Case-Shiller: Seattle Home Prices Up, Up, Up In January

Wow where did March go? I apologize for the lack of updates this month! April will be better.

Let’s have a look at the latest data from the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. According to November data that was released this morning, Seattle-area home prices were:

Up 0.6 percent December to January
Up 11.3 percent year-over-year.
Up 7.9 percent from the July 2007 peak

Over the same period a year earlier prices were up 0.1 percent month-over-month and year-over-year prices were up 10.5 percent.

Seattle home prices as measured by Case-Shiller inched up yet again to a new all-time high in January.

Here’s a Tableau Public interactive graph of the year-over-year change for all twenty Case-Shiller-tracked cities. Check and un-check the boxes on the right to modify which cities are showing:

Seattle’s rank for month-over-month changes fell from #2 in December to #3 in January.

Case-Shiller HPI: Month-to-Month

Hit the jump for the rest of our monthly Case-Shiller charts, including the interactive chart of raw index data for all 20 metro areas.

Seattle’s year-over-year price growth edged up again from December to January, matching the August high and maintaining its position as the largest in the nation. Again in January, none of the twenty Case-Shiller-tracked metro areas gained more year-over-year than Seattle. From February through August Portland had been in the #1 slot above Seattle.

Still more proof that the Northwest will never stop being literally the envy of other states.

Six cities hit new all-time highs again in January: Denver, Boston, Charlotte, Portland, Dallas, and Seattle. San Francisco, which had been hitting new highs, fell slightly in the month.

Here’s the interactive chart of the raw HPI for all twenty metro areas through January.

Here’s an update to the peak-decline graph, inspired by a graph created by reader CrystalBall. This chart takes the twelve metro areas whose peak index was greater than 175, and tracks how far they have fallen so far from their peak. The horizontal axis shows the total number of months since each individual city peaked.

Case-Shiller HPI: Decline From Peak

In the 114 months since the price peak in Seattle prices are up 7.9 percent.

Lastly, let’s see how Seattle’s current prices compare to the previous bubble inflation and subsequent burst. Note that this chart does not adjust for inflation.

Case-Shiller: Seattle Home Price Index

Check back tomorrow for our monthly look at Case-Shiller data for Seattle’s price tiers.

(Home Price Indices, Standard & Poor’s, 2017-03-28)


About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

136 comments:

  1. 1
    Green-Horn says:

    “Wow where did March go? I apologize for the lack of updates this month! April will be better.”

    Has there really been any news? Any changes in trajectory and trends on the market?

    Perhaps there’s really nothing new to report….

    ——

    I really enjoy reading the contributions of all the other fellow amateur and professional observers in the comments.

    Too bad the forum is so sleepy! So much interesting perspective being shared; a shame the discussions and remarks aren’t more systematically organized and archived for subsequent reference and use. Lots of great observations getting lost in unsorted thread discussions…

  2. 2
    DBGT200 says:

    More of the same. It seems the market is so hot there is effectively zero discount for major flaws. The property below (although quite nicely remodeled) listed at 499k on a Friday Night and sold Saturday morning for 555k. The backyard is literally a fence to 405. In normal times you’d expect a minimum 10 percent discount for a hike like this no matter how nice inside.

    https://www.redfin.com/WA/Kirkland/11611-NE-155th-St-98034/home/453327

  3. 3
    Deerhawke says:

    Case-Shiller data always provides depth and breadth at the expense of timeliness.

    The Seattle Times article had a few interesting insights.

    “The 0.6 percent rise in prices from December to January may not sound like much, but it’s highly unusual for this time of year. Going back three decades, prices actually drop more often than they grow, on a month-over-month basis, in January across the Seattle region. The monthly rise was actually the third-highest for any January on record, dating back to 1990.”

    Basically this is a market that never went to sleep during the winter months as it normally does. That gives us one reason why, despite really nasty wet weather, this spring market is so hot.

  4. 4
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Green-Horn @ 1 – The forums here were never able to get any traction, and I’m not sure why. I do think the categories could use a little re-vamp, such as

    – Buying/Selling
    – Remodeling
    – Building
    – FSBO
    – General Investing
    – Taxes

    Blogs such as Mr. Money Mustache, a personal finance blog, have shown that side forums can be very successful. The amount of knowledge in the ‘investor alley’ forum over there is priceless.

  5. 5
    Brian says:

    RE: Deerhawke @ 2
    Interest rates definitely were a big factor in the lack of a slowdown. Inventories dropped fast after the elections when rates “skyrocketed” from 3.5% to 4.25%. It will be interesting to see if that holds. Sometimes interest rates jump, people rush to buy, then there’s a slowdown in price appreciation some months later (see 2013).

    Plus I think there’s increased media coverage of the “Seattle boom” that is causing more people to think “buy now or be priced out forever.” And on top of that, the recent stock boom probably helped put some extra down payment in people’s pockets.

    RE: wreckingbull @ 3

    Actually maybe things should just be consolidated into one or two general categories until things get popular enough that they can be broken up. If posts are spread apart too much in a forum with little traffic, people will feel like nobody will see their post.

  6. 6
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Brian @ 4 – The most prominent piece of real estate on the front page is “recent forum posts”, so I don’t think that is correct. I think better categories will help drive people to start threads.

  7. 7
    GoHawks says:

    Interesting about the top two counties in the country for new arrivals being Pierce and Snohomish counties. Feels like this is a broad based boom. Not just south lake Union.

  8. 8

    By GoHawks @ 6:

    Interesting about the top two counties in the country for new arrivals being Pierce and Snohomish counties. Feels like this is a broad based boom. Not just south lake Union.

    That’s probably due to prices in King County, and the lack of inventory. Probably particularly so for those who want to live in houses rather than multi-family.

  9. 9
    GoHawks says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 7 – I am sure KC prices have much to do with it, but KC is still seeing in inflow of people. The tri-county area is growing across the board.

  10. 10
    Brian says:

    By wreckingbull @ 5:

    RE: Brian @ 4 – The most prominent piece of real estate on the front page is “recent forum posts”, so I don’t think that is correct. I think better categories will help drive people to start threads.

    You mean the thing I skip my eyes over every time because I know there’s nothing new?

  11. 11

    By Deerhawke @ 3:

    Case-Shiller data always provides depth and breadth at the expense of timeliness.

    Out of curiosity, what is the depth that you see in their data? I can see that covering multi-counties gives it breadth, but I’m not seeing depth (but as I’ve said in the past, I consider it to be highly correlated with the median data).

  12. 12
    redmondjp says:

    BIG NEWS, local and prospective homeowners! Your property taxes are going to be going up, up and away!!!! We will likely be seeing annual 5% increases if our state legislature gets its way:

    http://mynorthwest.com/585236/washington-property-tax-cap-change/

    Google “Washington State Representatives”, enter your address, find out who your representatives are, and email them immediately. If you don’t, this could cost your thousands of dollars per year in additional taxes.

  13. 13

    RE: redmondjp @ 12 – I’d agree with you if that 1% thing wasn’t a Tim Eyman thing. Thanks to him we have poor roads and underfunded schools. And quite frankly, I suspect he uses peoples’ hatred of taxes merely to fund raise rather than to effectuate change he believes is good. I’d even go so far as to say he almost seems to design his initiatives to be unconstitutional so that he can then complain and raise more funds.

  14. 14
    uwp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 13:

    RE: redmondjp @ 12 – I’d agree with you if that 1% thing wasn’t a Tim Eyman thing. Thanks to him we have poor roads and underfunded schools. And quite frankly, I suspect he uses peoples’ hatred of taxes merely to fund raise rather than to effectuate change he believes is good. I’d even go so far as to say he almost seems to design his initiatives to be unconstitutional so that he can then complain and raise more funds.

    DING DING DING!!!

  15. 15
    redmondjp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 13:

    RE: redmondjp @ 12 – I’d agree with you if that 1% thing wasn’t a Tim Eyman thing. Thanks to him we have poor roads and underfunded schools. And quite frankly, I suspect he uses peoples’ hatred of taxes merely to fund raise rather than to effectuate change he believes is good. I’d even go so far as to say he almost seems to design his initiatives to be unconstitutional so that he can then complain and raise more funds.

    Step away from the crack pipe, Kary . . . tell me which local governments are underfunded right now, at a time of record-breaking tax revenues. You’re seriously blaming bad roads on Tim Eyman? Why not the Koch Brothers? How about Putin???

    How hard is it to clue into the fact that it is NOT a money issue, but rather a money MANAGEMENT issue, that is the problem. Sound Transit is Exhibit ‘A’. Local school districts are another (with their admin. buildings stuffed full of non-value-added 6-figure-salary employees).

    Simply throwing more money at the government, without fixing the mismanagement first, is the LAST thing we should be doing. But I guess clueless Seattle voters don’t understand that, and are more than happy to pay more to get nothing in return. Or for a choo-choo train that won’t come into their station for another twenty-five years.

    This tax increase is nothing more than a blank check for increased government spending.

  16. 16

    By redmondjp @ 15:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 13:

    RE: redmondjp @ 12 – I’d agree with you if that 1% thing wasn’t a Tim Eyman thing. Thanks to him we have poor roads and underfunded schools. And quite frankly, I suspect he uses peoples’ hatred of taxes merely to fund raise rather than to effectuate change he believes is good. I’d even go so far as to say he almost seems to design his initiatives to be unconstitutional so that he can then complain and raise more funds.

    Step away from the crack pipe, Kary . . . tell me which local governments are underfunded right now, at a time of record-breaking tax revenues. You’re seriously blaming bad roads on Tim Eyman? Why not the Koch Brothers? How about Putin???

    Seriously, you don’t know why I would blame Eyman for that? Not a clue? Really?

    Does $35 tabs ring a bell? Before Eyman tab revenues were largely used to fund roads. And actually, the year before that initiative passed the voters voted to spend a lot of money to build roads. So the voters wanted the roads but didn’t want to pay for them. Great public policy decision making. /sarc

    But beyond that, the idea of attacking that one tax was the height of stupidity, as is typical Eyman. Not only was that a tax that you could easily avoid by just maintaining your cars and not buying something terribly expensive, but it also lead to people proposing to fill the void with things like the Monorail tax and later the ST3 tax.

