Wanted: Construction Job in Seattle

Either this report is a fabrication, or the guys in question haven't been clued in to how special Seattle is...

Construction workers from across the country came to the Cedar Rim Apartments in Newcastle for a major remodeling project.

They worked for weeks but were only partially paid. Now, some are stranded and taxpayers are footing some of the bill.

Donald Gill and Marc Cox are now stranded thousands of miles from home with no money, no jobs, and no way back.

The men are two of 14 construction workers who answered a Craigslist ad offering good pay and plenty of work to come refurbish apartments.
...
Somehow the deal went bad and the workers were left to fend for themselves.

Gill says he worked for three weeks but was only paid for one.

Now, a month without money, he and Cox have resorted to food stamps, paid for by Washington taxpayers, to survive.

Somebody should tell those guys that thanks to Seattle's perma-hot real estate market, there are plenty of construction jobs out there building new homes in a futile attempt to meet our area's insatiable home-buying demand.

(Eric Wilkinson, King 5 News, 05.13.2007)

Notes From the Trenches

Last Wednesday there was some great conversation about what people are experiencing as they are out there right now trying to find a home. I think it's worth re-posting these comments on the front page, since they give a good feel for what the housing market is really like right now that you can't get just by looking at graphs and spreadsheets.

Peter:

I've actually started looking seriously at homes in the $400k-$500k range and have toured probably at least a dozen from the Kennydale Area up to Juanita/Kirkland. Here's what I've noticed:

1) Pretty much everything you've heard about flipper renovations is true. These people are morons. I've seen some work so shoddy that it would blow your mind. We toured a home in Newport Hills and the owners were still there - he pointed at the electrical plates and said, "we upgraded to the latest style!" Um, yeah. You went to Home Depot and dropped a hundred bucks and spent the afternoon with a flathead screwdriver. No.

2) The $400k-$500k unrenovated properties are bottom of the barrel garbage. Borderline unliveable. Most of these are in such a state of disrepair they will probably need to be torn down. We saw a house in Finn Hill that had been vacant for quite some time. It smelled like death. My wife said, "this place is haunted!" I saw something - I'm not sure what - but it was brown, papery, and slightly organic looking in the fireplace. I asked our agent what it was and she just said, "let's get out of here!" And a steal at only $450k.

3) Prices are all over the board and don't appear to be based on recent nearby sales or appraised value + whatever. People are just asking whatever they feel like and seeing if they can get any bites.

4) The increase of inventory is definitely accelerating. It's all crap though.

5) Most builders are idiots. They will shoehorn a house into just about any space, regardless if the front door of one house is directly facing the house next door. Yeah, I want to look out of my living room window and see my neighbor reading the newspaper in his bathroom. Most are still not offering concessions.

6) I'm not seeing any of these houses move. No one is buying them. However, if a decent house at a decent price does get listed, it is snapped up immediately. The crap is sitting forever though.

7) This has been one of the worst and most depressing experiences of my life. I've seen more than one house that *could* have been nice but had been ravaged by a flipper and had the price jacked up $100k from the purchase price a year ago. It seems every flipper runs out of money and you can tell exactly where they did - 4 out of 5 rooms will have hardwood floors, for example. The last one will have 30 year old filthy carpeting in it. 3 out of 5 closets will have been redone - the last two look like something like the meat locker from Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Anyone who thinks this is a "healthy market" is certifiably insane.

Alan:

I know what you mean, Peter. My wife and I went to an open house a few weekends ago. We could tell that the owner had done some shoddy renovations, but we thought we would have to redo it and so we would have wanted a discount *because* of the renovations (if we had even wanted the house -- which we didn't because the floorplan was horrible).

I enjoy messing with the realtors. They ask if I am in the market and I say, "No, I'm currently priced out of this market. I only make $X per year." (where X is significantly above the mean income for the area). The last realtor I said this too got excited and started telling me that the owners would probably sell for less than the asking price and that he could get me a good deal on the house.

B:

Peter:

Wow, I haven't been looking as hard at as many properties as you have, but your observations exactly parallel my own. What a strange twilight-zone of inventory and comps we're looking at right now.

I came back from the last place we walked through (SFH in Greenlake listed at $699, which was absolute junk inside) with a resolve to renew my apartment lease through 2007 - let the flippers flop.

