Spending Money Wisely

Apache is functioning normally

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ homelessness team is looking to purchase a 15-story hotel in the city’s Westlake neighborhood, the latest big expenditure planned as part of her “Inside Safe” program.

In a memo sent to the council’s Budget, Finance and Innovation Committee, Bass and her team acknowledged they are seeking to acquire the 294-room Mayfair Hotel, which served for two years as interim homeless housing before closing its doors last summer. The building has been listed for nearly $70 million in recent months.

Bass and her team declined to say how much the city has offered, saying the price will be revealed when the transaction goes before the city’s municipal facilities committee next month. They said the hotel would serve as a critical tool in the city’s fight against homelessness, helping to reduce the leasing costs associated with Inside Safe, which has moved about 1,200 people off the street and into hotels, motels and other facilities.

Advertisement

If the city finalizes the purchase, the Mayfair would be a key part of the city’s effort to create “permanent interim housing” — city-owned residential buildings where homeless people can live for up to a year before finding their own apartments.

Under the proposal, the city would provide an array of services on the Mayfair’s ground floor — substance abuse counselors, mental health clinicians and public health workers, Bass said.

“There’s no shortcut to do this. You can warehouse people in a shelter if you want, and they’ll stay there for a couple of days and they’ll be right back out on the street,” Bass said. “We have to think outside of the box, and maybe a little bit outside of the boundaries of what the city is normally doing.”

A broker representing the Mayfair referred questions to Alex Moradi, an executive with the ICO Group of Companies. Moradi did not respond to several requests for comment.

However, Bass’ homelessness team confirmed that the city signed a nonbinding letter of intent with Mayfair Lofts, the hotel’s owner, three weeks ago. That company is affiliated with ICO, according to information provided by the county assessor’s office.

Bass has asked the council to allocate $250 million for Inside Safe, which has targeted encampments in Hollywood, Venice, South Los Angeles and other parts of the city, in next year’s budget. That figure does not include any money that would be needed to purchase the Mayfair. If the sale goes through, the cost of Inside Safe could exceed $300 million for the coming budget year.

A bicyclist rides past the Mayfair Hotel, a 15-story hotel in L.A.'s Westlake neighborhood.

A bicyclist rides past the Mayfair Hotel, a 15-story hotel in L.A.’s Westlake neighborhood.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who serves on the council’s budget committee, endorsed the idea of purchasing hotels and motels, saying the city will need “thousands and thousands of units” to address its crisis.

Yaroslavsky said her office has tried repeatedly without success to lease hotels and motels in her affluent Westside district. But paying rent to motel owners is also “not a good long-term strategy,” she said.

“The logistics of trying to negotiate one-off [agreements] with hundreds of motel owners puts us in a bad bargaining position,” she said. “When we go one by one, we’re not optimizing our buying power.”

On Wednesday, Bass and Yaroslavsky went to the mayor’s 16th Inside Safe operation, located along a stretch of San Vicente Boulevard in L.A.’s Beverly Grove neighborhood, which is part of Yaroslavsky’s district. Nearly two dozen tents had taken hold on San Vicente’s median strips and other rights of way.

Jeremy Mosley, who had been living on one of those medians, said Wednesday he was ready to make the move. But he sounded unsure about relocating to a motel in South Los Angeles, more than a dozen miles away.

“I want to see what it’s like. Because this does look bad. I know it does,” he said, gesturing to the furniture, tarps and other possessions that occupied the median.

The mayor’s proposed homelessness budget for the coming year lists four separate line items for the acquisition of interim housing, which add up to $73 million. Bass’ team declined to say whether all or a portion of those funds would go toward the Mayfair.

Those funds are not included in the $250 million being requested for Inside Safe.

The Mayfair was the site of a $37-million renovation in 2018 and 2019, according to the property’s real estate listing. In 2020, it became one of several hotels across the city to participate in Project Roomkey, a federally funded program that moved homeless Angelenos off the streets as part of the nation’s response to the outbreak of COVID-19.

City leaders voted to end the Project Roomkey program last year. But several of the locations that participated in the program continue to serve as temporary housing for L.A.’s homeless population.

Last fall, the council voted to keep the Highland Gardens Hotel operating as temporary homeless housing at least through June 30. That facility, located in the Hollywood Hills, offers 72 rooms, or up to 143 beds.

The city is in talks to purchase the Mayfair Hotel, a 15-story hotel in Westlake.

The Mayfair Hotel, a 15-story hotel in the Westlake/MacArthur Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. Mayor Karen Bass’ team is in talks to purchase the building to use as interim homeless housing.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said the hotel will probably remain as interim homeless housing through 2025, at a cost of about $6 million per year. At that facility, leasing costs are about $4,550 per room per month, according to a report to the council. Once social services offered by PATH, or People Assisting The Homeless, are included, the monthly room cost exceeds $7,000.

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who represents the Hollywood Hills, worked to secure Highland Gardens before Bass took office. Bass, for her part, was closely involved in the effort to retain another Project Roomkey hotel, the L.A. Grand in downtown Los Angeles.

The L.A. Grand was originally slated to close as temporary homeless housing on Jan. 31. Bass’ team succeeded in leasing 481 rooms at that facility for an additional year. The monthly cost of a room, which includes not just lodging but also meals, is $154 per night, or nearly $4,700 per month, according to a memo provided to the council last month.

The council would need to sign off on a purchase of the Mayfair. Meanwhile, at least one former Mayfair resident is objecting to the proposed acquisition.