    So seriously, did you just come to this part of the country and have never heard of Tim Eyman, or did you really have no idea why I would blame him for our roads?

    As an aside, it is somewhat amazing to me that people would think $300-$400 is too much to pay for the right to drive a vehicle anywhere in the country (if not the world). It’s a frickin bargain if you think about it. But sure, you can pay $35 instead and then sit in traffic. That makes sense too, if you don’t think about it.

    As to which part of government is underfunded, have you seriously not heard of the McCleary decision? That was 2012 and the Legislature still has not funded schools as required by that decision. That, BTW, is the primary reason that the discussion of real estate tax increases is even being discussed.

  17. 17

    By redmondjp @ 15:

    How hard is it to clue into the fact that it is NOT a money issue, but rather a money MANAGEMENT issue, that is the problem. Sound Transit is Exhibit ‘A’. Local school districts are another (with their admin. buildings stuffed full of non-value-added 6-figure-salary employees).

    Simply throwing more money at the government, without fixing the mismanagement first, is the LAST thing we should be doing. But I guess clueless Seattle voters don’t understand that, and are more than happy to pay more to get nothing in return. Or for a choo-choo train that won’t come into their station for another twenty-five years.

    This tax increase is nothing more than a blank check for increased government spending.

    Those are the most age old tired arguments ever made. “Government doesn’t need more money, it just needs to be more efficient.” Blah, blah, blah.

    Government is by its very nature inefficient, I’ll give you that. But good luck changing that. That’s just the nature of the world and hoping for the impossible is not an excuse for raising the money needed for projects and programs.

  18. 18

    I came across this record of Eyman’s failures. I’m not certain it’s correct, and it shows such a dismal record I suspect it isn’t, but I have no reason to believe it isn’t correct. Too bad they don’t detail how much money Eyman collected trying to put all those things through.

    https://www.permanentdefense.org/research/failurechart/

  19. 19
    Kmac says:

    Back when the $30 dollar tab initiative passed, the tabs on my 4 year old Bronco were nearly $800 (in 2000??) .
    Not sure what a $300-400 tab (tag) would have applied to back then.

    You only have to look at the WADOT to see well documented financial mismanagement time and time again.
    I think even Dave Ross would agree with that ;-)

  20. 20

    RE: Kmac @ 19 – The tax was 2.2% of value, and yes there was and still is an issue regarding depreciation, but that would mean they thought your 4 year old Bronco was worth $36,000. Per this article a 1999 Lincoln would have been $732, and the average tab was $145.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BntCbFV-sm0/U6l5IEkUGLI/AAAAAAAARUM/Y8JvgqkUJ1I/s1600/IMG_2796.JPG

    I don’t have converted Quicken data going back past 2001, so I can’t verify what I paid back then, but I’m pretty sure our 1995 Dodge wasn’t charged anywhere near even $500.

  21. 21
    Macro Investor says:

    The fed is planning on 3-4 rate increases this year, and 3 next year. This is such a dangerous time to be buying. The worst properties getting multiple bids. At probably the worst timing. What is the name of this blog, and why was it started?

    Everything economic runs in cycles, like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The pendulum is near the top.

    Good luck out there. A lot of folks are gonna be wondering how they could have done this.

  22. 22
    Kmac says:

    I just saw the old registration a few months ago and although I don’t remember the exact amount, I am certain it was more than $730 and I am referring to a Jan 1999 registration which would have been valued in late 1998, which would mean it was < 3 years old.

    The initiative was voted on in 1999 and became law in (Jan?) 2000

    Not sure why the tabs were so much, but the icing on the cake was when the tabs expired and my wife drove it to work one day.
    What are the chances of getting a ticket?
    You know it. Add injury to insult… An additional ~$150 fine on top of the registration fee was salt in the wound.
    Lol…..

    The same vehicle is now closing in on $85 thanks to add on fees.

  23. 23

    RE: Macro Investor @ 21 – Obviously the risk is higher the higher the price, and absent inflation higher interest rates are not going to be a good thing. But when you ask what is the name of this blog I’d refer you to the last graph above. There was about a four year period where prices were lower than when this blog started, and if you backed out distressed properties an even shorter period than that.

    Even so, it is really interesting to see the lack of many bears here this time around. Being neither bearish or bullish I’m probably more bearish than the average person posting here today.

  24. 24

    Here’s a question or three for you people. Assume you own a house listed for $900,000, and it gets bid up to $1,000,000. The best offer provides they will pay $1,000,000, put down $200,000 (20%) and says they have an additional down payment of $50,000 which they will use if the property does not appraise for $1,000,000. They use the new Form 22AD. (And assume no cash offers–all the other offers are also financed.)

    The appraisal comes in at $940,000 and the buyer sends you a notice of low appraisal which gives you the choice of either accepting a price of $990,000 (the appraised value plus the extra $50,000) or to reject the notice. If you reject the notice the buyer can either back out or proceed to closing at $1,000,000.

    Here’s the question: Would you be upset when you figured out that the buyer could still perform even with an appraisal of anything above $938,000? ((938,000 * .8) + 200,000 + 50,000 = 1,000,040). There was no reason for the buyer to even be able to send a notice of low appraisal, except that the Form 22AD formula is an appraised value of less than the appraised value plus additional down payment.

    Or make the facts worse. The appraisal comes in at only $900,000, but the adjusted price you’re able to force the buyer to accept is only $950,000 (appraised value plus the additional down) rather than the $970,000 the buyer could pay with their loan and promised funds ((900,000 * .8) + 200,000 + 50,000). Would a 2% difference in the adjusted price you could force the buyer to pay bother you? This by the way is the formula for just about every low appraisal addendum I’ve seen, not just 22AD.

    And assuming it does bother you, who are you going to blame?

    I touched on this briefly in the last thread, but I’ve been fighting this issue for over a year now, well before 22AD came into existence. I think it’s a fairly big deal, but most agents and attorneys don’t seem to understand. I have a hard time understanding why they don’t seem to care. Your thoughts?

  25. 25

    RE: Kmac @ 22 – I wonder if something else was kicking in, like maybe Monorail or early ST3? Seems very high.

  26. 26

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 24

    The buyer has to close at the price he agreed to buy it for. No “must appraise” in multiple offers that bid up by $100,000.00. Any seller agreeing to give a RA about the buyers’ lenders’ appraisal when his house bids up by $100,000.00 is either a fool or has a fool for an agent.

    Take the cash buyer or the one with 50% down and take NO responsibility for the buyers’ finance issues. Not the sellers problem.

  27. 27

    RE: Ardell DellaLoggia @ 26 – Ardell, that is completely non-responsive and quite frankly nonsense. In a situation where all the offers are financed (as is the case with the hypothetical) a seller needs to give a RA about the buyers’ lenders and appraisals unless maybe no financing contingency is involved and they’re satisfied keeping the earnest money if the buyer can’t perform. Any claim otherwise is extremely ignorant.

    But in any case, your response was completely off topic. The topic is terms and results of low appraisal provisions/situations. If you can’t address the topic, don’t respond.

  28. 28
    Highlands says:

    This is all anecdotal, but has anybody noticed how empty these new apartment buildings are? (at least on the Eastside) I’ve been talking to coworkers and it sounds like they’re only sitting at 50% occupancy. I’ve yet to see a car go in/out of the new Newcastle Commons project on Coal Creek. On my way to/from work in Redmond I see a ton of “For Lease” signs with incentives offered.

  29. 29
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 24 -Ok, normally I get how you’re looking at the legal picture while most agents are just looking at what seems to work for them. But in this one your hypothetical is a little silly. I get that you’re trying to point out a logical problem with the new form 22AD. Great, you’re a smart guy and you can think up a hypothetical situation where someone could run up against a problem they hadn’t necessarily forseen and it could make them feel bad. But back in the real world, how many times has anyone on here seen a house get bid up $100k to $1.0M where *none* of the buyers are willing/able to put down more than 20%?

  30. 30

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27

    Then use a smaller bid up than $100,000.00 or no bid up at all. Stay in reality.

    I just did one with $100,000.00 bid up. Didn’t appraise. Closed at purchase price. Not the seller’s problem.

    Doing one now with no bid up and one buyer. May not appraise because it’s a flip. That IS the seller’s potential problem.

    The seller is responsible for his asking price. The buyer is responsible for the price he bids over that asking price.

    I don’t live in a hypothetical world when it comes to real estate. To get to $100,000.00 bid up you need at least one buyer who can afford to be responsible for his offer price.

  31. 31

    By Anonymous Coward @ 29:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 24 -Ok, normally I get how you’re looking at the legal picture while most agents are just looking at what seems to work for them. But in this one your hypothetical is a little silly. I get that you’re trying to point out a logical problem with the new form 22AD. Great, you’re a smart guy and you can think up a hypothetical situation where someone could run up against a problem they hadn’t necessarily forseen and it could make them feel bad. But back in the real world, how many times has anyone on here seen a house get bid up $100k to $1.0M where *none* of the buyers are willing/able to put down more than 20%?

    Re-read the hypothetical–I didn’t say that none are willing to put down more than 20%. But if you like, cut all the numbers in half–you get the same result, and you can consider it more likely because it’s a lower price range.

    Just to point something out that probably 90% of agents don’t understand, if a buyer is putting 40% down and uses the 22A financing contingency, the seller still needs to worry about an appraisal that is even $1 low. If that happens, the buyer will have the option to back out of the contract if the seller doesn’t agree to the lower price (which for $1 they probably would). Agents are so worried about locking buyers in that they do stupid things (e.g. cross out the Information Verification Period language), but they leave the appraisal provisions “as is” incorrectly thinking that they don’t have to worry about appraisals with a 40% down offer. So this issue basically comes up anytime a buyer isn’t proposing to put 5, 10 or 20 down. Given that, the use of some sort of additional down payment language shouldn’t be thought of as being unusual, but the NWMLS only this year came up with an Additional Down-payment Form (22AD) and that form has serious issues.

    I would even go so far as to say additional down-payment options should be part of of the standard financing contingency, with optional choices. If the buyer is bidding the property up above list then they should have the option to make their offer more attractive by limiting the low appraisal remedies. Conversely if they’re offering 10% less than list on a house they think is 20% overpriced they should have the option to leave the low appraisal language as it, even if they’re putting down 30%.

