a write down…otherwise, shouldn’t all homeowners deserve a write down?”

  sure…why not? And while we’re at it…let’s freeze the MLS (a snapshot in time so to speak) and then discount every asking price to 85% of the current asking price and let the negotiations start from there.

• 20 Marc // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  I can just see it on the inside dust cover of the sequel to Freakonomics:

  “In a free market economy stupid ought to hurt.” Andy, SeattleBubble.com

• 21 softwarengineer // Apr 9, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  ASK THE INSANE GROWTH PROFESSOR THIS QUESTION TIM

  Why is the insane growth of our housing industry the last 10-20 years, coupled with the simultaneous demise of our Seattle area industrial base, good for our economy’s future?

  Ask him this too:

  With no glueboard house assembly growth replacing our lost manufacturing base going on lately; how will we pay your necessary bailout bills and who in their right mind would have got us in this horrifying depression sounding predicament in the first place?

• 22 Bella // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  That’s why I said I’d be “more in favor of” - I don’t think anyone is going to give the responsible people anything and that’s fine, I guess that’s why we are responsible, we don’t really need help. But I don’t see how it is the same as giving an interest only or ARM. I do agree that those kinds of loans are most of what is causing a problem, but giving someone one is not really “giving” them anything. Except maybe a disaster waiting to happen. Not a point worth debating though. Point is, in my view, if you took a risky loan, that is your own fault. No one should be bailing you out.

• 23 Ray Pepper // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  800k for that HOME? Good Lord!! The only bright side to that purchase will be the $18,000.00 you receive in commission for using 500 Realty.

  See theres always a bright side…………..!

  http://www.500Realty.net

• 24 Emma Anne // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  I am kind of a softy, but I can’t see any bailout that begins to make sense. The only two things that made some sense were (1) not making people pay taxes on forgiven debt after they were foreclosed on (done) and (2) freezing rates for a bit if ARM adjustments were too big (moot since ARM rates are going lower, not higher).

• 25 Ubersalad // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Bella - Of course they’re not exactly the same. One is to give away tax payer money, and the other is to indirectly give away tax payer’s money. Point is, you are suggesting for government to give money to non-home owners, so they can utilize that money to buy overpriced homes and bail out existing home owners. That is not much different than the government allowing loose lending guidelines and then bailout lenders whom were essentially giving money away to non-qualified borrowers.

• 26 Bella // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  Not what I’m suggesting at all Ubersalad!
  I’m saying instead of giving assistance to people who made bad decisions, help out people who want to make good decisions. If a sub-prime mortgage goes into foreclosure, let it. But to keep the real estate market afloat, help people buy homes responsibly. I don’t think anyone should get help buying an overpriced home, but now that prices are dropping, why not give some sort of break to someone who is buying within their means? I’m not saying help me out to buy the $800k house, especially if my income isn’t sufficient, but what if I found something reasonably priced? I don’t know, I really never was suggesting that anyone give anyone anything. I was just saying that if anyone WAS going to get anything, it should be people who did not get in over their heads, people who waited until they could buy something that they could afford. And the only reason I would even hint at that is that some people may be scared to buy even if prices do drop. They are talking about doing a bailout to keep the economy from tanking, right? So why not stimulate it via people who will use money wisely?
  Silly me for even getting into this. It is a moot point anyway.

• 27 Ubersalad // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  FYI, there has always been down payment assistance program for those that qualified. I guess I’ll just leave it at that.

• 28 Ubersalad // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  are qualified…or qualify. When can we get an “edit” button on these things.

• 29 Angie // Apr 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  Gosh, Tim, for being so “data driven” you didn’t do too much research on the house you chose as an example.

  The view from the air on the Redfin page shows burned-out grass in the front yard and almost uniform white surfacing (landscape rock? concrete?) in the back. Redoing a yard on that scale is no trivial task in terms of time, energy, and money. The city also shows a few permits for structural and electrical work in 2006-2007, so I’d wager there was much more going on in there than granite countertops and a coat of paint.

  Anything that sold for ~$300K on Phinney Ridge within the last few years must have been in horrendous shape. If my experience with serious fixer-uppers is any indication, I’ll bet their neighbors are falling on their knees in gratitude that the sellers redeemed a house that was a real black eye on the neighborhood. If they can sell the place for what they’re asking, well, more power to ‘em.

• 30 Joel // Apr 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  I don’t think he was the one that chose that house.