Cynthia “Mama Cat” Trahan, 62, who lived in the Mayfair for about four months, said Project Roomkey staff treated the hotel’s temporary guests with “very little respect,” searching them when they entered the building and sometimes going into their rooms without permission, she said.

Buying the hotel is “just not a good idea,” said Trahan, who now lives in an apartment in Glendale.

“We should be investing in putting people in apartments, not hotel rooms,” she said.

Watch L.A. Times Today at 7 p.m. on Spectrum News 1 on Channel 1 or live stream on the Spectrum News App. Palos Verdes Peninsula and Orange County viewers can watch on Cox Systems on channel 99.

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

Landlords in Los Angeles can resume evicting tenants for unpaid rent and other reasons come Feb. 1, the City Council confirmed in a vote last week.

The decision will end some of the longest-lasting tenant protections in the nation, first passed in March 2020 as part of the emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, landlords have not been allowed to evict their tenants for most reasons, including if the owners wanted to move into their own homes.

The emergency rules have also prohibited landlords from raising the rent in more than 650,000 rent-controlled units in the city, nearly three-quarters of L.A.’s apartment stock. Rent increases in such units will continue to be barred until February 2024.

The city’s emergency protections started amid fears that the deep job loss at the beginning of the pandemic could lead to a tsunami of evictions and worsen the spread of COVID-19. Federal, state and other local political leaders put into place similar anti-eviction rules and offered billions of dollars in financial assistance for those behind on rent.

Advertisement

But as the pandemic wore on, the eviction protections passed elsewhere expired, leaving those in the city among the last of any major metropolitan area. L.A. County’s similar eviction prohibitions will end Dec. 31.

The local tenant protections have persisted as leaders worried that lifting them, especially as waves of coronavirus infection have continued, would exacerbate the region’s underlying homelessness and overcrowding problems.

“We already have 40,000 people living in the street and we don’t want it to be 40,001,” Councilmember Heather Hutt said at a rally for tenant protections this week, referencing the city’s homeless population.

In October, the council first voted to set Feb. 1 as the expiration date for the COVID anti-eviction rules, while also advancing measures that would expand renter protections in general. Most notably, landlords would no longer be allowed to evict tenants in any rental property, including single-family homes, unless there was unpaid rent, documented lease violations, owner move-ins or other specific reasons. Currently, only tenants living in rent-controlled apartments have this protection.

Then-Council President Nury Martinez brokered the deal to move the policies forward together. But less than a week after the October council vote, City Hall was rocked by the leak of an audio tape in which Martinez made a series of racist remarks in a 2021 conversation with Councilmembers Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor President Ron Herrera. Martinez resigned and De León and Cedillo stopped showing up at council meetings amid protests over their behavior.

The chaos made it impossible to garner enough support to advance the original plan all at the same time, said Councilmember Nithya Raman, who now leads the council’s housing committee. Instead, last week’s council vote just set the end of the COVID rules, allowing evictions to resume Feb. 1.

Still, Raman and others believe it remains necessary to pass the further protections before the end of next month. Also under consideration are measures to block evictions until February 2024 for tenants who have unauthorized pets or who added residents who aren’t listed on leases and for tenants who are a month or less behind in rent.

“We made a commitment as a council that we would not move out of this period of emergency protections during COVID without a new set of protections for tenants in place,” Raman said. “It is absolutely essential that we keep that promise to the people of Los Angeles.”

The council won’t have much time. Its meeting Tuesday was the last before it recessed for the year. Council meetings resume Jan. 10.

Some of the proposed new protections have more support than others.

John Lee has been among the council members most consistently advocating to end the COVID anti-eviction rules, saying they’re unduly hurting small landlords. Lee said he backs expanding protections against evictions without lease violations, but not the proposal making it harder to evict people for unpaid rent.

“I’m not willing to create any situation where we’re discouraging investment in the city and won’t support anything that will reduce our housing stock,” Lee said.

Despite the rules barring most evictions during the pandemic, the process has been uneven and hard to follow. At various points, tenants have had to pay a portion of rent owed and provide written declarations to their landlord that they’ve been affected by COVID-19. Tenants who remain behind on their rent still owe it.

The level of eviction protection will depend on how long the back rent has been owed and whether tenants followed the notification requirements. In some cases, renters will be permanently barred from eviction for those old debts, though landlords can try to recover the money in small claims court. In other cases, tenants who are now behind will have at least until August before they can be evicted.

The confusion is probably already contributing to a surge in eviction cases even before the protections expire. The number of eviction filings countywide this June eclipsed the amount in February 2020, the last full month before the COVID rules went into place, according to L.A. County Superior Court records compiled by Kyle Nelson, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA who has tracked them during the pandemic. Since then, filings have continued at pre-pandemic rates.

Nevertheless, many landlords have long been eager for the temporary protections to end.

Reid Rose’s mother-in-law died after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease shortly before the pandemic began. Rents from her Silver Lake duplex had helped pay for her healthcare, and the plan always had been to sell the property and distribute the proceeds to the heirs after her death. But the eviction protections scared away would-be buyers who were uninterested if they couldn’t remove the tenants, Rose said.

Unwilling to sell at well below the property’s value, Rose said his family has been forced to remain landlords. The eviction rules have also prevented them from being able to move in relatives who were looking for housing in Los Angeles.