The only thing worth less than a "fixer" is a house where someone did a crappy remodel/flip on a fixer. Now I have to tear out all your shoddy garbage and re-do it. Honestly!

stephen:

If you are going to buy (like we are) it is extremely important to do loads of homework and tons of driving. We've been looking since the first and still haven't set foot in a house. One passed the drive by sniff test but fell out due to the flood report.

So have any other readers been out there looking at homes? What have you experienced? Is the market as strong as local real estate agents would have us believe? Let's hear your tales.

Hello Again, Condo Anecdote

This is at least worth a brief mention. Another unit has come up for sale in the condo complex in my neighborhood that was the subject of my first anecdotal post. Actually, it's not "another unit" but rather the same unit that sold just over a year ago.

In December 2005 Unit #6 was bought for $300,000. It is now on the market for $350,000, a 16.7% price increase. Given that the most recent county-wide data (pdf) shows condos up 21% from a year ago, perhaps the asking price is too low?

Since county-wide data is based on an ever-changing data set of new homes, remodeled homes, sub-divided lots, condo conversions, and so on, same-unit sales are the best way to gauge the actual appreciation in the market. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to sell this condo, and what the eventual sales price is.

If the MLS is an advertisement...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to continue Friday's conversation about the re-listed house on Avondale.

Thanks to yet another reply by Ms. Reed as well as a series of replies from Ardell, it has finally gotten through my thick skull that "cancel and relist" is different from "let expire and relist." Ms. Reed is guilty only of the latter, which is technically not a violation of NWMLS rules.

Although I now understand the difference, it seems to me like a trivial distinction. Ardell claims that a seller's agent that uses a short listing agreement in order to be able to re-list an unsold property "takes the risk of being replaced as the seller's agent by having short contracts." However, it seems to me that once the benefits of re-listing (falsely appearing to be a "fresh" listing) are explained to the seller, they would be more than happy to keep the agent on board, knowing that this is an agent that is willing to pull whatever kind of tricks are necessary to sell their house.

In fact, Ardell had an awful lot to say on the matter. Here are a few quotes that I found most interesting:

The general public's perception [of the MLS], the one most focused on here...is really the least of our concerns.

I am sorry that no one wants to understand that the mls system is not meant for the public to use as a means for purchasing property without an agent.

The public's view [of the MLS] is an "advertisement" for the most part, and not a "sharing of the agent tool". ... It is just a small view of the big picture and one to give the public an "idea" of what is out there...not the whole story.

If the publicly-accessible portion of the MLS is an "advertisement," shouldn't it be held to truth in advertising standards? When a property appears as "new on market" despite having languished non-stop on the market for months upon months, how is that not a deceptive practice? To simply brush off such concerns by saying that the MLS is "not meant for the public" seems a bit cavalier to me.

Ms. Reed's tactic, which Ardell describes as both something that "we [agents] hate" and "an excellent job" appears to have paid off. As Ardell pointed out, the listing has gone to "subject to inspection," presumably meaning a twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollar payday is in the beleaguered Ms. Reed's near future. When the transaction shows up in the public records, I'll post the last update on this house.

Update: Anecdote: Reloaded

Sarah Reed, the listing agent of the still-unsold $1.275 million-dollar home left a comment on my recent post about her listing. I feel it is only fair to reprint her comment here on the front page so that more people are able to read her defense.

So here it is, word for word.

Regarding my listing on Avondale-I wanted to set the record straight about my intentional relisting of the property. I try to always write a shorter listing agreement than the average agent as it better serves the client/seller. I do not "cancel and relist", or intend to deceive the consumer or other agents. I wanted the listing to expire contractually, and be relisted after the first of the year so that it would have an MLS # starting with 270. Largely because so many agents only search the new listings for their clients, overlooking perfectly fine homes with a bit of market time. Buyers always ask how long a property has been on the market, and I am always honest with my clients in every way. The Days On Market is clearly available to all agents, though the MLS does not print it to the consumer. My sellers always get a detailed explaination of my reasons for writing a shorter listing contract, and the benefits it gives them. Ultimately, the descision is theirs.

