This cool listing

I get to list all sorts of houses in my work.  I love the variety, and the variety of people who are drawn to the different properties.

This spring, I've listed a big fixer in NE, a sweet little ranch on Mt. Tabor, a classy ranch in Reedwood,  a fab condo on SE 44th and Division, and a big traditional beauty in Hawthorne.  Now, I've just listed a sweet bungalow in Roseway (think where NE Fremont crosses NE Sandy).  Click for a map of a few good spots.

The sellers are friends of ours, so I've seen this house over the years (didn't we play Cards Against Humanity once at that dining room table?).  With lots of hard work; packing away stuff, cleaning and prepping, I think the place looks great!  

One of the sellers is an artist and furniture maker.  He has done some truly beautiful work here.   The kitchen was re-done with some incredible finishes:

That backsplash is subway style marble with racked glass details.  The cabinets are maple veneered apple ply and zebra wood.  And the counters are stainless steel and zebra wood.

The master bedroom has custom built-in dressers and bed of Wenge and reclaimed Honduran Mahogany. The ceiling is woven maple.  Plus there is a walk-in closet built with cherry wood.

Then there's the master bath with a copper (!) shower and slate floor with radiant floor heat. 

Oh year, and lest I forget the dining room with bamboo floors and traditional built-ins:

There's lots more; photo voltaic solar, on demand hot water and a high efficiency furnace.  The back yard has a deck (with wiring for a hot tub), outdoor shower, grill shack and bike shed.  

I enjoy every property I list.  But this one, has SO many cool features and so much whimsey.  I feel like we need more whimsey these days.  I'll be holding this open on Sunday, May 14th from 12:00 noon to 2:00 pm.  3207 NE 71st Ave.  $449,900. Two bedrooms, two baths, plus bonus room and partially finished basement.  Come see me!

Latest Portland Market Stats

Hmm.  I've been feeling like the market has slowed just a tad, and the latest stats from RMLS, released this week, may back me up.

All of the year to date numbers, that is, comparing April 2017 to April 2016, show slowing.  New listings are down 7.9%, pending sales are down 10.0 %, and closed sales are down 15% .

Inventory crawled up a bit, from 1.3 months in March 2017, to 1.7 months in April 2017.  April 2016 had 1.4 months of inventory.  Remember, this is how long it would take to sell all the properties on the market, at the current rate of sales. The 1.7 months of inventory is still VERY low inventory.  We consider a balanced market, when neither buyer nor seller have an advantage, to be around 5 or  6 months.  We're a heck of a long way from there!

Prices are still going up; comparing the median price of homes sold in the 12 months ending April 30th 2017, with the median price of homes in the twelve months preceding April 2016, we have seen an increase of 11.6%,  Market time is shortening; 42 days on April 2017, down from 58 days in March 2017.  Increasing pirces are often attributed to a shortage of inventory.

What are the factors that could be at play?  Elliot Njus, at the Oregonian, attributes the slowing to a lack of inventory.  But our inventory is a bit higher than last month, and higher than it was last year at this time.  Slightly increasing interest rates?  Political unrest? Rent stabilization measures by Portland and Milwaukie?

What's to come?  We usually see a bit of slowing in the summer, Its so gorgeous here in summer, I feel like a significant percentage of buyers and sellers are vacationing at any given time.  I expect that will be the case this summer too.  That will mean fewer houses on the market, and fewer buyers looking.

If you have questions about the market, or are thinking of buying or selling, give a call, text or email.  leslievjones@gmail.com 503-312-8038.

That rent control debate

My not unbiased take on the X-Ray Rent Control debate held last night at the Alberta Rose Theater.

First off, in general, I am not a Jefferson Smith fan; something about anger management and a date rape accusation.  But, he did a very good job as moderator of such a hot button topic. 

As you might imagine, the room (Alberta Rose Theater) was about 2/3 pro-rent control to 1/3 anti.  Tenants and tenant’s rights groups were out in force,  I’m not sure why landlords were so under represented.  So, lots of landlord bashing, and a strong sentiment that housing is a basic right, profit from housing wrong and that people should be able to live where they want in the kind of housing they want.

I’m not sure about housing as a right.  We do live in a capitalist society. Housing does cost money.  Our economy is set up such that the majority of housing is owned and provided by private entities.  Those owners take financial risk and contribute significant financial resources to own or develop housing. That is just plain reality.  Right, wrong, good, bad, it just is.  Similarly, different neighborhood and different types of housing vary in price.

I was rather appalled at the disrespect shown, even by “pro” debater Margot Black, and Commissioner Eudaly.  I don’t think eye rolling, grimaces and thumbs down signs are appropriate in a debate.  And I didn’t think Commissioner Eudaly (remember, that is how we are to refer to her) should have taken question time to make a speech.  Doesn’t she have enough of a bully pulpit?  And wasn’t that question time for people to be heard?  And of course a good amount of hisses, talking over, etc. 