“We’re just being held in a state of limbo without being able to make any decisions that affect a substantial number of family members,” said Rose, 68. “We do not want to be landlords. The City Council is basically compelling us to be landlords.”

The first day the protections end, Rose said, the family plans to begin evicting their tenants.

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

Once seen as the death knell for single-family-home neighborhoods in California, a new law meant to create more duplexes has instead done little to encourage construction in some of the largest cities in the state, according to a new report published Wednesday.

Senate Bill 9 was introduced two years ago as a way to help solve California’s severe housing crunch by allowing homeowners to convert their homes into duplexes on a single-family lot or divide the parcel in half to build another duplex for a total of four units. The law went into effect at the start of 2022.

The bill received bipartisan support and ignited fierce debate between its backers, who said SB 9 was a much-needed tool to add housing options for middle-income Californians, and critics, who blasted it as a radical one-size-fits-all policy that undermined local government control.

Advertisement

Neither argument has so far proved to be true.

Across 13 cities in the state, SB 9 projects are “limited or nonexistent,” according to a new study by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

The report focused on cities considered high-opportunity areas for duplexes because they’ve reported significant increases in the construction of accessory dwelling units — also known as granny flats, casitas or ADUs — in recent years and have available single-family properties for possible divided lots. ADUs are small, free-standing homes most often built in the backyards of existing single-family homes.

The cities are Anaheim, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Danville, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Maria and Saratoga.

By the end of November, the cities had collectively received 282 applications for SB 9 projects, and had approved only 53. Los Angeles accounted for the bulk of applications with 211 submitted and 38 approved, according to the report. San Francisco received 25 applications and had approved four, while San Diego received seven and had approved none.

Three cities received one application, and in Bakersfield, Danville and Santa Maria, zero were submitted.

Applications for dividing lots seem to be even less popular than for building duplexes. Just 100 applications were submitted, the report noted, and 28 had been approved.

David Garcia, Terner Center’s policy director, said SB 9 is only in its first year of implementation and should be given more time before it’s judged as ineffective. But he added that lawmakers should consider whether the law needs tweaking.

“It doesn’t seem like Senate Bill 9 in its first year has resulted in very meaningful amounts of new housing,” Garcia said. “Pretty much everywhere you look, Senate Bill 9 activity is very marginal. It is nonexistent in some places.”

Homeowners right now have an easier time building an ADU than a duplex, thanks to local and state laws that have eased barriers to construction in recent years, Garcia said. It took multiple rounds of legislation to see productive ADU development, and the same will probably be true for SB 9 projects, he said.

Recognizing that more was needed to speed up housing construction in California, the Legislature began overhauling state ADU laws in 2016, and cities followed suit with their own local ordinances to clear red tape in the building process, which has inspired a widespread ADU movement.

Between the start of 2017 and January 2023, the city of Los Angeles reported receiving 35,098 applications for ADUs. It has issued permits for 25,881 and 13,640 have been granted certificates of occupancy.

Heidi Vonblum, San Diego’s planning director, said the law is new and barriers to development are still being worked out. At the same time, the city has an ADU program that “has been very attractive to property owners,” Vonblum said, while updated zoning rules and community plans have eliminated “the need to rely on other programs.”

It’s a similar situation in Sacramento, where homeowners are allowed to build up to two ADUs on their properties, said Kevin Colin, the city’s zoning administrator. Colin’s team handles one to two ADU applications “each working day,” he said, because there’s such high interest in the projects.

To replicate that success, the Terner Center report suggested cutting fees associated with new duplex development, or adding more uniform standards for SB 9 projects to ensure local governments can’t attach subjective criteria that discourage applications, such as architectural design requirements or stringent landscaping rules. It also proposed revising a mandate that homeowners who split their lots must live in one of the units for at least three years, a key concession lawmakers made to reduce opposition from organizations worried about gentrification.

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), author of the legislation, said SB 9 was “never intended to be an overnight fix to our housing shortage.”

“We always said not every homeowner would be able, or want, to utilize the tools provided by the bill on Day One,” Atkins said in a statement. “Subdividing a lot, or even just adding an ADU, is a big investment. This bill was never intended to be a sledgehammer approach — it was meant to increase the housing supply over time, and as awareness of the law increases and more homeowners have the ability to embrace the tools, I’m confident that we will see results.”

Garcia and other housing experts said slow progress could also be attributed to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, when prices for building materials shot up and homeowners and buyers faced significant market uncertainty. That was followed by high inflation and interest rates.

But other factors could be contributing to sluggish SB 9 interest.

Matthew Lewis, spokesperson for California YIMBY, a housing advocacy organization that supported SB 9, said both ADUs and duplexes have their financial and logistical pros and cons.

ADUs are an ideal way to generate some “passive income” from a renter, Lewis said, and make great homes for aging parents or young adult children. Duplexes are good for that too, but the additional units can be sold separately for even greater economic opportunity.

On the other hand, ADUs are typically a property extension of the main home, so it can be difficult or even impossible to separately sell the extra unit. Duplexes require significantly more financing, and the addition of a separate sewer line and water service.

“The reality is people will follow the path of least resistance to building the house they want,” Lewis said, adding that it could be worth going back to the drawing board to ensure local governments are doing what they can to ease burdens to duplex development.

Although the Terner Center report offers legislators a limited snapshot of how SB 9 has worked so far, the state is also expected to have more robust data available this summer.