• 31 Chino // Apr 9, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  Any twat who is willing to pay $800,000 for that, deserves to have it. Honestly, it looks cheap. I bet anything leaks will pop up before the end of the year. The landscaping is atrocious. Did they use the Sims to design this property??? The windows look thin and drafty. And no shutters? Geez, for $800 K some curb appeal might be warranted. The sign gets it right though, BAIN. Cause for whoever shells out near $1 million, this may be the bane of their existence.

• 32 Everett Renter (Used to be Buyer) // Apr 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  In my opinion most (not all, but most) foreclosures are an expected and good thing. They are a market correcting consequence for financial irresponsibility, and they encourage people and business to behave responsibly, and discourage them from exhibiting financial irresponsibility. In my opinion the housing market should be allowed to correct itself without any bailout to anyone or to any entity. I have recently expressed my opinion on this to my two Senators and House Representative, as well as the Federal Reserve Board. I suggest you all express yourself to them as well. These folks make decisions that impact you! You can communicate to them via their web sites.

• 33 wreckingbull // Apr 9, 2008 at 7:03 pm

  Redoing a yard on that scale is no trivial task in terms of time, energy, and money. The city also shows a few permits for structural and electrical work in 2006-2007, so I’d wager there was much more going on in there than granite countertops and a coat of paint.

  ‘On that scale’? That lot can’t be much more that 4000 square feet and flatter than a tabletop. You might want to find a new landscaper, Angie.

• 34 NotaBull // Apr 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm

  “‘On that scale’? That lot can’t be much more that 4000 square feet and flatter than a tabletop. You might want to find a new landscaper, Angie.”

  Indeed. At my last house, I got a huge lawn weeded, aerated and reseeded, along with some other significant clean-up work for a little under $2,000.

• 35 Angie // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:00 pm

  Get a quote for scraping a few tons of landscape rock or concrete off the entire surface of the backyard, building a new wood fence around the perimeter and a large new deck (also not in the aerial photo), and installing new sod and landscaping plants, and get back to me, mmkay?

• 36 Ben // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  That house location (according to redfin) is about 10 blocks walk away from a neighbourhood that I lived in (near Aurora). I remember that there were signs saying that license plates were recorded because it was a high prostitution area on Aurora.

  Maybe something has changed about the neighbourhood, but it did not look like a fantastic area to me. Is this the part of Seattle that everybody wants to live in?

• 37 Andrew // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:32 pm

  Sorry Bella, not trying to pick on you, but you’ve posted a lot today. And I think your thought process (for me) sums up why we’re here in part, and why we’re continuing to play at this situation. Look at your dialog [#26]: “I don’t know, I really never was suggesting that anyone give anyone anything.”…!?!?! Why can’t you and others understand and accept that we are here, totally f*cked, and NO AMOUNT of maneuvering or financial wizardry is going to undo this nonsense. Folks like you mean well, I’m sure, but you’re missing the MAIN, HUGE AND NOT GOING AWAY POINT!! At some time, all - every single one of them - of these positions has to be reconciled, period. Take a second and let that filter through. WE CAN’T HELP THESE PEOPLE/SITUATION IN ANYTHING CLOSE TO ITS ENTIRETY - and any attempts to do so merely re-distribute the cancerous numbers, and possibly buy a little bit of time. Throw aside any moralistic considerations, this is pure pragmatic reality. The slicker ones (least deserving) are afforded exit opportunities, and the general pain continues on for the rest of the people you’re trying to ‘help,’ unresolved for longer, and most likely meaning worse and worser final results.

  I mostly lurk, my last post was expressing the sentiments of Everett Renter (Used to be Buyer) [#32] last fall - I contacted Murray, Cantwell & McDermott, and of course was given in reply a form-letter of apologistic drivel from each of them. I generally vote Democrat, consider myself liberal/independent/progressive - but that doesn’t matter now - all parties and affiliations will respond as eagerly and earnestly as possible to Americans’ short-term concerns, ignoring anything beyond a 2-week window and television sound-byte.

  Try to do a quick mental exercise and envision what effect each one of these ‘fixes’ suggested means to the integrity of our monetary system, and how we trade with each other. There is NO way to rationally argue a palatable and controlled result. More meddling with these horrible decisions will beget and extend instability far beyond any 2-week windows.