There was a fair amount of mis-information.  Margot Black, with Tenants United, gave many an impassioned speech, one talking about how we have no rent control and landlords can raise rent 100%.  Last I checked, we’re under a 10% cap, have lost the “no cause” eviction option, and can, under certain circumstances, be required to pay thousands of dollars to tenants we want to move out.  That kinds feels like rent control, to me.  She was not corrected.

Both debaters were pushed to cite examples of housing markets they thought were working well.  Gerald Mildner (anti) believes in no rent control, and thinks bringing more land into the urban growth boundary, would address some of the supply issues, thus driving down costs. He, when pushed, gave Atlanta, GA as an example of a more balanced and healthy housing market (note, healthy does not mean hugely appreciating).  Margot Black cited Vancouver, BC.  And a questioner cited Amsterdam.  No one mentioned that housing markets in other economies will behave differently.  For instance, real estate finance is VERY different in Canada.  How their rental market acts is also bound to differ.

Landlords seems to be separated into two groups; large, corporate non-local owners, and local slumlords.

The “pro” argument was about stabilization, both of rent and communities and neighborhoods.  There are varying numbers showing the in migration to Portland, and some mention that stabilization does nothing to house all the folks moving here.  Margot Black failed to provide any provision for housing all those people.  The focus was on protecting and stabilizing those already here.

I was surprised at, what I heard as, xenophobia.  Portland first can sound a bit like America first, but somehow Portland first is cooler.  I don’t have numbers to back it up, but I’ve had the sense that a good amount of Portland’s diversity is from the recent surge in folks moving here.  So, I hear Portland first as perhaps a bit racist.  And yes, the room was pretty white.

There was some talk, and concern for vulnerable populations, elderly, mentally ill, addicted, LGBTQ etc.  I think all agreed, pro or anti, that these populations can be more greatly impacted by a rapidly appreciating housing market.

Talk of rent control focused on limiting rent increases, limiting deposits and limiting landlord profits.

What I should have asked is this, “We bought our properties long ago, we have aggressively paid down our mortgages (that’s money not spent on vacations or other luxuries), we manage them ourselves, and do much of the work on them ourselves, including yard work.  Are we not entitled to greater profit than someone who bought at 2-3 times the price we did, carry higher mortgages, pays a property manager and pays for all maintenance and improvements?”  I don’t view us as making our money at the expense of our tenants, but rather making our money through diligence and hard work.

 

The housing crisis in Portland, and other cities, is a huge, multi-faceted problem.  I do believe landlords, developers and real estate agents do need to be part of the solution.  We need many solutions.

I can see bringing more land into the urban growth boundary (and creating more neighborhoods like Orenco Station, a walking neighborhood with good access to public transportation and close to employment).

I do think we need to incentivize development of affordable housing, and ease some development costs for affordable housing.

I would be open to an annual, per unit fee on rentals to go to a fund for low income renters.

I don’t mind a cap on rent increases during a tenancy. 

I might be okay with the 90 day noticing for no cause evictions and rent increases.  

I’d love to hear other thoughts.

What if the seller leaves a mess?

This is part two (of two) on how clean a house should be when the buyers take possession.

It can happen that a seller leaves a house an absolute mess; trash and debris, old paint and chemicals in the basement or garage, rubbish in the yard, old food in the fridge, and so on.  This is NOT how it should be.  Every once in awhile, in a competitive situation, and if the buyer is planning to have a bunch of work done before moving in, a buyer will stipulate in an offer, that the seller may take what they want and leave the rest.  This is an exception.

While some offers contain the provision for a walk through of the property prior to closing, our standard sale agreement does not provide for this, and the closing is not subject to the buyer's satisfaction with the property before closing.  AND, the  seller wouldn't yet have vacated the property, so a buyer walk through wouldn't show the what the property would look like after closing.

So, what remedies are available to the buyer?  If the seller merely ran out of time, the buyer might agree to get the house a day or so late; giving the seller time to clean it up. The seller must be a willing participant in this scenario.

Sometimes the buyer's and seller's agents will combine forces to deal with the situation themselves, or one or the other of them will deal with it.  This is the glamorous side of real estate; you know, hauling some one else's rubbish up from a creepy basement, or cleaning spoiled food from a refrigerator.

Often, in these cases, the seller is not a willing participant.  The buyer may be stuck dealing with it themselves, and would use the dispute resolution systems to recoup their cost. This most often would be a small claims court procedure; no lawyers and pretty quick.

Having a seller leave the property in less than good condition is not how  we, as agents, want the transaction to end; leaving a sour taste for everyone.  We set expectations early, and offer a variety of resources to help a seller vacate on time and properly.  We're also realistic with buyers, and encourage all buyers to give themselves at least a few days between occupying their new home and vacating their previous abode.

Those market stats

RMLS released the February numbers this week, and they look a bit mixed.   By mixed, I mean, busy, but not the craziest we've been.