Certainly, I have had a few issues to overcome with this property, as the last agent blantantly overpriced it since he does not live in or do much business in the area. Also, he had it in the zip code for the city of Sammamish. Finally, the school district was wrong, and the photos were lack luster. The former agent really SHOULD have relisted the home with each of the massive price drops he was forced to do by his lack of accurate info and pricing, and did the sellers a huge disservice by not. He was likely afraid that they might cancel his service, which they were eager to do in the end. The home is very well constructed and finished nicely, and is finally appropriately priced. There was an appraisal done this summer for value only, and it came in at $1,550,000.

The current listing contract is written to expire the first week of March. I did this to appeal to the lazier agents out there that only search for "new listings". More paperwork for me, but I'm not lazy.

One more thing. I agree that there are alot of unprofessional agents out there harming the public. It would be valuable to the industry and the safety of the consumer if we had stricter regulations surrounding the obtaining of a real estate license in this state. If you ever get the chance to vote for stricter guidlines and laws for real estate professionals, PLEASE DO! We try to be a self-policing industry, but not everyone shares the high ethics that we all should subscribe to. Unfortunately, there are alot of people that get in the business to take advantage of the public.

I'm not really sure what point Ms. Reed is trying to make here. Again, I'm no real estate professional, but the rule seems pretty clear-cut to me: "You may not cancel and relist a property, even with a new listing agreement and new listing input sheets, unless there is a material change to the listing" (emphasis mine).

I don't understand how "I try to always write a shorter listing agreement than the average agent" excuses Ms. Reed from the rules.

Perhaps one of our readers from Rain City Guide can enlighten me?

P.S. (Please refrain from making personal attacks on Ms. Reed in the comments. Thank you.)

Anecdote: Reloaded

Many of you may remember the million-dollar new construction that I've been following since June of last year. Recall that it was originally listed at $1,625,000, has seen four separate price reductions (down to $1,275,000—28% off), and was most recently re-listed with a new brokerage and a shiny new description.

About a year ago I posted about a warning the NWMLS had posted to local agents. Here's the heart of it:

You may not cancel and relist a property, even with a new listing agreement and new listing input sheets, unless there is a material change to the listing (e.g., a significant change in the price of the property, a remodel, a change in zoning, or a change in ownership).

What does this have to do with the listing in question? Well, after fifty more days of apparently zero interest in this increasingly stale listing (240 cumulative days on the market), the listing agent—one Miss Sarah L. Reed of RE/MAX—has apparently decided that the new year is a good time to generate some fresh interest in the property by brazenly violating NWMLS rules.

Old price: $1,275,000. Old description:

A warm & elegant tribute to the distinctive northwest craftsman lifestyle! New majestic custom home on over 3 peaceful, close-in acres w/equestrian opp. Featuring glistening hardwoods in sun-filled rooms, arched doorways, library, slab granite, state of the art stainless steel gourmet kitchen-6 burner viking. Open & flowing w/soaring ceilings, greatroom, dining, family~bonus designed for entertaining. Showcase master suite retreat w/fplc, spa bath, dual closets. Caretaker-nanny-ext.Family wing.

"New" price: $1,275,000. "New" description:

A warm & elegant tribute to the distinctive northwest craftsman lifestyle! New majestic custom home on over 3 peaceful, close-in acres w/equestrian opp. Featuring glistening hardwoods in sun-filled rooms, arched doorways, library, slab granite, state of the art stainless steel gourmet kitchen-6 burner viking. Open & flowing w/soaring ceilings, greatroom, dining, family~bonus designed for entertaining. Showcase master suite retreat w/fplc, spa bath, dual closets. Caretaker-nanny-ext.Family wing.

You can also see (if you have a ZipRealty account) that the pictures are identical between the old and new listings.

I'm just an unsophisticated blogger, not a real estate professional, but it sure doesn't look to me like there has been a "material change to the listing." Tsk, tsk Ms. Reed.

Seeing something like this almost exactly one year after posting about the NWMLS warning leads me to wonder whether January is perhaps a particularly popular month to violate the NWMLS rules regarding re-listing properties.

Update: Be sure to see Sarah Reed's response to this post.

An Anecdotal Update (Or Two)

I noticed on my drive home from work one day last week that the for sale signs had come down from in front of the million-dollar new construction on Avondale. Recall that just under a month ago, the price was dropped (again) to $1,275,000.