Any attempt to modify SB 9 this year, however, is sure to reignite opposition from many of the dozens of cities and neighborhood associations that tried to block its passage in 2021. Since then, some cities have gone to great lengths to avoid implementing the law, including the Silicon Valley suburb of Woodside, which declared itself a mountain lion sanctuary and invited a stern warning for compliance by the state attorney general’s office.

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

The House of Mouse? Think a whole lot bigger.

Officials on Friday released fresh details about the first Storyliving by Disney project, an ambitious effort in Riverside County to infuse a master-planned community with the Burbank entertainment giant’s trademark whimsy and wonder.

Among the newly unveiled features of the in-the-works Cotino community is the “Parr House” — a gathering space inspired in name, design and decor by the midcentury-style home of the superhero family in the Disney and Pixar film “Incredibles 2.”

Along with a main entertaining room featuring an indoor/outdoor rock fireplace, the Parr House will include an art studio, kitchen, dining room, boardroom and five bedrooms.

Advertisement

An artist's rendering of Cotino

An artist’s rendering of Cotino, the first Storyliving by Disney community coming to life in Rancho Mirage. Individuals who purchase a membership in the Artisan Club will have access to an array of offerings infused with unique Disney and Pixar touches.

(Walt Disney Imagineering)

It will also have an elevated patio featuring views of the nearby mountains, as well as the community’s 24-acre “grand oasis.”

Access to the Parr House, as well as other community features such as a designated beach area and certain events and activities will be open to those who opt to purchase membership in what Storyliving by Disney calls the Artisan Club.

“From Disney entertainment and events to spaces inspired by Disney stories, club members will truly experience Disney story living,” Claire Bilby, senior vice president and general manager of Disney Signature Experiences Emerging Businesses, said in a statement.

Club membership will be open to Cotino residents and nonresidents.

“A professionally managed public beach park will be accessible to local area residents and visitors to the Greater Palm Springs area with the purchase of a day pass,” the venture said in a statement.

Cotino is being built on 618 acres in the city of Rancho Mirage, near where Walt Disney Co.’s namesake founder once owned a home.

“Walt Disney was so inspired by this place — he called it his ‘laughing place,’” Amy Young, a Walt Disney Imagineering creative director, said in a video posted to the Disney Parks YouTube channel. “In a sense, we’re following Walt’s footsteps here. The same things that inspired him years ago, they inspire us today. The area has this real energy to it, and you can see why Walt loved it.”

For the project, Disney is collaborating with Arizona-based DMB Development, which specializes in planned communities.

An artist's rendering of the Artisan Club entrance

An artist’s rendering of the Artisan Club entrance, where members will experience a touch of the Disney lifestyle in clubhouse complex featuring distinct spaces for dining, wellness, art, recreation and entertainment.

(Walt Disney Imagineering)

Cotino will ultimately include somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,932 residential units. Sales are anticipated to begin in 2023, with the first homes expected to be complete in 2024.

Various home types will be available, including estates, single-family homes and condominiums. At least one section of the development will be designated for residents age 55 or older.

“Storyliving by Disney master-planned communities are intended to inspire residents to foster new friendships, pursue their interests and write the next exciting chapter in their lives,” the venture said.

Other locations are being explored for potential future projects, but no details have yet been publicly announced.

Disney, like many of its competitors, has faced pressure to rein in costs — particularly in the increasingly crowded streaming arena. Along with Disney+, the company also owns ESPN+ and two-thirds of Hulu.

The company’s chief executive, Bob Iger, on Monday provided more details of his plan to cut 7,000 jobs as part of a wider effort to rejuvenate its finances and reach profitability in its streaming business.

According to people familiar with the matter, the layoffs are spread throughout the company — affecting roles in the units formerly known as Disney General Entertainment and Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, as well as corporate positions and jobs in the theme parks, experiences and consumer products business.

Times staff writer Ryan Faughnder contributed to this report.

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

California civil rights officials have sued two Sacramento landlords, alleging they illegally harassed and evicted a tenant because she paid through a Section 8 voucher.

The lawsuit, announced Wednesday, is the first brought by the state Civil Rights Department under a 2020 state law making it illegal for landlords to refuse to accept tenants who pay with subsidies like Section 8. It comes amid criticism from tenant advocates that the department hasn’t adequately enforced the law.

“Throughout the State, rental housing costs are climbing further out of reach for many Californians,” department Director Kevin Kish said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. “Source-of-income discrimination by housing providers exacerbates this trend and is unlawful.”

Advertisement

The Section 8 program is one of the U.S. government’s most powerful tools to keep rental housing affordable and to fight overcrowding and homelessness.

Administered by local agencies, Section 8 enables tenants to find housing with private landlords. The rent that tenants pay is capped at around a third of their income, with the federal subsidy making up the difference.

The demand for vouchers far exceeds supply, and low-income households can languish on waitlists for years.

In the lawsuit, filed last month in Sacramento County Superior Court, the state Civil Rights Department alleges that landlords Carlos and Linda Torres sent their tenant, Alysia Gonsalves, an eviction notice stating that they “decided to remove house from Section 8 program completely.”

After the tenant told them that evicting her for that reason was illegal, the landlords harassed her, threatened her with violence and “unlawfully locked her out of her home,” the department said in a news release.

The eviction notice and harassment were prompted by the tenant’s refusal to continue making additional monthly payments that the Torreses had demanded but were not required by the voucher program, according to the lawsuit.