  Are you frustrated with the ‘fix-it’ apologists and the duct-tape MacGyvers? You should be - I certainly am.

• 38 JP // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm

  Did the owner break the bank remodeling before putting the house up for sale? Are those windows drafty? Is the neighborhood plagued by prostitution?

  None of that matters! The house is worth what someone will pay for it. Maybe it is fun to bicker over what we think the house is worth, but we needn’t bother, because soon the market will let us know.

• 39 Steve-o // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  Tim: inquiring minds (well me anyway) want to know: What’s Mashugy’s house worth now on zillow??

  Call it mashugyfrued

• 40 Ubersalad // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:16 pm

  I don’t think I could make Bella understand anyway, she has to figure out herself.

• 41 bitterowner // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  Re Angie: “Anything that sold for ~$300K on Phinney Ridge within the last few years must have been in horrendous shape…. I’ll bet their neighbors are falling on their knees in gratitude that the sellers redeemed a house that was a real black eye on the neighborhood.”

  I hear Mother Theresa got her start as a flipper.

• 42 Bitterrenter // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  Yeah, I knew they wanted to portray us as a bunch of bitter losers. But you shouldn’t be embarassed by what you said. Let those obnoxious, pretentious Seattle "lick"s eat their precious granite counter tops. The same goes for the jerks here in Portland. They think we’re supposed to celebrate their good fortune at our expense. Like they would ours.

• 43 John // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:33 am

  Right on, Bitterrenter. Those people had their turn, it is time for ours. I am happy that nobody is telling me to buy a house because home price is going up anymore. Take this whole thing down!

• 44 Buceri // Apr 10, 2008 at 4:01 am

  This is a good piece; please listen to it.

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89505982

• 45 wreckingbull // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:07 am

  Angie, did it ever occur to you that many of us on this blog have renovated homes in the past? Landscaping helped pay my way through school. Drop the ‘mmkay’ ‘tude, it just makes your comments look even more daft. Big deck? Did you look at the listing photos? It is a small, ground-level, Trex deck out back. Am I missing something?

  No one is saying this place is a POS, they are saying the emperor has no skivvies and people are finally starting to notice. The only thing which is a better symbol of the bubble than this home are your comments trying to justify its $800,000 price.

• 46 Matthew // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:53 am

  It’s good to know that I could do some basic landscaping, build a deck and a fence, rewire the house and fix some basic structural issues and people like Angie will pay 2.5 times what a house sold for in 2005.

  And people wonder if this will be a slow bleed or not… There are always fools buying on the way down. This thing is going to take years to play out.

• 47 The Dude Abides // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:58 am

  Q: What do you get when you fix up an old house?
  A: An old house that’s fixed up.

  $800,000?

• 48 Angie // Apr 10, 2008 at 6:55 am

  It’s good to know that I could do some basic landscaping, build a deck and a fence, rewire the house and fix some basic structural issues and people like Angie will pay 2.5 times what a house sold for in 2005.

  Ha! I’m certainly not in a position to buy an $800K house. But I think the fact that you’re dismissing how much money and work goes into that list shows that you don’t have the first clue about how big and expensive those jobs are. I also can’t believe all you avid fans of market economics totally miss the point about risk and return, but hey.

  And this all gets beside the point I originally made–what these sellers did was a heck of a lot more than paint and countertops, or whatever dismissive comment Tim made on the air. Could it really be? Our The Tim, talking out his butt?

• 49 Matthew // Apr 10, 2008 at 7:30 am

  Having put a new roof on my parents house, built a giant deck, and re landscaped the entire yard to include gigantic fish pond/stream, actually yes I do understand the work involved in such a project actually, and its not worth 500k. Not even worth 75k IMNSHO.

• 50 Alan // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:26 am

  It takes a lot of money to fill a barrel with money and burn it in a parking lot. If you stand really close you stand the risk of being burned.

  I don’t care how much money and time someone spent nor how much risk they took. The only thing that matters to me is the end product.

  It is true that you often have to take risks to get rewards, but taking risks doesn’t entitile you to reward — that is why it is called risk.

  I think I’ve already stated my opinion on housing prices in this area. That house is not an exception to my belief.

• 51 Ubersalad // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:26 am

  You available Matthew for hire?

• 52 Ubersalad // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:26 am

  God…where’s that edit button.