So did the house sell, or are they just taking it off the market, hoping to re-list with greater success in the spring? As it turns out, the answer is neither one. After getting no bites for six months, despite knocking $450,000 (28%) off the original asking price, the seller decided to fire their agent. The Coldwell Banker signs came down, and over the weekend, shiny new RE/MAX signs were erected.

And just like that, the property now shows up as "New on Market!" Although the asking price is holding steady at $1,275,000, at least they made an effort to make the listing appear new, with all new pictures and an amusing new description.

Old 'n Busted:

Remarkable new construction on 3+ private acres close into redmond. Easy 520 & 405 commute. Soaring ceilings, arches, granite, tile & hdwds. Craftsman wood details throughout. Massive north & south wings. Private master wing w/library, office/workout room, 2 large walk-in closets, w/d hookup. Oversized 990+/- sf garage w/office & full bath. Spectacular waterfall cascading 30' into pond. Gorgeously landscaped w/abundant parking. Property in 2 large tiers. Upper tier could be cleared for horses.

New Hotness:

A warm & elegant tribute to the distinctive northwest craftsman lifestyle! New majestic custom home on over 3 peaceful, close-in acres w/equestrian opp. Featuring glistening hardwoods in sun-filled rooms, arched doorways, library, slab granite, state of the art stainless steel gourmet kitchen-6 burner viking. Open & flowing w/soaring ceilings, greatroom, dining, family~bonus designed for entertaining. Showcase master suite retreat w/fplc, spa bath, dual closets. Caretaker-nanny-ext. Family wing.

Maybe a glistening new description is just what's needed to finally unload this beast.

Also, in case anyone was wondering, apparently home staging isn't enough to move a property that's simply overpriced. The Olympia property that was featured in an article on home staging a month ago is still active on the MLS. So much for that open house bringing "similar results."

Anecdote Extravaganza

It's been a while since the last anecdote post, so I thought now would be a good time for an update.

First up, let's go way back to early June. Remember the million-dollar new construction in Redmond? It was originally listed in mid-May for $1,625,000, and the last time we checked in it had taken $130,000 in price reductions, dropping the price to $1,495,000. It has now been languishing on the market for 159 days, and taken two more price drops—$70,000 on 09/05 and $150,000 on 10/14—for a new grand total of $450,000 (28%) off the original asking price. Do you smell that? I think that's the smell of desperation.

It's been two or three months since my former coworker and her husband moved to California, and their rural King County house still has not sold. However, the good news is that they did finally lower their asking price (though not by much), from $490,000 down to $480,000. I'm still predicting that they won't sell for much more than $430,000.

Remember my coworker that listed his rural Snohomish County home for $350,000, then dropped down to $305,000 and announced that as the "*FINAL PRICE REDUCTION*"? Well apparently he wasn't kidding, because after receiving no bites for weeks at that price, the house was taken off the market, and hasn't reappeared in the months since. I know that he has moved to Moses Lake, so I can only assume that he is now paying two mortgages and hoping that next spring will save him.

I got an email from a friend (that I don't see often enough) a few weeks ago, enthusiastically telling me that he and his wife had just bought a condo... in Kent. From what I can tell, they paid just over $200,000. I didn't even know they were looking. I still haven't responded to him, because I just don't know what to say... all I can think of is "that's exciting."

Lastly, lest I be accused of cherry-picking only the most dismal-sounding stories, I offer the following tale from the Fremont / Greenlake area. I mentioned this friend's story in passing, but (by request) I was saving the full story until after the closing date. After doing some relatively inexpensive (under $5,000) sprucing up to improve "curb appeal," the house was listed in the $450-$475k range. They collected offers for a week, receiving a total of 11 offers (five of them over $500k!), and eventually closed for over $510,000.

It should be noted that before listing, when my friend asked his agent "what is available in this neighborhood for under $500k" the answer was "nothing." It is also worth pointing out that Zillow's estimate of his home's value came in at around $535k. While I don't think the close-in neighborhoods are likely to slow as much as those further out, I think his "price low and see where the bidding process takes you" strategy was a good one (it's what I recommended he do when he told me he was selling his home). As far as I can tell, that seems to be the best way of determining a home's true "market value."