    But that’s all a side issue. The issue I’m raising is that the standard forms use the wrong formulas, and that hurts both sellers and even buyers in some situations. In fact the reason this came up yesterday is there was a “Legal Hotline” question where the buyer had funds they wanted to put down to counter a low appraisal, but the language of 22AD arguably forces them to send a low appraisal notice even though it should have been unnecessary. Apparently some Windermere offices/agents figured that out some time ago, and don’t use 22AD for that reason.

    But again the focus of this exercise is supposed to be on the calculations. Why do you suppose no one seems to care about sloppy forms?

  32. 32

    By ARDELL DellaLoggia @ 30:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27

    Then use a smaller bid up than $100,000.00 or no bid up at all. Stay in reality.

    I just did one with $100,000.00 bid up. Didn’t appraise. Closed at purchase price. Not the seller’s problem.

    If your contract had a 22A then it could have been your seller’s problem if the buyer had second thoughts and sent a notice of low appraisal. Did you have a 22A as part of that contract?

    This gets to another point I frequently make. Assuming you had a 22A in your contract it didn’t become a problem because both sides wanted the same thing–a transaction where the buyer buys and the seller sells. As long as you have that it doesn’t really matter what the contract says. It could be written on a napkin and not have a valid legal description. The reason to be worried about contract language isn’t for the 95%+ of transactions where the parties both want to close through and even past the closing date, it’s for those situations where someone changes their mind or has second thoughts (the type of second thoughts that can occur when a buyer sees an appraisal). Most agents don’t understand that. They just work in a world where things work because everyone is working toward the same goal, so they think everything is fine.

    As you may recall, a buyer not using a 22A financing contingency was something I suggested a couple of months ago as a way of a buyer making their offer more attractive (but at considerable risk). In that case the risk to the seller is less, but they still risk the possibility of the buyer backing out and forfeiting their earnest money.

  33. 33

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 31

    Your question is tantamount to:

    If I put my seller client up on a chair (bid up) and let a buyer put a noose around his neck (must appraise clause) how do I best protect my seller client when the buyer’s appraiser kicks the chair out from under him?

    The answer is don’t let the noose in the room in the first place. It’s that simple.

    Only an attorney who let the noose in the room so he could play hypothetical games of how to save his client after the chair gets kicked out from under him, would see it any other way.

    If you are not asking people IN the field like me for real life answers, then don’t use proprietary lingo like 22AD, expecting people who are not agents to answer. 22AD is the noose. It should not be for less than the buyer agreed to pay over the asking price IF you use it. IMO it doesn’t belong in the room at all.

    Seller is responsible for appraisal up to HIS asking price. Buyer is responsible for appraisal for the amount the buyer bid OVER the seller’s asking price.

    Pretty simple stuff. No need to reinvent that wheel.

  34. 34

    By Ardell DellaLoggia @ 33:

    Seller is responsible for appraisal up to HIS asking price. Buyer is responsible for appraisal for the amount the buyer bid OVER the seller’s asking price.

    Pretty simple stuff. No need to reinvent that wheel.

    LOL. You think that is simple. How do you accomplish that? Not with a standard financing contingency form (22A). Not with not using a standard financing contingency form. Not with a standard Additional Down Addendum (22AD or any others I’ve seen). So how did you do it?

    In a difference context I’ve added language which said that the buyer would bring in additional funds for a low appraisal up to $X under the contract price, but that requires the agent to draft language–there is no standard form for that (there probably should be).

    And that doesn’t deal with the issue I’m trying to address–the Additional Down-Payment forms (22AD and others) all using incorrect formulas. If you use custom language to get around that problem, fine, but that’s hardly a good solution to a forms problem.

  35. 35

    By Ardell DellaLoggia @ 33:

    If you are not asking people IN the field like me for real life answers, then don’t use proprietary lingo like 22AD, expecting people who are not agents to answer. 22AD is the noose. It should not be for less than the buyer agreed to pay over the asking price IF you use it. IMO it doesn’t belong in the room at all.

    I use the 22AD language for two reasons–as a short cut after explaining what it is and so others looking for information on the form can Google it and find this discussion. That’s how I discovered that some Windermere offices are not using 22AD.

    As to your last 3 sentences, you don’t understand 22AD if you’re making those statements. Although I would agree with not using the form at all, but that’s because it doesn’t do what it purports to do and is poorly drafted in at least two ways beyond the calculation issues. A properly drafted form would be very useful.

  36. 36

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 35

    Not playing tit for tat today. I have a home inspection at the house that may not appraise that didn’t bid out or sell at asking.

    That’s reality.

    An agent who doesn’t have an educated guess of where the appraisal is going to fall or know where the red flags are that could cause it to fail, doesn’t belong in the room. He should stay outside with his noose. :)

  37. 37

    By ARDELL DellaLoggia @ 36:

    An agent who doesn’t have an educated guess of where the appraisal is going to fall or know where the red flags are that could cause it to fail, doesn’t belong in the room. He should stay outside with his noose. :)

    Once again, if you make that statement you don’t understand the topic. The low appraisal forms, not using 22A at all or using custom language are all for situations where at least one of the agents is concerned about the appraisal. If they weren’t concerned about the appraisal they wouldn’t try to address the possible situation in the contract. That’s pretty basic stuff.

    But again, that has nothing to do with the issue of the incorrect formula being used, which no one seems to care about for some reason I really don’t understand.

  38. 38
    Sea says:

    RE: Deerhawke @ 2

    Plus I think there’s increased media coverage of the “Seattle boom” that is causing more people to think “buy now or be priced out forever.” And on top of that, the recent stock boom probably helped put some extra down payment in people’s pockets.

    I think you are right, the common word on the street now appears to be: do whatever it takes to get whatever you can now before you get priced out. For me, its the opposite I hear that sentiment and am scared to buy, it just doesn’t sound rational and things don’t normally stay status quo for long once the sentiment is like that.

    I keep hearing its all due to high tech jobs and certainly that’s a driver but there has to be much more to it. I look at Spokane, traditionally a sleepy real estate market and they also have inventory down 25% YOY, and are at all time high prices, yet NO ONE would say its due to high paying jobs. The same can be said for many cities across the country. A lack of building and having the inventory sucked up by wall street buyers is more probable. It was predictable that the millions that moved in with family and friends during the recession would want to move out and have their own residences when things got better.

  39. 39

    It’s now practically a virtual certainty that we will have less than one month’s supply of active listings at the end of March. The main wild card might be late reported sales, but that works both ways.

  40. 40
    Brian says:

    By Sea @ 38:

    A lack of building and having the inventory sucked up by wall street buyers is more probable.

    Yep, with bond yields so low, many investors are chasing the better returns on real estate. Since 2012, Seattle home prices have yielded almost better than the stock market (up 69% vs 73%, respectively). But on top of that crazy yield, you can rent the place and do astronomically better than the stock market. The question is when will the investors cash out and go chase something else.

  41. 41

    RE: Brian @ 40 – Leverage is also less risky with real estate. There are no margin calls!

  42. 42
    GoHawks says:

    RE: Sea @ 38 – What is demand like currently there? Is inventory just low, or is demand high as well?

  43. 43
    Deerhawke says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 11

    For me, it is instructive to note how we compare:
    – to the national median
    – to other cities on the West Coast and
    – to other major cities across the country

    We always say that in real estate it is about location, location, location and that all real estate pricing is local, but we are not immune to national trends. I would be much more likely to look at developments in our area and conclude that there is a local bubble if it were not for looking at West Coast and national data and seeing similar trends and patterns.

  44. 44

    RE: Deerhawke @ 43 – Okay, thanks. One thing I would add to that is that if you’re looking at MLS national stats (or MLS stats from other areas), then you don’t really know how they are compiling their data. Different MLS entities do things differently and you can even have the same sale reported by different MLS entities. So C-S has the advantage of probably being more consistent when you look at those other areas to compare them to this area.

  45. 45
    Sea says:

    By GoHawks @ 42:

    RE: Sea @ 38 – What is demand like currently there? Is inventory just low, or is demand high as well?

    Posting Spokane data since you asked. http://www.gospokanerealestate.com/

    Not near as tight as here, with 3 months of inventory, but still very low for that market.

  46. 46

    Redmondjp never answered this question from the other thread, so I’m going to assume he never saw it and post it on this thread.

    By

    RE: redmondjp @ 387 – Do these concrete tanks drain into the soil somehow, sort of like the many drainage system ponds that are scattered about? Or do they have a pump to pump out slowly, sort of like pressurized septic drain fields? If not, what is their purpose?

  47. 47
    Kmac says:

    RE: Sea @ 38
    RE: Brian @ 40
    RE: Deerhawke @ 43

    All valid points.
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 5 years.
    I do think trends can reverse rather quickly, though.
    Nothing worse than chasing the market on the way DOWN (on the sell side).

  48. 48

    Check this out–a national interactive map that shows how much aircraft noise you can expect in different areas. You can use is anywhere in the country, including the Seattle area, Everett and Oak Harbor.

    https://maps.bts.dot.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a303ff5924c9474790464cc0e9d5c9fb

  49. 49
    Jasper says:

    Kary,

    Instead of thinking of the “supplemental money if does not appraise” clause as being “extra money that the buyer has available for an extra down payment”, what if you think of it as “the amount of under-appraisal that the buyer can accommodate”? Regardless of whether the forms include the first definition, the clauses are designed to be invoked when the second definition is relevant.

    In your hypothetical, the buyer can afford to make a $ 250,000 down payment and borrow $ 800,000 on an 80% LTV loan, and is willing to pay a total of up to $ 1,000,000. For purposes of making an offer, would this buyer be justified in using a $62,500 “amount of under-appraisal that the buyer can accommodate” clause? (borrowing $ 750,000 on a $ 937,500 loan at 80% LTV, putting down $ 187,500 plus $ 62,500).

    If the borrower would be legally justified in using $ 62,500 for purposes of this clause, then a decision to use $ 50,000 is a choice by the buyer to try to re-negotiate the price if the appraisal comes in under $ 950,000 (instead of under $ 937,500). The seller should treat the offer accordingly.

  50. 50

    By Jasper @ 49:

    Kary,

    Instead of thinking of the “supplemental money if does not appraise” clause as being “extra money that the buyer has available for an extra down payment”, what if you think of it as “the amount of under-appraisal that the buyer can accommodate”? Regardless of whether the forms include the first definition, the clauses are designed to be invoked when the second definition is relevant.