• 53 Cougar // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:31 am

  Just because one gets a facelift and lipo doesn’t guarantee they will get picked up by a wealthy taker. Beauty is in the eye of the buyer or a smooth talking salesperson. Effective new date 2008? WHAT the heck is that? That’s it. I officially have a new “effective date”, I just need to pick one that keeps updating itself. :)

  It looks like the housing inventory is getting backed up. Tim, where is the plunger? It’s starting to stink around here.

• 54 John // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:39 am

  So the remodeling and landscaping of this particular house costs $300-500k? I want to see the cost breakdown.

• 55 Ubersalad // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:42 am

  Don’t forget to include 20% appreciation per year!

• 56 David McManus // Apr 10, 2008 at 8:52 am

  So the remodeling and landscaping of this particular house costs $300-500k? I want to see the cost breakdown.

  If anything good comes out of this housing collapse, I would hope this would be it. Show me an accounting of the improvements you did to justify the 300-500K increase in price and we can go from there. I would hope that future buyers will begin demanding these sorts of things and not just take them at face value. You say you spent 200K on improvements? Prove it!

• 57 Bella // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:32 am

  I understand what y’all are saying. I really don’t think I was trying to argue with you, so my apologies for coming off that way?
  I’m not here to start a fight or be a troll or piss anyone off. I’m here because I think the site is great, I’ve been reading for a while.
  I posted a comment finally because I liked the post, and it felt like familiar territory to me.
  That’s all I have to say, I’ll go back to keeping my mouth shut and enjoying reading what the Seattle Bubble has to say.

• 58 Bits_of_Real_Panther // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:33 am

  “That house location (according to redfin) is about 10 blocks walk away from a neighbourhood that I lived in (near Aurora). I remember that there were signs saying that license plates were recorded because it was a high prostitution area on Aurora.”

  It’s on the other side of the ridge, psychologically several miles from Aurora. There are many reasons not to offer even 3/4 of their asking price but neighborhood isn’t one of them. The next Aurora prostitute to get picked up on NW 3rd will be the first. Even the most fit of the lot couldn’t make it up that hill

• 59 David McManus // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

  In other news–>
  http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/10/news/economy/senate_foreclosure.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

  “The White House opposes the plan. It says parts of it would actually make the problem worse by depressing some home values.”

  So home values dropping are a….bad….thing?

• 60 Bits_of_Real_Panther // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:54 am

  “So home values dropping are a….bad….thing?”

  It is for state/local government revenue projections

• 61 Lake Hills Renter // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:00 am

  Don’t let them dogpile you, Bella. I didn’t read anything in your post that warranted the responses you got, and certainly not to that degree.

• 62 David McManus // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:02 am

  Yeah, I guess that I was looking at from the perspective of future home buyers benefiting, not local and state government. What does it matter anyways? If revenue drops in one area, they will just come up with a new tax to make up for it.

• 63 Ubersalad // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03 am

  Hey I wasn’t too bad in my response.

• 64 SunTzu // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:08 am

  Slightly off topic, but what I find amazing is that someone would still pay million bucks for a house knowing all the problems that’s going on in the economy.

  Found in the nearby similar sales of topic house:
  http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-property?external_id=497723

• 65 Bella // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:18 am

  Hahaha, its cool. I am used to being hated on, especially on teh interwebs.
  And after all, it is ONLY teh interwebs :D
  I just don’t want anyone to have a cardiac arrest over whatever may have rolled off my fingertips.
  Oops, I am supposed to be sitting here quietly!

• 66 b // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:23 am

  Angie -
  For their asking price, they could have bulldozed it completely and built an entirely new 2000 sqft home+basement with new landscaping and still probably made a decent profit at their asking price.

• 67 The Tim // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:51 am

  Angie, Alan, Matthew, and others discussing the house mentioned in this post:

  I posted an update on the forum thread that you might be interested in.

• 68 Chino // Apr 10, 2008 at 11:29 am

  Bits of Real, LOL!!! An out of breath whore is actually quite a good analogy. And you can give a whore a facelift and some hardwood, but it’s still a whore.

• 69 Michael // Apr 10, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Their is a house on top of Queen Anne that is going for $1299000

  http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rfs/633399494.html

  What do you get for your 1.3 million? No view? This house was about the size of everything else in the neighborhood but twice the cost. Actually it’s mostly a staircase with a few small rooms off of it.

  We also looked at a five floor townhouse on Queen Anne for around the same price. The townhouse actually had an elevator. The best art was that each level contained one smallish room. Some developer figured that he could charge twice as much if he took a regular house and stacked it vertically.