So what have you been seeing "on the streets" lately?

In a Nutshell

True story.

A friend of mine was renting a decent apartment in the Fremont / Greenlake area in early 1994 for $850 per month.

In late 1994 he bought a decent, mid-range house in the same area for $150,000. Over the next 12 years, he didn't do any major remodels, just regular maintenance and a few minor projects here and there.

He just sold the house... for over $500,000. That's 240%+ appreciation in 12 years, an average of about 10.75% per year.

Now he's back to renting a similar quality apartment to what he had in 1994, in the same general area. His monthly rent is $1,150—35% higher than in 1994.

I think that about sums up why I think there is something seriously out of whack with home prices in Seattle.

Seattle Times Gives Anecdotes Of Their Own

Here's another one of those stories that follow the basic formula of: take an anecdote, fill in all the back story, write it as dramatically as possible, and stretch it to a full-length article. Today's topic: finding a nice house for less than $400,000 around Seattle is darn near impossible. It certainly doesn't qualify as "news," but it at least makes a semi-interesting read.

Adam and Leticia Hewitt's adventure in Puget Sound-area home buying began innocuously enough, with Adam dutifully researching the housing market to allay the couple's anxieties over their move north.
...
The manager of a Starbucks store in Portland, the 32-year-old accepted a promotion in February to financial analyst in the corporate office south of downtown Seattle. But the thrill of career advancement spiraled into distress as the couple searched for an affordable place to live.
...
"All I kept hearing about Seattle was that traffic was terrible," [Leticia] said. "Everyone said that we may as well spend more on housing to live closer to work, that the investment would be worth it in time saved on the commute."
...
After Adam started his new job in Seattle, co-workers at Starbucks offered good-intentioned advice.

"Live in Issaquah," they said. "It's great there and the housing is affordable."

Adam explored Issaquah and found houses selling for as low as $600,000 and as high as seven figures.

"They were right — it is great out in Issaquah. But the housing is not affordable. I began to realize that everyone I was talking to was high up in corporate and making a lot more money than I was."
...
The couple finally found their dream house within the Red Oaks subdivision in north Lynnwood, a house that had been on the market since February but had not yet sold because two offers had fallen through.
...
The commute still is so fresh that Adam is timing the compromise each afternoon.

"Forty-two minutes," he said about one recent commute home. "But yesterday, it was only 32."

I seem to recall hearing some people claim that even if the Puget Sound sees price declines, the "close-in" neighborhoods to Seattle will be safe, because people want to live close to where they work. What I find particularly interesting about this anecdote is that not only did their subject family end up way up in Lynnwood, even the "high up corporate" people in Starbucks were recommending Issaquah.

If home prices do not go down, this kind of scenario will continue to play out in Seattle, and in fact only get worse.

(Stuart Eskenazi, Seattle Times, 09.05.2006)

Anecdote Updates & YAWA

I think it's time to update you on some of the local action (or lack thereof) that I've been keeping my eye on. I'll take these in the order that they were originally posted.

First up, we've got the park-backing property down the street from me. The last time I mentioned it (way back in mid-June), it had been languishing on the market for two and a half months, at a price comparable to recent nearby sales. Well it finally sold, closing about a month after I made that post. The sale price was $50,000 less than the asking price, and the poor deprived seller only made $72,500 (assuming 6% agent fees and no buyer closing costs rolled into the sale price) for doing nothing more than sitting on a property for two years.

Next up, the million-dollar new construction on my drive home. Apparently I wasn't the only one that thought $1,625,000 was a ridiculous price, because so far the fancy house on three primly-manicured acres (with a waterfall!) has taken two price drops (for a total of $130,000—8%), and is pushing four months on the market. Will the seller end up slowly chasing the market down? We'll see...

Of course we can't forget my California-bound coworker. She and her husband moved down to their new home town about a month ago, but unfortunately for them, their house still has not sold. Oddly enough, although their house has been on the market now for 73 days, they are holding firm on the asking price at $490,000. Also worth mentioning is that at around the 1 month mark, their home was de-listed and re-listed, with no change to the listing whatsoever, in what (if I'm not mistaken) is a blatant violation of NWMLS rules.