    In your hypothetical, the buyer can afford to make a $ 250,000 down payment and borrow $ 800,000 on an 80% LTV loan, and is willing to pay a total of up to $ 1,000,000. For purposes of making an offer, would this buyer be justified in using a $62,500 “amount of under-appraisal that the buyer can accommodate” clause? (borrowing $ 750,000 on a $ 937,500 loan at 80% LTV, putting down $ 187,500 plus $ 62,500).

    If the borrower would be legally justified in using $ 62,500 for purposes of this clause, then a decision to use $ 50,000 is a choice by the buyer to try to re-negotiate the price if the appraisal comes in under $ 950,000 (instead of under $ 937,500). The seller should treat the offer accordingly.

    I think you’re understanding the issue, but the problem is what message does the form convey to buyers and sellers. The form only expressly mentions the down payment numbers. So $950,000 and $937,500 are not mentioned, only that the buyer has $200,000 plus $50,000. They have to actually run through some examples and do the math to figure it out.

    If you had language in the contract that was explicit it would say: “Buyer has $50,000 extra money, but that number is irrelevant because at a $940,000 appraisal the calculation of this form only requires the buyer to use $38,000 of that $50,000 and in so doing the buyer will only pay $990,000 when they could pay the original contract price if they used the entire $50,000 mentioned.”

    The addendum as written is very deceiving, and probably not what either party intends.

    Edit: I just realized without seeing the language it is hard to understand. Here is some of the operative language:

    “Buyer shall pay additional funds up to $_________ (“Buyer’s Additional Funds”) towards Buyer’s down payment to close the sale.” That is false–in the hypothetical it’s only $38,000 if $50,000 is filling in.

    “If Seller receives nthe above notice from Buyer, Seller may deliver notice to Buyer within ___ days (3 if not filled in): (a) reducing the Purchase Price to an amount equal to lender’s appraised value plus Buyer’s Additional Funds, or (b) terminating the Agreement. . . .” That’s only the correct calculation if the buyer is getting a zero down loan, which most likely would be a VA loan where you can’t agree to pay more than the appraised value.

    Again, people could avoid being mislead by doing the math using different hypotheticals, but I don’t think they should have to do that.

  51. 51
    Jasper says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 48 – The decibel levels on that map seem low to me, but the pattern seems right to me. I measured the noise levels in my neighborhood with a sound meter (on a fall evening after sunset) when I was purchasing my lot.

  52. 52
    Deerhawke says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    I looked at this a long time ago and I know that C-S was designed to take account of differences in data gathering practices in various markets. Case and Shiller are both very careful, highly respected quantitative economists so I fundamentally trust the way they structure things. Also over time as C-S has been used more broadly, including on Wall Street, there has been pressure on regional MLS services to stick with broader national norms.

  53. 53
    Brian says:

    By Kmac @ 47:

    All valid points.
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 5 years.
    I do think trends can reverse rather quickly, though.
    Nothing worse than chasing the market on the way DOWN (on the sell side).

    Yes, inventory shot up VERY quick in 2007 (feb to sept), +6000 units

  54. 54

    By Jasper @ 51:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 48 – The decibel levels on that map seem low to me, but the pattern seems right to me. I measured the noise levels in my neighborhood with a sound meter (on a fall evening after sunset) when I was purchasing my lot.

    I don’t know about the db levels, but I wish it had some information on frequency. I’m in one of the lowest level sound areas, but the frequency is only 2-3 flights per day, if that. If it was the same noise level but 100 flights that would be entirely different.

  55. 55
    Jasper says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 54 – The map includes both road noise and flight noise. Where I live, the road noise dominates. For example, where I live, a large plane flying overhead towards a landing at Sea-Tac is about as loud as a bus starting up at the bus stop around the corner.

  56. 56
    MGSpiffy says:

    Wow. Spent a couple hours talking to the neighbors yesterday. It looks like 4 of 8 houses on our dead end street are going up for sale this spring.

    Two I’m not surprised by- elderly owners downsizing – but the others apparently are the result of a long-standing lawsuit with one of the neighbors over an erosion incident (and shared liability because it’s a private road) finally being over.

    Haunting the open houses should be interesting.

    Now, back to your regularly scheduled arguments…

  57. 57
    Brian says:

    RE: MGSpiffy @ 56
    Wow, that’s a lot of turnover for just one street. Best of luck on the new neighbors!

  58. 58
    Marc says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 46 – IIRC, the one I encountered was to meant to slow the rate at which runoff fed into a culvert system that ran down the street. It would fill up during rain storms and then slowly let the water trickle out. Presumably, the bulk of it would exit after the rain had ceased. Good luck with that this past winter.

  59. 59
    MGSpiffy says:

    Re: Brian @56

    The lawsuit that involved the homeowners (who all have shared responsibility for the street maintenance ) pretty much kept people from selling for the last 2 years – who want’s buy a house when it comes with a possible pending legal judgement against you? So I’m seeing pent-up desire to sell.

    The house that started it all has gone back to the bank, and Zillow shows all the houses on this street as from $750k to 1M, so I expect we’ll plenty of traffic on what is a short dead end street, off of a dead end street, that’s off of a dead end street. :)

  60. 60
    Kmac says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 25:

    RE: Kmac @ 22 – I wonder if something else was kicking in, like maybe Monorail or early ST3? Seems very high.

    MSRP was in around $26k but the state’s valuation scheme had it at over $29K –
    29K * 2.2% = $638
    and the RTA (ST1) was $30 per $10K value

    $728 plus the other items charged on registration.

    No matter how you slice it, those numbers are a long ways from $30 and in fact substantially more than 300-400 dollars.

    The state vehicle valuation scheme is absurd, as anyone who has had a vehicle gifted to them and were forced to pay sales/use tax on that gift upon registration would be able to attest too.
    They make you jump through hoops to prove yourself too.

    Now back on topic……

  61. 61
    Brendan says:

    I often think car tabs are overblown. People pay way more in sales tax every year, but no one complains. It’s just because people know how much they spend on their car tabs, but they don’t realize they are spending thousands on sales tax, unless they keep all their receipts…

    If people were smart they’d be happy to get a bill that shows predictably how much they need to pay every year, rather than thousands of variable small charges on scraps of paper.

  62. 62

    The state has this tab cost estimator page, but it only works if you’re renewing in during certain months (My December vehicle is not shown).

    My 2013 Subaru is under $300.

    https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/extdriveses/NoLogon/_/

  63. 63
    ess says:

    By Brendan @ 61:

    I often think car tabs are overblown. People pay way more in sales tax every year, but no one complains. It’s just because people know how much they spend on their car tabs, but they don’t realize they are spending thousands on sales tax, unless they keep all their receipts…

    If people were smart they’d be happy to get a bill that shows predictably how much they need to pay every year, rather than thousands of variable small charges on scraps of paper.

    The sales tax in some WA state cities will be going over 10% as a result of ST3. People are going to start taking notice

  64. 64
    Brendan says:

    We’ll see. I think it could be 20% and people would complain less than they do about car tabs because it’s just another couple of dollars on each individual bill.

    Under 300 for a 2013 vehicle. For sales tax on the other hand, the seattle times said the average bill was from 1000 to 2600 depending on income level.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-taxes-among-nations-kindest-to-the-rich-and-harshest-to-the-poor/

  65. 65
    redmondjp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 46:

    Redmondjp never answered this question from the other thread, so I’m going to assume he never saw it and post it on this thread.

    By

    RE: redmondjp @ 387 – Do these concrete tanks drain into the soil somehow, sort of like the many drainage system ponds that are scattered about? Or do they have a pump to pump out slowly, sort of like pressurized septic drain fields? If not, what is their purpose?

    The purpose of the concrete tank is to contain the runoff from the newly-installed impermeable surfaces, and to slowly release it. When a property is developed, you draw a box around it. The rate of surface water runoff from this box cannot change as a result of the development. Hence the need for the tank, which has a flow limiter on its output to the storm drain system (so no, it does not just drain into the surrounding soil). Personally I think that these systems are mostly unnecessary, especially on 1-4 house short-plats, but nonetheless, they are required by our current water rules.

  66. 66

    RE: redmondjp @ 65RE: Marc @ 58 – Thanks to both of you. Seems like they would be more useful if more the pond arrangement, where the water could slowly drain into the soil. And yes, it does seem like overkill on a short-plat.

  67. 67

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 66 – One other issue I see with these things, if the outlet is smaller than the inlet, seemingly clogging would be a constant issue.

    But whatever. Even if water isn’t an issue it seems as if local government will find some way to mess with people wanting to build on their property. This is from Arizona.

    http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/property-owner-learns-about-county-s-peaks-ridges-restrictions-hard/article_5f2e9d43-eab4-5dab-aded-7e27b4665a01.html

  68. 68
    jeff says:

    kary, will you please stop posting so much – maybe limit your comments to one post per story or something
    Your hi-jacking someone elses blog and your posts are not even about the story

  69. 69

    By jeff @ 68:

    kary, will you please stop posting so much – maybe limit your comments to one post per story or something
    Your hi-jacking someone elses blog and your posts are not even about the story

    No. Will you quit posting nonsense? My posts at least have some useful information. Your post not so much.

    In case you’re not able to figure this out on your own, you don’t have to read every comment. How about that for a compromise?

    And how many of the posts here have been about the C-S “story?” Seriously, there’s only so many things you can say about another number that is higher than the last number. I’ve probably made as many comments about C-S in this thread (3) as anyone. But if that’s all we limited ourselves to, there’d be 5 posts a month.

  70. 70

    Here’s the third in the series of greedy sellers/anxious buyers. It deals again with inspections. Nothing terribly surprising, but it does come out against seller inspections, buyer pre-inspections and buyers not doing their own inspection.

    It does mention the thing that I believe gets overlooked on buyer pre-inspections–damages to the property from an inspection. With multiple inspections the seller won’t know who caused the damages, and the buyers won’t have any assurances that some later inspector didn’t cause damage after their inspector went through. I’d also note that having multiple inspectors go through an attic with blown in insulation probably isn’t the best thing that could happen to that insulation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fmdX2d0lYE&index=3&list=PLsU-Dcv-PIXZ1SxR0yfh1mwOIoNN3V9ah

  71. 71

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    Again…doesn’t match the real world of real estate. It’s a real estate “market” because the market determines best practices “under these market conditions”.