The Torreses could not immediately be reached for comment. No one answered at a phone number listed in an online database for a Carlos Torres associated with the single-family home that Gonsalves rented, and the voicemail was full.

Other attempts to reach Carlos and Linda Torres were also unsuccessful.

For decades, many California property owners refused to rent to Section 8 voucher holders, citing concerns over government red tape or a belief that they are bad tenants.

Then in 2020, the new state law took effect. Advocates say the landlords’ perceptions are inaccurate and can reflect negative stereotypes of low-income individuals as well as the people of color who make up a majority of voucher holders.

Under the law, landlords aren’t required to rent to every Section 8 household but cannot refuse to consider someone merely for having a rental subsidy.

Landlords are also barred from discriminating against voucher holders in other ways, such as charging higher rent or refusing access to common areas like the pool or gym.

Despite the new protections, tenant advocates say voucher discrimination remains common and have called on state and local authorities to increase enforcement and education of landlords about the 2020 law.

In the Sacramento case, after Gonsalves said she would stop making the side payments, the Torreses told her they were “not here to support government leeches” and called the tenant, whom they perceived to be Black, the N-word, the complaint alleges.

After the Torreses locked out Gonsalves, who has a physical disability, they didn’t allow her to retrieve the furniture, medical equipment and family heirlooms she had left behind, the complaint said.

When she finally was given access months later, “many of her personal items had been damaged or destroyed,” according to the complaint.

The agency is seeking monetary compensation on Gonsalves’ behalf. The lawsuit also alleges that the Torreses discriminated against Gonsalves based on her race and color, as well as her disability.

Denise McGranahan, a senior attorney and source-of-income expert with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, said the Civil Rights Department needs more funding to better investigate voucher discrimination. But she called the filing of the first lawsuit a “positive development.”

“Part of what happens when they file a lawsuit like this is it has a deterrent effect on other landlords who say, ‘Oh, my God, if I do this, this may happen to me,’” she said.

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

Last Updated: May 25, 2023 BY Michelle Schroeder-Gardner – 64 Comments

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning I get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through my links, at no cost to you. Please read my disclosure for more info.

Tips For When Buying a House

Tips For When Buying a HouseWhen we bought our first (and current) house, our whole process went by very quickly and smoothly. Our mortgage company and real estate agent both told us that our mortgage was the quickest process they’ve ever done. We got pre-approved and bought a house less than one month from start to finish.

It took around 2 weeks for us to find the perfect house, and we probably looked at over 20 houses in person. We also looked at hundreds online so the 20 that we looked at we thought were for sure buys. Our agent probably HATED us. Luckily she was a family friend so I hope she got over her hatred quickly 🙂

We are sort of in the home buying process again as you all know. We keep going back and forth with what type of house we want, where we want it located, and how much we want to spend.

Our current house is fine for now. There is definitely nothing wrong with it, I guess we just want something a little nicer that also has a little more room. So we could: a) stay in our current house and save a lot of money; or b) buy a house within the next year and finance the majority of it (probably with a 25% down payment).

If we did stay in our house for longer, we would spend some money on making it perfect. I definitely would want to change some things in our bathroom (such as adding a nice glass shower door), make our front and backyards perfect (possibly add a garden) and finish decorating everything to the way we want it. This is a whole ‘nother post in itself!

Anyways, when we bought our current house, we followed all of the steps below, except for the fact that we didn’t realize that the total monthly cost would be that much higher than what the mortgage company quoted us. That is something that we were naive about. Learn from our mistake!

1. Get pre-approved for a mortgage!

This is definitely one of the first steps you should take. Looking at houses without getting pre-approved can be disastrous because you might just be wasting your time. You might not get approved, get approved for less than you think, etc.

Wouldn’t it really stink if you spent a ton of time looking at houses that turned out to be way more than what you can be pre-approved for? That can be a major letdown.

2. Buy less than what you are approved for.

I think we were approved for around $200,000. We were 20 years old and this seemed like a ton since we made hardly any money then. We were shocked and we looked at one house that was around this price range, but then we realized that this was a bad idea as we wanted to be more comfortable with our bills.

Also, something that our real estate agent told us, is to not show the seller how much you are pre-approved for. We showed our real estate agent our real pre-approval amount of course, and our agent said that when this happens, it can not be good. She said that if some sellers can see what we can actually “afford,” that they know how flexible that you can be with your pricing and negotiating. You can get your mortgage lender to lower the amount on the piece of paper and this is what we did. We asked our lender to say that our pre-approved amount was $150,000 (everyone, please keep in mind that I live in the Midwest and housing is cheaper here).

3. Buy a house that’s a good size for you.

Also think about the future you are planning when you think about the size of the house you might buy. Remember my post on how we Bought Too Much House? Keep that in mind! While before our house seemed way too big for us, we now want something bigger. Eventually of course we would want kids, but it’s mainly that we want a bigger yard.

Do you plan on living in this house for awhile, or just a short amount of time such as 5 years? Do you want a house and neighborhood/city that is good for kids to grow up in? There are many questions to ask yourself.

4. Get a realtor!

This is something that I definitely recommend. Our realtor saved us a lot of money and was a great negotiator. We got the seller to pay all closing costs (which were around $5,000). And she also got them to fix a lot of little things around the house. Realtors do a lot of work and are skilled in buying/selling houses. They know where to begin, what to look for and have tons of tips.