Lastly, I may as well mention yet another workplace anecdote. This coworker requested a transfer to the greener pastures of Moses Lake, and therefore is selling his home in rural Snohomish County. Purchased in 2000 for $165,000, the original asking price for his "custom built 3 bedroom 2 bath rambler" on 1/2 acre across the street from a lake was $350,000. Three price drops (down to $305,000) and 51 days later, still no takers, and I recently overheard the increasingly distressed owner talking about the possibility of taking on two mortgages at once. I guess he'll have to if he's serious about the latest price reduction being the "*FINAL PRICE REDUCTION*" he is claiming it to be. On the one hand, I feel bad that a good person like that is having trouble selling with an impending move. On the other hand, he's still asking for 85% more than he paid just six years ago. Is he just being greedy, or has he cashed out $120,000 in equity and honestly can't afford to reduce the price further?

In case anyone would accuse me of it, I'm not cherry-picking the anecdotes that fit my view on housing. These are just the housing stories that I know from the circles I run in.

As you can see, the Seattle-area housing market is still hot, hot, hot!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

Yet Another Workplace Anecdote (YAWA?)

Another coworker of mine just put the family house up for sale. They are asking $490,000 for their 2,000 square foot home built in 1998 on 0.35 acres in rural eastern King County. They purchased in July of last year for $410,000. The previous owner bought from the builder for $240,000 in 1998, and sold 7 years later for a 71% profit. Dang.

They are selling because they are moving to northern California in late July because they both got "good jobs" there. Although the town they're moving to is relatively rural and a decent distance from San Francisco and Sacramento, I can still see why they would want to squeeze as much cash as possible out of the place.

May NWMLS stats show area 550 (which contains their house) as having a 23.7% increase in inventory and a 11.5% decrease in sales compared to last year, with the median price increasing by "just" 9.5% (compared to a 16.9% increase for King County as a whole). Here's a graph of the monthly year-on-year percent change in median price for area 550 for 2004-present:

Note the obvious downward trend of 2006's red line compared to 2004 and 2005 around the same time of year. Is it just me, or does their asking price of $490,000 (which calculates out to a markup of 19.5% over what they paid just 11 months ago) seem extremely... shall we say, ambitious? If I were a more prying person I would ask them whether that price was suggested to them by their real estate agent or if they came up with it on their own. If it was their agent, they should fire him. Either way, I will be quite shocked if they are able to sell without a considerable markdown, but I would also be surprised if they can't sell it for at least 5% more than what they paid. I'll go out on a limb and predict a selling price of $430,000. Of course how much they end up getting will depend largely upon whether they absolutely need to sell before they move.

This brings up an interesting question. My coworker told me that when they bought the house last year "we had no idea that we would both be moving to California in a year." If/when the market takes a tumble, what will people like my coworker do? Will they just not consider jobs outside their area? Will they somehow manage to sell at a loss and move anyway? Or will they attempt to rent out their house (probably also at a loss) while they wait out the market? Not everyone can just wait out the storm. Many people have compelling reasons that force them to sell their house. The argument that people just won't sell their homes if the market starts to dip, thus preventing the market from dipping further doesn't seem to hold water to me.

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Week

Let's have a little fun on a Friday. How about a thread dedicated to sharing the most ridiculous real estate related item you've seen this week. An anonymous commenter yesterday made a good contribution with MLS# 26089900 which urges the potential victim buyer to "Take advantage of the Ballard Craze now," by putting in "lots of work" and "sweat equity."

This might or might not be incredibly ridiculous, but I looked up the info on a house that I pass by sometimes on my way home from work. Asking price: $1,625,000. Most recently sold in: October 2004 (as an empty lot). Most recently sold for: $350,000. Days on the market: 23. I don't know how much it costs to build a 5,000 sqft home and do all that fancy landscaping, but my gut check tells me that this asking price is a tad on the greedy side. I mean, just a few years ago I remember walking through nearby neighborhoods with comparable homes listed in the $600k-$800k range.

So what's your "most ridiculous item of the week"?