    It’s not helpful to talk about things that are great when it is a balanced or buyer’s market, as if they exist in a seller’s market. The market dictates how buyers and sellers handle the process, unless there would be a law saying otherwise.

    Lawyers should fight for such laws vs giving impractical advice.

  72. 72
    Kmac says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 67

    Huckelberry said development services had “acted within the guidelines of their code, and that’s all they can do. They’re not supposed to represent a private seller or a private buyer, or act as a title company.”

    There are so many rules and regs that most people can’t go a day without breaking some kind of government imposed rule.
    And some people want to continue adding more rules.
    These kind of things need to stop.
    Society seems to be speeding toward a concrete wall at a high rate of speed.
    One thing for certain though is that government must be unscrupulously just in dealing with its citizens.

  73. 73

    RE: Ardell DellaLoggia @ 71 – That is just incredibly ignorant. Best practices and worst practices are the same regardless of the market. The problem is bad practices become more common in extreme markets.

    Are your you really trying to say that it’s somehow okay for a buyer in a strong seller’s market to buy a house without an inspection?

    And it’s not the market that pushes these practices. It’s agents who hear about them (e.g. Form 22AD) and then make them part of their practice without thinking or understanding (what will the buyer put down or pay if this occurs?). I’ve only had one seller come up with the idea of doing an inspection prior to listing. Most all the bad practices are pushed by agents, and those agents are risking getting sued within the next 3 years after the transaction.

    I’d hate to be your malpractice carrier (assuming you have coverage). You’re a walking talking time bomb.

  74. 74

    RE: Kmac @ 72 – I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that, but at the same time I think it’s a bit unrealistic to think that someone should just be able to walk up to a counter in the King County Administration building and get an answer to: “Can I build a house on this lot.” There’s a number of different issues with feasibility, not all of them are code related, and not all of the code is handled by the same department.

    I try to avoid doing anything with vacant land, but I did come across a city ordinance where what you had to do in building a house was dependent on how many trees of what type and diameter were on the lot. I’m glad they try to protect trees, but it seemed to go too far. But at least that way you’re not going to end up like a friend of mine who had a house out by Rattlesnake Ridge and then had a neighbor come in and bulldoze their entire lot. They were bringing the city to the country apparently.

  75. 75

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 73

    Your personal attacks are unwarranted Kary. You act as if you have no access to the data. Shameful.
    You can see that I never do pre-inspections with a seller vs a buyer. I don’t believe in seller doing them. Never did. 27 years of never did, not because you and your buddy said so.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the market is dictating that properties go “Straight to Pending” with no inspection contingency as the rule vs the exception. You have the data Kary.

    Here’s the REAL DATA for last 30 days in 98033

    114 Sold and Pending Transactions as of 5 minutes ago.

    81% NO INSPECTION CONTINGENCY – 92 properties

    19% Had an Inspection Contingency in the accepted offer – 22 properties

    You are quoting one of the most powerful people saying this should not be…and yet it is happening 81% of the time.

    Wouldn’t it be better to MANDATE what you are saying if both of you truly feel it MUST be that way? vs spreading false information about current market conditions contradictory to the reality of the marketplace?

    This is not about what I personally do or anecdotal information.

    These are the facts.

    81% of the marketplace has spoken.

    Don’t mislead people. Take the time to DO the DATA.

    Required Disclosure: Stats in this comment are hand calculated by Ardell in real time and not compiled, verified or published by The Northwest Multiple Listing Service.

  76. 76

    RE: Ardell DellaLoggia @ 75 – I’m glad you don’t do seller inspections, but that wasn’t the only topic covered in that video. Did you even bother to watch it this time, or is it yet another thing you don’t think you need to watch/read before making comments?

    My attacks are completely warranted when you fail to completely understand the topic. The topic is whether bad practices may be occurring, and your stats tend to indicate that they are! That they happen frequently doesn’t make them okay. The videos are being done because there are a lot of bad practices occurring and Washington Realtors wants to make sure agents know how to protect themselves and their clients. Your stats support the videos, they don’t somehow support your position.

    That you don’t even understand the topic would be shocking, but you have such a long history of not understanding so many legal topics I’ve gotten used to it.

  77. 77
    Kmac says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 74

    That is why Snohomish County, and I’m sure King County has something similar, has a process called a “pre-application” process.
    Takes about 60 days, but you get staff collecting specifics about the land in question and presenting the findings and expectations to you in a detail oriented meeting.
    I think last time I did it, it was a well spent $250, of which if a permit is issued on property within 12 months, something like $200 of the $250 fee is credited to your permit.

    But, there are more than a few WA legal cases ruling in favor of land owners that received “erroneous” information from “across the counter” conversations with government planners.
    Since you seem very adept at legal research, I won’t go to the trouble to cite any of them here.

  78. 78

    RE: Kmac @ 77 – I’m not familiar with those cases, but it doesn’t surprise me at all. That’s probably true of almost any government entity. I think if the IRS issues a formal opinion letter on your situation that you can rely on that, but anything short of that out of the IRS cannot be relied on at all. If it were otherwise then people’s rights would be affected and counter staff would be extremely powerful.

  79. 79

    Crappy Weather Back for the Weekend

    I was reading in the WSJ this morning that Minneapolis is watching home listings decrease 25% YOY.

    Prices all up, record levels….then toss in the interest rate hike rattle snake…

    No wonder buyers [and sellers] are battening down the Noah Ark hatches and riding out the continuous Seattle deluges…

  80. 80
    Joe says:

    Kary, I have to think the fact that inspections aren’t occurring IS a problem and it’s evidence of an unsustainable situation. It’s simple common sense. The rush to ” buy now or be priced our forever” makes no sense either.

    There’s only one approach that works in the long run, and it’s to buy low and sell high. We won’t know where the “high” is until after the fact, but we certainly know that we are well off the lows.

  81. 81

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 76

    I think it would be great if people could live in that million dollar purchase for a week before agreeing to buy it.

    Add that to your “Dream On” pile of useless wish it were so items.

  82. 82
    GoHawks says:

    38 of 81 comments are from two people. It’s getting hard to read the question/comments from others as they get lost in between. Lots of great insight, but the back and forth, tit for tat gets old and obscures the great comments from others (and them as well).

    Less is more.

  83. 83

    By Kmac @ 72:

    There are so many rules and regs that most people can’t go a day without breaking some kind of government imposed rule.
    And some people want to continue adding more rules.

    By Ardell DellaLoggia @ 71:

    The market dictates how buyers and sellers handle the process, unless there would be a law saying otherwise.

    Lawyers should fight for such laws vs giving impractical advice.

    By Ardell DellaLoggia @ 75:

    You are quoting one of the most powerful people saying this should not be…and yet it is happening 81% of the time.

    Wouldn’t it be better to MANDATE what you are saying if both of you truly feel it MUST be that way? vs spreading false information about current market conditions contradictory to the reality of the marketplace?

    Note the disparity there? Ardell, you are the only one even suggesting mandating anything! But you don’t understand the topic, so you say a bunch of things that make no sense.

    What the videos are about is trying to avoid unsafe situations and if they cannot be avoided making sure the parties understand the ramifications of their actions.

    No one but you is suggesting that someone has to have an inspection because there are a lot of people out there going without them. The only suggestion is that it be an informed decision.

    No one is suggesting that sellers be prevented from doing their own inspection–only that they understand the consequences of doing that.

    So for example, when you represent a buyer who bids $100,000 more than a property is listed for, inform the client that they are bidding more than the property may be worth if you think that is the case! And do that in writing because they are not going to remember what you told them when they realize what they did two years from now. That serves two purposes: 1. It may prevent them from making that bid that is too high; and 2. It protects you later when they have second thoughts. What doesn’t protect you is doing that transaction without any written warnings, watching a video about how that is risky agent behavior, and then claiming that you don’t need to watch the video because you’ve been an agent for so long.

    But again, no one is claiming that anyone should be prevented from bidding $100,000 over list, even if the property is only worth $100,000 under list. It’s their decision. They just need to be informed.

    By ARDELL DellaLoggia @ 81:

    I think it would be great if people could live in that million dollar purchase for a week before agreeing to buy it.

    Add that to your “Dream On” pile of useless wish it were so items.

    And yet again you don’t get it. These are things good agents are doing! They are not “wish it were so items.” They are things that are happening for buyers who are represented by quality agents.

  84. 84

    By GoHawks @ 82:

    38 of 81 comments are from two people. It’s getting hard to read the question/comments from others as they get lost in between. Lots of great insight, but the back and forth, tit for tat gets old and obscures the great comments from others (and them as well).

    Less is more.

    There were a total of six posts yesterday, one of which was also complaining about my posting, and one of which was my response.

    How are we possibly supposed to keep up with such volume? Six whole posts in a day! It’s just way too much work. /sarc

  85. 85

    By Joe @ 80:

    Kary, I have to think the fact that inspections aren’t occurring IS a problem and it’s evidence of an unsustainable situation. It’s simple common sense. The rush to ” buy now or be priced our forever” makes no sense either.

    There’s only one approach that works in the long run, and it’s to buy low and sell high. We won’t know where the “high” is until after the fact, but we certainly know that we are well off the lows.

    I agree fully with the first paragraph, but I don’t think the second paragraph is the only solution. There are alternatives.

    One example would be simply avoid even looking at properties that encourage buyer pre-inspections if you’re not willing to do a pre-inspection. Why waste your time–at least until a review date has passed. That may seem like it’s limiting your choice by not even looking at the properties, but if the seller is showing a clear preference for no inspection contingency and you’re not willing to do a pre-inspection, is it really limiting your choice?

    Just because other people are being stupid that doesn’t mean you have to be stupid. It just means you have to be smarter.

  86. 86

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 85

    That leaves your options at only the houses no one else wants…not a smart move.

  87. 87

    RE: ARDELL DellaLoggia @ 86 – No it doesn’t, but if you don’t realize that, that’s not my problem. That’s my advantage.