5. Make sure you look around and don’t settle.

The market is great right now for people who are looking. There are a lot of houses out there and most have a great price (all of course depending on your city! Some cities are in a housing bubble). You will be living in this house most likely for a long amount of time, so you don’t want to regret your decision.

6. Hire an inspector.

This is something that is definitely needed as well. An inspector will be able to find things that might sway you from NOT buying the house. If you’re buying a house, then you can most likely shell out another $300 for an inspection. It is a good investment.

7. Figure out the WHOLE cost.

Not just want the mortgage would be. Figure out if there will be any PMI, what the homeowners insurance will be, and property taxes. This all can add up quickly, and it added around $300 to our mortgage.

8. Save!

Now that you know you want a house, try and save as much as you can before you move into your new home. Your new costs will most likely be higher than what you think, and any extra savings will be extremely helpful.

Related articles:

What tips do you have for a potential homebuyer?

Related Posts

<!–

–>

Source: makingsenseofcents.com

Apache is functioning normally

Cities in Northern California saw more severe drops in population during the pandemic than those in Southern California, new census data show, with Bay Area communities hit particularly hard.

The same data show that many of the cities that grew the most between July 2020 and July 2022 were in Southern California.

Experts said that several factors might explain the north-south divide. But one likely reason is the Bay Area’s tech-rich economy. Many tech companies allowed employees to work from home and it is likely that “remote work has impacted the Bay Area more,” leading to an exodus of workers in Northern California, said Dowell Myers, a professor of policy, planning and demography at USC.

San Francisco has generated headlines recently due to its dramatic population loss over the last two years, but other Bay Area cities were also ranked as having some of the biggest population losses.

Advertisement

San Jose lost almost 40,000 residents and dropped out of the top 10 list of the nation’s most populous cities.

Highest rate of population loss among big cities

  • San Francisco, -7.1%
  • Daly City, -4.4%
  • Berkeley, -4.2%
  • San Mateo, -4.1%
  • San Jose, -3.8%

Experts expect population loss in major cities to slow as the pandemic recedes into the past, but they say the state’s housing crisis — another driving factor — won’t be going away anytime soon.

The lion’s share of the cities that gained the most people between July 2020 and July 2022 was in suburban and exurban areas across the state. A Times analysis showed that these areas, largely in the Central Valley, also led the way in housing gains.

Northern California cities were also likely affected by “less construction and higher prices” for housing, Myers said.

The census data underscore some trends that have been seen during the COVID-19 crisis. Urban centers such as downtown San Francisco emptied out as tech workers stopped coming in to work, causing local economic distress. Some more far-flung areas such as Placer County and the Lake Tahoe region saw an influx of people from cities who were able to work remotely.

Susanville, Calif.

Susanville, Calif., lost more than 15% of its population between July 2020 and July 2022, but that was likely due to the 2021 Dixie fire.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

High housing costs were another key factor in the population shift, experts say. With housing costs rising, some Californians used the pandemic as an excuse to sell and move to cheaper areas. But the real estate price boom made it harder for others to move in.

“Hundreds of thousands more people would desire to live in the Bay Area — if not millions — and Southern California,” said Michael Lens, a professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA, “if we made it easier to accommodate those people through more housing units and presumably more affordable housing.”

Of the 30 cities, counties and unincorporated areas in California that shrank the most, only two were in the southern part of the state, in Kern County: Taft, which lost 5.8% of its population, and Tehachapi, which lost 4.6%.

Cities and counties in metropolitan Southern California were absent from the top 30 list, with the cities of Commerce and Cerritos each losing about 4% and placing 36th and 41st, respectively, in that ranking.

Among cities with populations of more than 100,000, three of the five cities with the highest rate of increase were in Southern California, with the other two in the Sacramento and Fresno exurbs.

Highest rate of population increase among big cities

  • Menifee, 6.0%
  • Roseville, 4.3%
  • Clovis, 3.2%
  • Murrieta, 2.2%
  • Jurupa Valley, 2.2%

Menifee, which added over 4,500 homes between 2019 and 2022, has been intentional about its growth, city manager Armando Villa told The Times in March.

Meanwhile, a number of smaller cities with populations under 100,000 — many in Northern California — saw similar losses.

Susanville lost more than 15% of its population in the two-year span, but that was likely due to the 2021 Dixie fire, which burned more than a million acres and destroyed over 1,400 homes and other structures, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The town is also expected to lose one of its biggest employers, with the impending closure of the California Correctional Center.

Fire was also a likely factor in the city with the highest rate of population increase in that stretch — Paradise.

The city showed some signs of rebuilding after the 2018 Camp fire, gaining nearly 2,000 people after losing some 20,000 — almost 85% of its total residents — after the deadliest conflagration in state history.

But Lens said an increase in population — often connected to a boost in housing — is “not what we would hope” for in less dense areas.

Though growth in less dense areas isn’t necessarily a bad thing, he explained, the areas that need housing the most and can grow more efficiently are the major cities.

In a housing crisis, places such as Lathrop or Calimesa are “not where the demand is strongest,” so new housing may not be as direly needed, and the rural zones seeing growth are “not the most economically productive areas of the state,” he said.

Also, from a climate perspective, Lens noted that less densely populated areas lead to longer commutes and are “not the ideal places to put housing.”

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

They say that right now is a seller’s market, but in my little neighborhood it was definitely a buyer’s market.