  I think we need a new section for more overpriced.

• 70 Civil Servant // Apr 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  @ 68 (per Craiglist ad) “Very motivated seller” = 3.4% price reduction. I am not exactly feeling that motivation either.

• 71 Jess // Apr 10, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  Does the house come with a new child, too? I wonder if I could trade in the one I already have. I’ve heard of the free cars, televisions, etc…

• 72 Marc // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  I’ll put my neck out and throw some support to Ms. Ryan and the seller. I can believe that the cost of the remodel could have easily exceeded $250,000. I would not personally have gone for it but a lot of people do so who am I to judge.

  I say this because I am currently in the early stages of a basement remodel and I began by getting a bid from a turn key general contractor. At that time all I asked for was framing and sheet rocking an extra bedroom and a total remodel of a spare full bath. Pretty basic stuff and nothing fancy. The bid came back at $86,000 and it didn’t include permit fees, architect drawings, and several other significant items (many of which aren’t necessary but which he assured me they were). My jaw hit the floor. I’ve since expanded the scope of work to be a full remodel, new heating system, etc. and I’m certain that that contractor would be quoting me an easy $200k to do the whole job now. And even with my expanded remodel I’m not doing nearly what Ms. Ryan’s clients did. So, if they used a GC then I believe it cost them a ton, a right arm, or a first born child.

  The takeaway is be your own GC and sub out what you can’t or won’t do yourself.

• 73 Ira Sacharoff // Apr 10, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  That Craigslist ad- Do I want to own a home that was built with “stunning” construction? Makes me think that the roof will collapse on my head…And the “by far the best value on Queen Anne”? Why, because they declare it to be so?

• 74 Angie // Apr 10, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  Thanks for the link, Tim. Marc, no surprise to me–good luck on the remodel.

  The rest of you whiners can kiss my grits!

• 75 Marc // Apr 11, 2008 at 11:39 am

  Thanks Flo!

• 76 explorer // Apr 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  I have lived in the general neighboorhood– 98117 for many years. Long enough to know that greed set the price for a house like that.

  This neighboorhood has, and still is being talked up as “special” but there are lots of car prowls, and occasional drug deals late nights going on. Just last week there were two black helecopters (not kidding) hovering above a house two blocks away for over 45 minutes. I was awakened by them, and they were still there and visible while I was waiting for the bus. Occasional “patrols” of fire engines, turning sirens off and on in front of certain houses but never seeming to be going or stopping anywhere near a fire or other emergency.

  There is a lot going on there under the surface.

• 77 License2Sell // Apr 13, 2008 at 9:33 am

  I know the owner of the CL house. He is the tenant (pizza business) of one of my clients. It is a new construction home on Queen Anne. He bought a house & tore it down and built that house for speculation.

• 78 License2Sell // Apr 13, 2008 at 9:42 am

  98117 is not the general neighborhood, that is Ballard on the other side of Salmon Bay. I might as well say I know Washington Park or Madison Park too having lived in 98119 all my life!!!!

  I’m a born & raised Queen Anne native & resident and have lived on top of the hill since 1968. My sister lives in 98117 now because I sold her a house there thinking it would be good to be on the Green Line (monorail), but it definitely doesn’t compare to Queen Anne. She had an opportunity to buy on Queen Anne when prices were reasonable & chose Ballard because she saw potential with the monorail. The house she passed on in QA is worth double the amount of the one she bought in Ballard, but she’s still happy with it because she has an ADU/mother-in-law apartment that pays a good portion of her mortgage.

• 79 Falcargenta // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  Hello, Tim. Enjoyed your interview with NPR. Actually, I have been feeling more than a bit of unholy glee. Some years back my then-fiancé broke our engagement because I didn’t want to buy a $350,000 (this was the 1970s) one-bedroom closet (they called it a condo) in California’s Silicon Valley. Needless to say, those “closets” did not double as predicted. My family and I now have a nice sizeable house in one of the southeastern states that we were able to pay cash for, so our salary can buy more than just groceries now! I have googled my ex-fiancé a few times. Would you believe that there’s an online record of how much he has spent on repairs for his over-priced shack? Serves him right!

  Anyway, what’s with Seattle? That’s not the Sun Belt!

Jump to the top of the comments. ↑

Leave a Comment