Anecdotally Speaking

I was cleaning off my desk and I found a full color flier filled with exclamation points!!! It advertises a house down the street (pictured). I picked it up a few weeks ago while out on a walk with my wife and my dog. The house is around 2,300 square feet and sits on over a third of an acre in a relatively "private" setting backing a nice city park. It was listed at $475,000. Given that Kenmore is a fairly desirable neighborhood and that there was nothing obviously wrong with this house, one would expect it to be quickly snatched up in a fury of over-bidding, right?

Well, I headed on over to the Parcel Viewer to look for the official government record of a sale, only to find that the most recent sale listed was in May 2004, when the current owner bought it for $327,000. Hmm, so it hasn't sold yet... is it still on the market? Why yes, yes it is—and according to ZipRealty, it has been languishing on the market for 74 days now. The seller must not be very motivated (or they're counting on the spring selling season to rescue them), because they have only dropped the asking price by $25,000.

I can understand why a dumpy little place stuck between a busy road and a Safeway didn't sell last year. But if the market is "sizzling" as the Seattle Times and P-I make it out to be, why has this house still not sold? Seems to me that either 1) it's got mold, or 2) the market just might not be as hot as it was before.

Before anyone jumps all over me, I'm perfectly aware that this is only one example and doesn't "prove" anything. But it is a typical example of what is going on in the numbers we've been seeing posted in the comments here (thanks Dukes!). Price reductions galore and consistently more "new listings" than "solds" every day. Make of this example what you will.

Follow-Up: Anecdotal Evidence, Pt. 4

Data has been posted online regarding the condo that sold last month. It seems that they got just what they were asking, a cool three hundred thousand, which you will recall is $19,000 more than the unit next door sold for just two months earlier. Dang.

I'll keep my eyes open as new properties are put on the market in my neighborhood.

Follow-Up: Anecdotal Evidence, Pt. 3

NO DICE

Here's another update on the properties I've been following in my neighborhood. The house I was watching never did sell, it would seem. After stagnating on the market for over three months and lowering the asking price by 8.5%, there still were no takers for the "cozy" house. I would guess that the owner was making an attempt to cash in on the real estate madness, and since they weren't able to get a ridiculous sum out of some sucker they decided to take their ball and go home, so to speak.

Furthermore, the neighboring condo that went up for sale (a few weeks after the first condo I was watching closed) has supposedly sold (according to the sign out front, and the fact that it's no longer on the MLS), but the information indicating how much it sold for hasn't been posted online yet. I'll update you when I find out.

Follow-Up: Anecdotal Evidence

Way back in early September I made a post with the details of two properties in my neighborhood that had recently been put on the market.

The house in question has still not sold, and has now been languishing on the market for over 10 weeks. The price has been dropped from $350,000 to $319,950 (an 8.5% drop), but there have apparently still not been any takers. In my opinion they're still asking way too much in a painfully obvious attempt to take advantage of the peak, but I'm no expert (which should go without saying). I will keep you posted.

The condo I was watching closed on October 6th, for a total of $280,950—$6,000 (2%) over the asking price. The total length of time from listing to closing for the condo was approximately one month. Apparently this inspired the owner of the neighboring unit because within the past seven days the condo next door (parcel # 8035550060) has gone up for sale, with an asking price of $300,000. I'll keep an eye on this one as well.

Anecdotal Evidence

I don't know if actual inventory is going up in the greater Seattle area, but I do know that I have noticed more "for sale" signs cropping up in my neighborhood lately. Just for kicks, I decided to take two of the recent listings and keep an eye on them. For variety, I have selected a single family house and a condo, roughly a block away from each other. Here is the basic information on each of them:

Kenmore House

MLS#: 25111059
Parcel #: 0114100633
Address: 7015 NE 181st St, 98028
SqFt (house): 1,400
SqFt (land): 13,167 (0.3 acres)
Last Sold: pre 1991
Listed: ~3 weeks ago
Tax Assessed Value: $209,000
Asking Price: $350,000

Kenmore Condo

MLS#: 25126417
Parcel #: 8035550050
Address: 7218 NE 182nd St, 98028
SqFt (house): 1,473
SqFt (land): N/A
Last Sold: 08.11.2004
Listed: ~1 week ago
Tax Assessed Value: $207,000
Asking Price: $274,950

What I'll do is keep my eye on these two properties to see if they sell, how much they sell for, and how long they take to sell. I'll keep you updated in the coming weeks.