  88. 88
    Macro Investor says:

    By GoHawks @ 82:

    38 of 81 comments are from two people. It’s getting hard to read the question/comments from others as they get lost in between. Lots of great insight, but the back and forth, tit for tat gets old and obscures the great comments from others (and them as well).

    Less is more.

    They’ve been asked dozens of times to knock it off. But narcissists arrogantly think people care about their opinions. A normal person would bugger off to some agent’s forum.

    Suggest you handle it as follows — never read any post by the top 3. We all know who they are. No idea what they’re yacking about. I just see the names or god awful pictures and skip down.

  89. 89

    By Macro Investor @ 88:

    They’ve been asked dozens of times to knock it off. But narcissists arrogantly think people care about their opinions. A normal person would bugger off to some agent’s forum.

    And I’ve asked you to quit giving your laughable opinions on business and economic matters, but you seem to continue to post very naive and ignorant thoughts on those topics. I don’t understand? Isn’t that how the Internet is supposed to work?

    But seriously do you not think that how forms work would be of interest to buyers and sellers? Or how to avoid some of the risky practices that have popped up in this market? What do you want this site to be? A bunch of posts by people who say small houses in Ballard are too expensive? I at least try to post things that should be of interest to consumers, but I can’t help it if everything I say isn’t of interest to everyone. You on the other hand only seem to post things that would be of interest to those who want to learn incorrect information and useless opinions about business and economic matters (like post 21 above where you think you can predict the future of real estate prices based on one factor–nativity and ignorance at it’s classic best).

  90. 90

    RE: Macro Investor @ 88 – And BTW, to be clear about the volume issue, I posted a Washington Realtors’ video think for the benefit of the consumers who do read this site. Although directed at agents, they also provide useful information to consumers, and in an earlier video Annie even mentioned wanting to speak to sellers but that she knew most of her viewers were agents.

    But then Ardell pops up with a bunch of complete nonsense posts, so we now have about 8 posts on that topic, four of which are Ardell posting nonsense and four of which refute the nonsense so that consumers won’t be mislead. I haven’t ask for her nonsense to be posted–and I don’t think it adds anything to the discussion other than maybe proof of Washington Realtors’ point that that there are agents out there who follow risky practices. But the point is, I can’t control the volume of posts on a topic once the topic is put out there. That Washington Realtors’ video should be useful to buyers and sellers–but the comments that have appeared after that post not so much.

  91. 91

    More nonsense out of the City of Seattle on landlord tenant issues. They want landlords to explain to tenants where the rent money is going.

    http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/initiative-aims-to-help-seattleites-better-understand-rent-costs/507934171

    First, it’s none of the tenants’ business. Second, it’s based on the idea that the price something is going for is based on costs rather than supply and demand. Rents are not going up in Seattle due to increased landlords costs. Rents are going up due to higher demand, and landlord profits are going up too.

  92. 92

    RE: Joe @ 80
    Exactly Joe

    Even Seattle has PLENTY of undiscovered bargains that haven’t hit the “high priced” foreclosure auction block yet….the trick and it requires some luck with diligence too….find ’em first. Never tell anyone what you’re buying, not even your attorney….they can steal it from you, its too tempting. Close the deal QUICK [and have the full cash offer available to wire], I did my Kansas City 3 bdrm 1/2 acre $26K purchase in 10 days….didn’t quibble over the $2.2K closing costs and upgraded the property to code for about another $4K….the property lists for about 3 times these costs 2 years later. Did this all from Seattle too.

  93. 93
    jon says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 91 – Then renters should also have to provide a detailed breakdown of their spending to show why they are having a problem with the rent.

  94. 94

    I thought it would be interesting to restructure this thread by topic, so I went through and noted the post number, person commenting and basic topic of the first 93 posts here in roughly 7 days. Ironic that the first thread is about how to get more comments here, and that had four responses with ideas.

    Anyway, here’s who stared what and where it went.

    1-Greenhorn—Surprised it’s the end of month, complains about lack of posts. 4—wreckingball–Responds with ideas to get more comments. 5—Brian—More ways to get more comments. 6—Wreckingball—response to Brian. 10—Brian—response to forum suggestion.

    2-DBGT200—Local Market comments. 5—Brian—More local market comments. 38—Sea—Response to comments. 40—Brian-Responding, pointing out local market returns relative to stocks. 41—Me—Making additional comparison to stocks. 42—GoHawks—Question to Sea. 45—Sea—Answering question.

    3-Deerhawk—Comments on C-S. 11—Me—Question about his comment. 43—Deerhawk—Answering my question. 44—Me—Thanking for answer and noting that C-S is better for national stats than MLS data. 47—Kmac—responding to several. 52—Deerhawk—Responding to me with comments about C-S. 53—Deerhawk—Commenting on inventory changes.

    7—GoHawks—Local Market comment. 8—Me—response to local market comment. 9-GoHawks—response to my comment.

    12—Redmondjp—Comment about possible change in RE taxes. 13—Me—Responding and bringing Tim Eyman into the mix. 14—uwp—Agreeing with my Tim Eyman comment. 15—Redmondjp—Disagreeing with my Tim Eyman comment. 16,17—Me—Respoinding explaining how Tim Eyman affected roads. 18—Me—Article about Tim Eyman. 19—Kmac—Comment about cost of tabs. 20—Me—responding to Kmac. 22—Kmac—more tab cost topic. 25—Me—Cost of car tab topic. 60—Kmac—Mor on costs of tabs. 61—Brendan–More on costs of tab. 62—Me-More on cost of tabs. 63-ess—Noting sale tax will also go up. 64—Brendan—More on cost of tabs.

    19—MacroInvestor—Comment on interest rate and perceived effect on market. 23—Me—Respoinding about effect of interest rates, prices since SB started and lack of bears currently on site.

    24—Me—Raising low appraisal form topic. 26—Ardell—Nonsencical response. 27—Me—Pointing out Ardell’s nonsensical response and trying to get her back on topic. 29—Anonoumous Coward—Question about low appraisals and how many only put 20% down. 30—Ardell—More nonsensical response. 31—My response to Anonoumous. 32—Me—My response to Ardell explaining to her how basic forms work. 33—Ardell—More nonsense and a misstatement of my prior positions. 34—Me—Response to Ardell asking her for specifics (not later provided) 35—Me—Explaining to Ardell why I use form numbers. 36—Ardell—more nonsense. 37—Me—Explaining to Ardell how her nonsense is nonsense. 49—Jasper—Making very insightful comments on topic. 50—Me—Responding to insightful comments.

    28—Highlands—Rental vacancy issue in new construction.

    39—Me—Commenting we may be below one month’s supply of active listings.

    46—Me—Asking Redmondjp question not answered in prior thread. 58—Marc—Answering question. 65—Redmondjp—Answering question. –66—Me—Thanking them both and discussing ponds vs. tanks. 67—Me—Raising maintenance issue. 72—Kmac—complaining about volume of regulations. 74—Me—Responding about regulations and county information. 77—Kmac—Info on county information/process. 78—Me—responding to Kmac.

    48—Me—Posting aircraft/road noise link. 51—Jasper—Comment about link. 54—Me—Responding to comments. 55—Jasper—Noting link also covers road noise.

    56—MGSpiffy—Comments about future listings on his street. 57—Brian—Cooment on same. 59—MGSpiffy—Explaining neighborhood situation.

    68—jeff—Asking me to not post so much. 69—Me—Telling him to STFU without telling him to STFU.

    70—Me—Posting Washington Realtors link on risky practices. 71—Ardell—Nonsense about nothing. 73—Me—Response to Ardell’s nonsense. 75—Ardell—Attempts to respond with data. 76—Me-Response to Ardell. 80-Joe—Comment about inspections not occurring and market imbalance. 81—Ardell—Complete nonsense. 83—Me-Pointing out to Ardell that the issue is not preventing people from doing things as she repeatedly claimed. 85—Me—Responding to Joe’s comments. 86—Ardell—Makes comment indicating she doesn’t understand. 87—Me—Pointing out I’m better than her because I do understand. 92—SWE—Response to Joe’s post 80.

    79—SWE—Weather comments and about Minneapolis market data.

    82—GoHawks—Comment about who is commenting how often and how that makes it difficult to keep up. 84—Me—Pointing out how few posts there were the day prior. 88—Macro Investor—States misunderstanding of how Internet works, but then posts useful advice about how you cannot read posts by certain people. 89, 90—Me—Pointing out how the Internet works and how a couple of the topics posted above are useful for consumers.

    91—Me—New proposed Seattle regulations on landlords. 93—Jon—Comment on regulation.

  95. 95
    Kmac says:

    Actually, post number one was a lack of comments in the “forum”- not here.
    See Seattle Bubble home page – right margin of page

    And can’t a “complaint” just be a “comment” as others seem to be duly noted.
    Must be a “complaint” if you disagree with the “complainer”.

    If you are spending this much time on who’s commenting, it must be really weighing on you.

  96. 96

    RE: Kmac @ 95 – Oh, you’re right, and I remember thinking about that “Get Out the Vote” thread when I read that originally, which I think is very good. I just didn’t remember that today.

  97. 97
    Weasel says:

    By GoHawks @ 7:

    Interesting about the top two counties in the country for new arrivals being Pierce and Snohomish counties. Feels like this is a broad based boom. Not just south lake Union.

    If Redfin’s price estimator is to believed you’d be right. In Puyallup we bought in Dec 2014 (the last dip in the YOY chart). Just over two years later Redfin thinks it up 40%. It might be about right, on our street two renovated places sold for a bit above and a similar half renovated place down the street was listed 20k under our estimate and just went pending, waiting to see what sold for.

    A couple months ago the bus driver on my local route mentioned that apartment prices in Puyallup were getting “up there” compared to what they used to be.

    I suppose some people are looking elsewhere outside of Seattle because its out of their reach?

  98. 98
    Sid says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 94:

    I thought it would be interesting to restructure this thread by topic, so I went through and noted the post number, person commenting and basic topic of the first 93 posts here in roughly 7 days. Ironic that the first thread is about how to get more comments here, and that had four responses with ideas.

    Anyway, here’s who stared what and where it went.

    1-Greenhorn—Surprised it’s the end of month, complains about lack of posts. 4—wreckingball–Responds with ideas to get more comments. 5—Brian—More ways to get more comments. 6—Wreckingball—response to Brian. 10—Brian—response to forum suggestion.