I tend to put to most stock in looking back to the same month of the previous year,  as this helps normalize for seasonal slowing and surging.

So, when compared to February 2016, our pending sales are down 15%.  That is significant.  And closed sales are down 7.9%.  It's taking 45-60 days in escrow to get a sale closed, on average, so maybe some of that slowing can be attributed to the January snowpocalypse.

We're at 1.9 months of inventory in February. Meaning, at our current rate of sales, it would take us 1.9 months to sell everything currently on the market.  February 2016 was 1.8 months, a barely discernible difference.

In looking at the percentage change in the 12 month median sales price, compared with the previous 12 month period, we see a median sale price of $350,000 as compared to $310,000.  This early in the year, I prefer the rolling 12 month numbers as year to date calculations don't have  much meaning.

And lastly, our market time is a tad longer 62 days for sales closing in February 2017, as compared to 60 days on the market, for sales closing in February 2016.

Out in the market, it feels kind of like those numbers show.  We're still busy.  Buyers are out in force, and making aggressive offers.  But it doesn't feel crazy, for which I am thankful.  Perhaps we're all learning how to be in this kind of market.  Maybe listing agents have learned how best to communicate with regard to offer review timelines, and maybe buyers, and their agents are accustomed to offer deadlines, multiple offers and needing to offer highest and best offers?

Whatever the case, I welcome this feeling of sanity, while being busy.

See the full RMLS report.

How clean?

After all the flurry of buying and/or selling a house, as closing and moving nears, I am often asked, how clean the house should or will be.

In the early stages of a real estate transaction, we negotiate both the close date, and the possession date; that is when the sellers must be out of the home and the buyers are entitled to the keys and possession of the property.

Even super organized people, with the best of intentions, can come up short on time at the end.  And often what "gives" is condition in which the house is left.

The sale agreement is pretty silent on this, saying only," Seller shall remove all personal property (including trash and debris) that is not a part of this transaction, and deliver possession of the property to the Buyer...".So this basically says all the "stuff" needs to be gone.  From this, we have gotten to the "standard" that a property should be "broom clean".  That is, the seller need not have done, or hired, a deep cleaning, but the place should be swept up and empty.

The reality, is the condition in which properties are left varies greatly.  Some sellers take great pride leaving their property sparkling and clean for the new buyers; either hiring professional cleaners or doing a spiffy job themselves.  Many sellers do a fine job of removing all the "stuff" and doing a quick wipe down of surfaces.  And, as you might imagine, some sellers leave all sorts of messes.

While you might generalize about pricier properties being left in better condition, you'd be wrong.  Time pressed and inconsiderate sellers are found across all price ranges.

And whether we are representing buyer or seller, we try to set the expectations of how a property should be left.  But moving is hard, and the cleaning comes at the very end.  Sometimes buyers are greeted with a mess, and given the option of taking the property as is, or waiting a day or so to give the seller a chance to clear it out.  And sometimes real estate agents, representing buyer or seller, will pitch in to make sure a property is at least broom clean.

My advice, whether you are a buyer or a seller, is to allow more time for cleaning and moving (in or out) than you think you'll need.

See Part 2 next week for information on the remedies available to the buyer.

Some thoughts on "rent control"

So here is the thing about the “rent control” proposal recently adopted by the city.  The one that has us paying relocation costs for tenants if the rent is raised over 10% per year, and if tenants are given notice to move for “no cause”.

I work in the housing industry, both as a Realtor and landlord, along with volunteering for and contributing to community development groups.  Through my hard work, I have made decent money in the housing industry and am glad to give some back and be a part of housing solutions.

You know the argument that says we can’t change PERS, even though it’s killing our state budget, because public employees made the choice to forgo higher salaries in the interest of the pension? The same could be said for landlords.  My husband and I made the choice to forgo evenings and weekends, affording vacations, investing in pensions etc, in the interest of our rental properties. We invested in real estate under non-rent control rules.

Now, the rules under which we entered into being landlords, are being changed by the City of Portland, and perhaps the State of Oregon. 

We work hard and strive to be good landlords, are responsive to repair issues and requests, are understanding when a tenant needs to pay late here and there.  We’ll move the rental due date if a tenant’s pay schedule makes paying on the first hard.  Only in the past few years have we raised our rents during tenancies, and started doing so to not get caught with low rents should rent control come along.

Renting out one’s property is a bit like letting someone live in your bank account.  Take properties we have invested lots of money and time in, and hope the tenants don’t mess it up.  Yes, this is our choice.    Much like the PERS employee who gets the delayed gratification of a pension over higher current wages.

I want control of my properties.  I want to be able to use a no cause eviction if I need to. 

I would be willing to pay an annual, per unit fee, into an emergency housing fund, for low income tenants.  I’m fine with the 90 day noticing rules and the cap on rent increases above 10%.   I don’t quite understand why I should pay moving costs of a high earning tenant, because I want control of the property I own and for which I have sacrificed.