This made our home sale a little more difficult than what others may be experiencing in the United States but luckily we were still able to get a contract on our home 3.5 months after our home was put on the market. In fact, we actually received three contracts on our home that very week after not receiving any bites for 3.5 months (and over 30 home showings in that time period).

While I’m no expert at selling a home, I did recently go through the whole home selling process.

Selling a home can be a long and stressful process but hopefully with this guide I can help someone’s home sale go a little more smoothly than mine did.

Preparing your home to be put on the market and knowing the necessary steps and tips to selling a home can make a home sale go much more smoothly.

Plus, I don’t think anyone wants to experience any sort of surprise when selling their home since it is such a big expense.

Below are my steps and tips for selling your home. Enjoy and good luck with your home sale!

Find a real estate agent.

If you decide to sell your home by using a real estate agent, then you should look for one sooner rather than later. This way your real estate agent can give you an idea of what your home may sell for, what changes you may want to make, what the timeline for selling your house may be, and so on.

We used the same real estate agent from when we originally bought our home. If you need one in the St. Louis area, let me know and I can send you her contact information! She made the process a breeze.

Get a city home inspection.

I highly recommend looking into whether your city requires a city home inspection in order for your house to be put on the market.

We had to call our city office and schedule an appointment. I thought it would be easy and that they would just come over, but the wait time was actually quite long in order to fit my appointment in. Plus, we were calling during the slow season so I wouldn’t want to imagine what the wait would have been if we would have called during the spring or summer months when everyone else is trying to put their home on the market as well. The wait may have been months!

Also, keep in mind that these are only good for so many months. Ours was set to expire in the summer but thankfully we received a contract on our home and it sold in time. The city home inspection wasn’t expensive, but it did take a lot of time and there were some small changes that we were required to make before the house could be closed on.

Declutter.

We decluttered our home like crazy before we even showed it to our realtor. Home buyers do not want to see clutter as it can make a house look smaller, dirtier, and not as nice.

Decluttering is probably one of the easiest things you can do during a home sale, so why not do it?

Some of the things you may want to do include:

  • Clear out your basement and/or attic. Most have their basements and attics filled with things they do not need.
  • Put away any personal items. Sadly, you may have to tuck away your favorite photos during a home sale. Buyers like to imagine themselves in a home and if there are pictures of you everywhere then that may make it more difficult.
  • Sort through closets, cabinets, extra rooms, and so on.
  • Remove anything that may make a room seem smaller.

Clean.

Cleaning is something that everyone who is planning on selling a home should do. Sadly, this is a step that some skip!

Some of the cleaning tasks you may want to add to your to-do list include:

  • Clean and wax floors.
  • Power wash the driveway.
  • Dust everything.
  • Wash windows and mirrors.
  • Paint furniture, walls, trim, and so on if you are able to. It’s a relatively cheap change that can completely change a home. This is actually one of my TOP tips for selling your home. Paint can go a long way.
  • Clean your fridge. Yes, sometimes home buyers will peer in there.

Improve your curb appeal.

The first thing that a potential home buyer looks at is pictures of your home from the outside. The first thing they see in person is the outside of your home as well.

They say that everyone judges a home within the first 5 minutes. If that’s not enough to tell you that curb appeal is important, then I don’t know what will!

Potential home buyers don’t like to see a house that needs a lot of maintenance. Even though every house needs it, no one actually wants to think about it.

For curb appeal you will want to:

  • Keep your lawn cut and tidy.
  • Remove any trash from the front, back and side of your home.
  • Pick up any leaves and keep your gutters clean.
  • Plant flowers.

Decide if you will stage your home or not.

Homes that are staged usually sell quicker and for a higher amount of money than homes that are not.

If you are able to then look into staging your home or leaving some of your furniture in the home (if you are moving before the home sells).

Show your home.

When you’re house is on the market, you will have to allow for home showings. Potential home buyers may show up at the very last moment so your home should always be clean.

I’ve been asked by many if the home seller should be home during a home showing. I pretty much think that’s just a bad idea overall. You should clean your home and leave (take your pets with you) so that the potential home buyer can look at your home and be stress-free.

Since we didn’t live in our home while it was on the market, it made for selling our home much easier. Many times potential home buyers would come just 5 minutes to an hour before they wanted to see it, which would have been quite difficult if we would have been living there.

The house also would have been a disaster!

Accept an offer.

Eventually, you will hopefully receive an offer or two. You may do some negotiating on price and again after the homebuyer completes their own home inspection and appraisal as well.

Once you accept an offer though, you may be able to breathe a little easier. However, it’s not done just yet! You still need to actually close on the house and give the keys to the homebuyer.

Close on your home and move out!

The last of my tips for selling your home is finalizing everything on closing day. You will be told how much you owe or how much you will receive, what you need to do in order to close on the loan, and so on. Then, you will sign tons of papers and hand over the keys.

The last part may be the best or worst – you have to move out! Depending on when the home buyer’s closing date is, you generally want to have everything out of the home by then unless some sort of agreement has been made.

Hope you enjoyed my guide to selling your home. While my home sale didn’t go as smoothly as I would have liked, there were no surprises and the only thing that held us back was tanking neighborhood prices. Hopefully the tips for selling your home I gave above will make the process for you much easier!

Did anything go wrong with a past home sale of yours? What tips for selling a home would you give to someone?

Related Posts

<!–

–>

Source: makingsenseofcents.com

Apache is functioning normally

Last Updated: June 14, 2021 BY Michelle Schroeder-Gardner – 56 Comments

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning I get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through my links, at no cost to you. Please read my disclosure for more info.