    2-DBGT200—Local Market comments. 5—Brian—More local market comments. 38—Sea—Response to comments. 40—Brian-Responding, pointing out local market returns relative to stocks. 41—Me—Making additional comparison to stocks. 42—GoHawks—Question to Sea. 45—Sea—Answering question.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    91—Me—New proposed Seattle regulations on landlords. 93—Jon—Comment on regulation.

    WOW
    Someone has a lot of free time.

  99. 99
    Weasel says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    By redmondjp @ 15:

    How hard is it to clue into the fact that it is NOT a money issue, but rather a money MANAGEMENT issue, that is the problem. Sound Transit is Exhibit ‘A’. Local school districts are another (with their admin. buildings stuffed full of non-value-added 6-figure-salary employees).

    Simply throwing more money at the government, without fixing the mismanagement first, is the LAST thing we should be doing. But I guess clueless Seattle voters don’t understand that, and are more than happy to pay more to get nothing in return. Or for a choo-choo train that won’t come into their station for another twenty-five years.

    This tax increase is nothing more than a blank check for increased government spending.

    Those are the most age old tired arguments ever made. “Government doesn’t need more money, it just needs to be more efficient.” Blah, blah, blah.

    Government is by its very nature inefficient, I’ll give you that. But good luck changing that. That’s just the nature of the world and hoping for the impossible is not an excuse for raising the money needed for projects and programs.

    Governments are inefficient like any other monopoly, they dont have to compete with anything else, just them selves.

    ST might of tied it self a noose with ST3, and Link isnt the answer to everything, its slow for one and going to take forever to “complete”. It doesnt add any value to south sound commuters who work in Seattle. I’ve heard that for the cost of extending Link to Tacoma, ST could have bought the BNSF track between Tacoma and Seattle, paid to double track the Union Pacific line for them both to share (they share tracks in other places), ST could of then electrified the line and run ~120mph trains between Seattle and Tacoma making it a 30 odd minute trip. This would have also removed all the freight traffic out of 4 downtown areas, and made them suitable for high density residential. Throw in some connector buses from the train stations and now you have something that adds value for the tax payer and makes the car tabs/sales/property taxes more than stomach-able. Instead we get a pisspoor service thats never on time, has no connector buses and with no plans to improve it.

  100. 100
    northender says:

    Today I went through an open house down the street in north Seattle. It’s got an illegal mother in law apartment in the basement. Not a big deal – except the bedroom has no window and not even a potential to cut an egress window in because the front entry stairs that are concrete are in the way. And I saw that the gas water heater vent pipe goes out from the basement and then up and along the way penetrates 2 levels of roof. The vent pipe says it should be 1 inch from combustibles but it’s touching both levels of roof framing it goes through. And some outside stairs that are somewhat hazardous cause they aren’t as deep as they should be.

    I asked the hosting agent if anyone was doing preinspections. He said no – there had been an inspection that was being made available. I emailed the listing agent who sent the inspection report within 10 minutes. It described minor issues: a blown window seal, a missing fireplace damper, a water heater that was set too hot. Nothing about the kitchen in the basement or the lack of egress for the bedroom in the basement apartment. Or the water heater vent or the step issues.

    So does the listing agent have any responsibility if someone buys the place, tries to rent the basement apartment, and gets shut down by the city? The inspection report includes an inspector license #. Does the inspector have any liability? I don’t know who paid for the inspection but if the listing agent spreads it around could he say he wasn’t involved even if it was done for the seller?

    To anyone buying – relying on an inspection done by the seller is about the same has having no inspection. But on the plus side, maybe you have grounds for a lawsuit if the inspection doesn’t find the issues it should.

  101. 101
    redmondjp says:

    RE: Weasel @ 99 – You are exactly correct. Anybody with half a brain and an ounce of common sense can come up with a far better transportation system that what Sound Transit is planning. I have watched the disaster unfold firsthand here in Redmond (mayor on ST board of course) where they have torn up the railroad tracks (to Issaquah and also north all the way to Snohomish and points beyond) as fast as they could gain possession of the right-of-ways. Tracks that they could have easily run passenger light rail on, shuttling tens of thousands of Microsoft and other tech workers to and from work daily.

    But no . . . we get the slow choo-choo to south Seattle, where, um, er, almost zero Eastside workers actually live. Further proof that Sound Transit is nothing more than a taxpayer funds redistribution machine, with permanent funding for perpetual construction, with a portion of those union workers’ salaries (union dues) going right back into the campaign re-election funds of local politicians. It’s evil genius, if you’re in on the take.

    ST cheerleaders will accuse me of being anti-transit, but I am nothing of the sort. A bad transit system is actually worse than no transit system at all, because everybody pays for it, but only a tiny minority actually benefits from it. Social progressives should be outraged at the injustice and inequity of this.

  102. 102
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: redmondjp @ 100 – Completely agree with you both. I live in West Seattle, and ST3 has rail to West Seattle in the very last phases of the project. Nevermind that there’s an existing railroad bridge over the river, which ends at a giant, empty parking lot (terminal 5). We could have passenger rail service to West Seattle by the end of the month if the ST3 folks wanted it. But, oh, no, we need to build a new bridge.
    And then there’s the fact that to pay for the new bridge, we need to spread the costs over as many riders as possible. So, while Burien could have rail within a few years by simply adding a 2 mile long branch line from the airport, they’ll just have to wait. See, Sound Transit is going to run tracks to Burien all the way down from West Seattle…
    And don’t even get me started on my fellow West Seattle-ites who see “West Seattle” on the Sound Transit Maps and can’t get their wallets out fast enough because they think that means light rail to the Alaska Junction. When the maps clearly show line going no farther west than Delridge. ‘Cause the hill is too steep for friction rail, so getting trains to the Alaska Junction will require another bridge or another tunnel. And those costs are NOT in ST3.

  103. 103

    By Sid @ 98:

    WOW
    Someone has a lot of free time.

    That didn’t take all that long, and quite frankly I’m not sure why you would think it took that long.

    But if you must know, it was a sunny afternoon so I thought I’d enjoy the weather, pretend it was summer, and drink a Gin and Tonic out on the deck. Unfortunately the clouds appeared right then, but I still had the Gin and Tonic, so I thought about doing that post. It took less time to do the post than to drink the Gin and Tonic.

    Maybe it would take a long time for someone who can’t read or type very well, but it really didn’t take long at all. The worst part was switching from monitor to monitor as I switched from the browser to Word, which I used to compose the post.

  104. 104
    Erik says:

    RE: Anonymous Coward @ 102
    We don’t want to give Seattle easy access to West Seattle. West Seattle is a lovely place and we don’t want Seattle to ruin that for us. If Seattle wants a new bridge, they can pay for it themselves just like they did the last bridge.

  105. 105

    By northender @ 100:

    I emailed the listing agent who sent the inspection report within 10 minutes. It described minor issues: a blown window seal, a missing fireplace damper, a water heater that was set too hot. Nothing about the kitchen in the basement or the lack of egress for the bedroom in the basement apartment. Or the water heater vent or the step issues.

    So does the listing agent have any responsibility if someone buys the place, tries to rent the basement apartment, and gets shut down by the city? The inspection report includes an inspector license #. Does the inspector have any liability? I don’t know who paid for the inspection but if the listing agent spreads it around could he say he wasn’t involved even if it was done for the seller?

    To anyone buying – relying on an inspection done by the seller is about the same has having no inspection. But on the plus side, maybe you have grounds for a lawsuit if the inspection doesn’t find the issues it should.

    That’s the problem with seller inspections. I saw one seller inspection were about the only thing reported on was one screw missing from the breaker box cover. I’ve never seen a report so clean ever before. I saw another, where my buyer clients went into contract and did their own inspection, where their inspection was so different from the seller’s inspection that they basically felt deceived and backed out (which was entirely legit because their price was based on that inspection and some of the items found would have been moderately expensive to deal with).

    As to inspector liability, that’s a good question. When a buyer does their own inspection there’s typically a contract and that typically has limitations on liability. Those contractual provisions most likely don’t carry over to a third party like a buyer. And that may be part of the reason why some inspectors won’t allow the seller to attach the report to Form 17 or otherwise allow it to be available. But I don’t know that I’ve ever heard of a buyer suing a seller’s inspector.

  106. 106

    RE: Anonymous Coward @ 102 – My main complaint would be that this area delayed doing transportation projects so long that traffic has become unbearable and now the projects are much more expensive.

    If you look at something like the Light Rail, it moves a lot of people, replacing a lot of cars and buses, and their emissions. And the new tunnel to the UW, which I checked out last week to see the cherry blossoms at the UW, also apparently allows buses through, which reduces traffic on the streets. But when Light Rail was first built it didn’t go to the UW or even to the airport! The more they can extend it either direction the more useful it will become, but at this point it’s too little too late. The Bay Area had BART about 40 years now, and what we did instead was study after study, most of which never resulted in anything being built.

  107. 107
    GoHawks says:

    Ardell, thank you for showing restraint with your posts the past two days after hearing multiple people complain about the volume. Much appreciated.

  108. 108
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 106 – Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against light rail (or even heavy rail). I am against being pennywise and pound foolish. Like ripping out the tracks on the east side of Lake Washington and putting in a bike path. Now all rail transport to the Eastside requires a new bridge over the lake. And anybody wanting to go from the south end to Bellevue/Redmond will have to go to Seattle *and* then transfer.

    It’s as if the “planners” are assuming all new growth will occur in/near downtown Seattle at $$$/sqft and that none of it will occur in the outlying areas at $$/sqft. Ok, of course it will, because we’ll tell all the people wanting to build at $$/sqft that they’re simply not allowed. Because density! And then we’ll all act surprised that housing (particularly SFHs in accessible neighborhoods) becomes even less affordable.

  109. 109
    Brian says:

    By Erik @ 104:

    RE: Anonymous Coward @ 102
    We don’t want to give Seattle easy access to West Seattle. West Seattle is a lovely place and we don’t want Seattle to ruin that for us. If Seattle wants a new bridge, they can pay for it themselves just like they did the last bridge.

    I don’t understand, are you suggesting there’s a difference between Seattle paying for the bridge and West Seattle paying for the bridge?

  110. 110

    By Anonymous Coward @ 108:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 106 – Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against light rail (or even heavy rail). I am against being pennywise and pound foolish. Like ripping out the tracks on the east side of Lake Washington and putting in a bike path. Now all rail transport to the Eastside requires a new bridge over the lake.

    I understood your points, but as to that rail/bike path comment, I vaguely recall a story about that, how someone in government realized the tracks might need to be put back in, but they were so interesting in moving the project along they wanted them pulled out.

  111. 111
    Dustin says:

    RE: GoHawks @ 107 – I don’t understand why some readers here are so concerned about the volume of comments from certain posters. This is the comments section of a blog. I usually ignore the comments on news articles and blog posts because they tend to be repetitive, emotional, poorly organized or have no clear source. I’d go so far as to say that frequent posts by real estate professionals like Ardell and Kary have made reading the comments on this site worthwhile.

  112. 112
    Brian says:

    RE: Dustin @ 111

    Yep, without them it would be a lot emptier. Sometimes I don’t care what they’re talking about (esp if it’s arguing), but that’s fine – I’ll just skip over those comments.

  113. 113
    Brian says:

    By Anonymous Coward @ 108:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 106 – Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against light rail (or even heavy rail). I am against being pennywise and pound foolish. Like ripping out the tracks on the east side of Lake Washington and putting in a bike path.

    That was very annoying. Rail from Snohomish/Woodinville, through Kirkland and into Bellevue would help tremendously with our traffic issues due to northward expansion. I drive by that Kirkland trail everyday and see someone on it about once every three months. No exaggeration whatsoever. If anything, that’s an underestimate. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone on there.

  114. 114

    RE: Brian @ 112 – So much of the “discussion” with Ardell in this thread was completely off topic that quite frankly I didn’t care either. In post 27 should have just said” Wrong, and not on topic” and left it at that. The other topic, not really possible because it would be irresponsible to leave her suggestions that risky practices are okay because they’re market driven. The whole point of even posting that was so that consumers wouldn’t be as easily caught up in some of the nonsense that agents push.

  115. 115
    GoHawks says:

    RE: Dustin @ 111 – I find much of what they have to say very informative and useful. I just wish it was left at that. The back and forth between them is annoying and takes away from their helpful commentary. They obviously can find one another’s e-mail addresses if they wish to debate a topic. Cluttering the thread with finger pointing is counterproductive in my opinion and it diminishes the value they both bring.

  116. 116

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 114

    To pretend that real estate and real estate practices are not “market driven” makes no sense. The issue isn’t whether or not a buyer does a home inspection. It is whether or not the seller is involved via a “contingency” to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, which will happen more in a buyer’s and balanced market than a seller’s market.

    That 81% of buyers did not have an Inspection Contingency in my posted stats does not mean the buyer did not do an inspection. It means the result of the inspection was not negotiated with the seller after there was a mutually accepted agreement to purchase, and the buyer could not use the result as a legal out to that accepted contract.

  117. 117

    By Ardell DellaLoggia @ 116:

    To pretend that real estate and real estate practices are not “market driven” makes no sense.

    Good, because that’s not what I said. What I said is:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 73:

    Best practices and worst practices are the same regardless of the market. The problem is bad practices become more common in extreme markets.

    The market is driving risky practices, and that’s the point of the video series. Agents are doing things they didn’t use to do, and those things are risky to themselves and their clients.

    And I also agree that going straight to pending doesn’t mean no inspection was done. I don’t recall ever suggesting that, and in fact mentioned pre-inspections. But again, that has nothing to do with identifying the risks of doing pre-inspections (both for buyers and sellers), disclosing those risks to clients while perhaps suggesting alternatives, and documenting that process. That is the topic of the video series, not what percentage is doing what or what it means when a listing goes straight to pending.

  118. 118
    jon says:

    By Brian @ 113:

    By Anonymous Coward @ 108:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 106 – Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against light rail (or even heavy rail). I am against being pennywise and pound foolish. Like ripping out the tracks on the east side of Lake Washington and putting in a bike path.

    That was very annoying. Rail from Snohomish/Woodinville, through Kirkland and into Bellevue would help tremendously with our traffic issues due to northward expansion. I drive by that Kirkland trail everyday and see someone on it about once every three months. No exaggeration whatsoever. If anything, that’s an underestimate. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone on there.

    The tracks in Kirkland were removed because they were no longer usable. The route has been designed to accommodate both the pathway and rail.

    “The current rail tracks along the ERC are outdated and are no longer usable for rail service. ”
    http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2015/11/16/king-county-will-remove-old-rails-on-the-eastside-trail-kirkland-plans-rapid-bus-along-the-trail/

    I don’t follow the ins and outs, but Kirkland does not seem to be well suited yet for rail transit. https://www.seattletransitblog.com/2016/11/28/kirkland-in-st3/

    This will no doubt continue to evolve.

  119. 119

    By jon @ 118:

    The tracks in Kirkland were removed because they were no longer usable. The route has been designed to accommodate both the pathway and rail.

    It’s possible what I saw was some sort of spin–I don’t remember where I saw it or even which politician/political entity they were talking about.

    But even unused rails can need to be replaced, as happened in the downtown bus tunnel where the rails they originally built anticipating future rail were not the right type/gauge for the system actually built.

  120. 120
    Brian says:

    RE: jon @ 118

    The latest I’ve heard is that they’re planning on building multi-million dollar pedestrian bridges along the trail over busy streets, so that doesn’t bode well for any transit-related future plans.

  121. 121
    Anonymous Coward says:

    RE: jon @ 118 – Do you know what the railroad did with the outdated tracks along the Duwamish River bike path? They, wait for it… replaced them with new ones! What they didn’t do was perform a land swap with some other property owner (knowing the new owner was going to tear out the tracks and re-purpose the land) and then go to the voters hat in hand with a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar proposal to acquire right-of-way and build tracks where they’d wanted them all along…

  122. 122
    Anonymous Coward says:

    Let me be clear: Sound Transit wants to put therail where they think the rail should go, costs (and ridership) be d@mned! They have absolutely no interest in looking at any faster/cheaper/better. Even if it costs billions more and we end up with a less efficient system. (And one that does little actually alleviate our existing transportation problems.)

  123. 123
    jon says:

    I had not seen this blog before, but it has some interesting information. This post is especially relevant to real estate prices, and has some stats relevant to immigration into King County.

    https://www.seattletransitblog.com/2017/03/30/2016-growth-outpaced-housing/#more-87590

  124. 124
    Kmac says:

    By jon @ 118:

    The tracks in Kirkland were removed because they were no longer usable

    If those are the tracks the dinner train used to run on, yes, they were worn out a long time ago. Dinner and glasses always ended up on the floor when the violent side to side action occurred.

  125. 125
    redmondjp says:

    RE: Kmac @ 124 – It’s far easier to fix RR tracks than it is to rebuild a two-lane highway. Have you ever seen one of those tie-replacing machines that they use? It’s almost fully automated, and the machine has its own vibratory compactor.

    If you notice the track that they are rebuilding along I-5 through JBLM, you will see that they are now using composite ties as well.

    The worn-out tracks excuse was not a valid reason to stop running rail on the right-of-way; they had to make up something to justify tearing out the tracks (knowing full well that they had no plans of ever replacing them).

  126. 126
    Erik says:

    RE: Brian @ 109
    I was told that the city of Seattle wanted to tax people only in west Seattle to build the west Seattle bridge. I guess the battle went on for years until Seattle finally agreed to spread the cost over the entire city of Seattle. West Seattle didn’t want to grow in size.
    West Seattle wants to keep that relaxed beachy charm to it. West seattlites don’t like the idea of expansion and more business in the area. People were mad that pcc market is moving to a bigger facility. People that live there like feeling they aren’t in a crowded city.

  127. 127

    RE: Erik @ 126 – Other than a toll, I’m not sure how that would even be possible. I don’t remember that at all, and I remember before the W Seattle bridge existed–but it probably had planning discuttions before I got over here.

    I lived over there for a short time during the period one of the two draw bridges was knocked out of service by a collision with a ship.

  128. 128

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 39:

    It’s now practically a virtual certainty that we will have less than one month’s supply of active listings at the end of March. The main wild card might be late reported sales, but that works both ways.

    Well at this point there should be little doubt about this one.

    One thing I’m starting to notice now is the condition of the house isn’t making that much of a difference in sales price. Older houses with dated kitchens are going for nearly the same amount as houses that have been updated. It’s sort of like how split-entry houses have not been selling at their typical discount recently.

    I haven’t been checking the financing on those sales, but the one place you still really have to worry about comps on financed transactions is condos. The appraisals I’ve seen over the last year or so have been very strict. You need to pay close attention to sales in the same complex going back a full year.

  129. 129
    Brian says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 128:

    One thing I’m starting to notice now is the condition of the house isn’t making that much of a difference in sales price. Older houses with dated kitchens are going for nearly the same amount as houses that have been updated.

    Wonder if that signals we’re nearing peak affordability, where buyers in general can only afford to pay so much, regardless of the condition.

  130. 130

    RE: Brian @ 129 – I think it pertains more to buyer desperation. They settle.

    It’s just a more extreme variation on not caring as much that a house is on a busy road, etc.

  131. 131
    Brian says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 130:

    RE: Brian @ 129 – I think it pertains more to buyer desperation. They settle.

    It’s just a more extreme variation on not caring as much that a house is on a busy road, etc.

    But isn’t it both a desperation and an affordability issue? If it was just desperation, then they would pay more for the better house. But they can’t afford to, so you see crappier homes selling for near the same price.

  132. 132

    RE: Brian @ 131 – Maybe, but remember there just isn’t much choice. So it’s sort of a chicken/egg situation.

  133. 133
    Brian says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 132:

    Maybe, but remember there just isn’t much choice. So it’s sort of a chicken/egg situation.

    I don’t think it’s really chicken/egg – if sellers could get more for a better home then they’d sell them for more.

  134. 134
    redmondjp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 130:

    RE: Brian @ 129 – I think it pertains more to buyer desperation. They settle.

    It’s just a more extreme variation on not caring as much that a house is on a busy road, etc.

    And these buyers will even be more desperate when the market turns, and prices on their less-desirable properties fall first and fastest.

  135. 135
  136. 136
    Erik says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 127
    Someone on this site told me that story and I never validated it. Could be wrong I guess.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.