Currently, one of our main goals is to save for a down payment for our next house. Due to this, we have been wondering about how much exactly we should save.

With our first house we didn’t put down 20% and had to pay PMI (big mistake), so we will definitely put down at least 20% on our next house.

Also, we are self-employed and I have heard that most self-employed people have to put around 25% to 30% down (and sometimes even 35%!) because banks want to see more upfront from small business owners.

Now, that’s a lot of money!

This has got us thinking. While we are aiming for 30% or more, at what point should we stop saving for our down payment and ramp up our retirement savings instead? Yes, we are still saving for retirement, but should we be saving more?

In the personal finance world, the decision seems to be split. Some are all about paying off a mortgage quickly, whereas others don’t think that’s a good idea. There is no right or wrong answer, which makes the decision a little more difficult.

Of course, I do realize that this is a good situation to be in, so I am not complaining. However, how do you decide what is best for you?

Below are positives and negatives of paying off your mortgage early or even buying your house upfront with cash.

Related content: How can I pay off my 30 year mortgage in 10 years?

Positive – Your house will be paid off early!

Of course, this is the biggest positive.

Your house will be paid off, you will be able to free up some cash each month, and you won’t have to worry about paying for a roof over your head each month.

Not having that huge amount of debt hanging over your head would be a wonderful feeling. Life would probably be a little less stressful and you may feel more financially independent.

Negative – Your money may do better if it’s invested in a different way.

While paying off your mortgage early can feel great and be a big accomplishment, mortgage interest rates right now are low.

You may do better by investing your money in other ways and earning a higher return. This can mean investing in certain companies, paying off high interest rate debt, investing in passive income, and more.

Positive – You can earn a guaranteed return by paying off your mortgage early.

On the flip side, by paying off your mortgage early, you can earn a guaranteed return.

Other investments most likely will mean that a return is not guaranteed (unless we are talking about paying off other debt), whereas when paying off your mortgage early, you will be certain what your return is.

Negative – A lot of your money is in one place if you pay off your mortgage early.

This is one big reason why I’m not sure if paying off your mortgage early is a good idea. If you have other investments and are on track for retirement, then by all means go for paying off your mortgage early.

However, if you don’t have much saved, then having everything you own in one place may not be a good idea.

Also, since all of your money is tied up with your house, it might be hard to get money if you end up needing it. Having at least some liquid money is a good idea.

Positive – You don’t have to deal with the hassle of getting a mortgage if you pay in cash.

If you have enough cash, then you might be able to skip the whole process of getting a mortgage.

Skipping a mortgage can be a positive for many reasons. Sellers love cash buyers, as it makes the buying process easier on them since they don’t have to wait for a mortgage to go through. This means you may get a discount if you buy 100% in cash or your offer may be chosen over others.

Also, if you are self-employed, skipping the mortgage process can be a good thing. I’ve heard stories of self-employed people trying to get a mortgage and it sounds like it’s a very difficult thing to do.

Are you wanting to pay off your mortgage early? Why or why not?

Related Posts

<!–

–>

Source: makingsenseofcents.com

Apache is functioning normally

Jay-Z and Beyoncé just shattered California’s price record, paying $200 million for a striking concrete compound overlooking the ocean in Malibu, according to TMZ.

It’s the most ever paid for a home in the Golden State — by a mile. The hip-hop power couple stole the record from their new neighbor, billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who paid $177 million for the home right next door in 2021.

The house is a minimalist masterpiece, a modern concoction of concrete and glass envisioned by art collector William Bell, who bought the property for $14.5 million in 2003. For the design, he brought in Japanese architect Tadao Ando, a Pritzker Prize winner responsible for impressive concrete structures across Asia, Europe and North America.

Advertisement

His style is on full display here, as the L-shaped mansion opens to vast, open spaces marked by concrete hallways and floor-to-ceiling walls of glass. Out back, patios lead to a swimming pool, cabana and a flat, grassy lawn perched on a cliff overlooking the beach below.

An aerial view of Beyoncé and Jay-Z's new Malibu compound

Japanese architect Tadao Ando designed the compound just purchased by Beyoncé and Jay-Z.

(Google Earth)

The mega-mansion spans nearly 40,000 square feet and required 7,645 cubic yards of concrete, according to Morley Construction Co., the project’s contractor.

Photos are scarce, as the house never hit the market. Instead, it was quietly offered at $295 million as a pocket listing, which means it was shown only to a select group of qualified buyers.

Rumors about the property have swirled for years, with several Reddit users likening the monolithic design to a supervillain’s lair.

The historic deal redefines the luxury market in Southern California, which has slowed down so far this year in the wake of the red-hot pandemic housing market. It also marks another feather in the cap for the affluent enclave of Paradise Cove, which has emerged as one of the most valuable stretches of land in the entire country.

WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum paid $87 million for a Paradise Cove home in 2021, and billionaire Public Storage heir Tamara Gustavson put her place on the market last year for $127.5 million. In 2016, a tiny mobile home there traded hands for $5.3 million.

It appears Jay-Z and Beyoncé have a type. In 2017, they paid $88 million for a similar-looking mansion in Bel-Air composed of six structures surrounded by expansive patios and terraces.

Kurt Rappaport of Westside Estate Agency handled both ends of the deal, TMZ reported. He could not be reached Friday for comment.

Source: latimes.com