The Golden State’s residents rated their quality of life at its lowest mark in almost 20 years, citing the economic downturn and stagnant personal finances, according to a joint UC Berkeley and Field Poll.
“Residents are reconsidering the image of the Golden State and showing more ambivalence toward it,” said Jack Citrin, a Berkeley political science professor who co-wrote the report. “The changes going on – socially, culturally, economic – have made people here less Pollyannaish about the reality of life here.”
The poll, based on a telephone survey of 898 registered voters in February, showed that only 39 percent considered the state “one of the best places to live,” compared with the glory days of 1985, when 78 percent gave the state the highest rating.
Californians’ self-assessment has gradually declined since then, with occasional spurts of optimism, until the appraisal rock-bottomed in 1992 at the tail end of a national recession.
Jon Christensen, the executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University, said while the poll reflected personal financial woes. Californians are also bothered by a dysfunctional state government mired in a budget crisis.
“The state’s dysfunction as a whole feeds into this worry that this is far from one of the best places to live,” Christensen said. “One would think that a criterion for someone to say, ‘This is one of the best places to live,’ is that it’s well governed.”
At risk is the concept of California – land of world-class universities, beautiful open landscapes, perpetual job growth, and opportunities for immigrants, Christensen said.
“I say this in a positive way: When the myth of California gets questioned, when all of those things become disconnected, people begin to consider the reality,” he said. “This is a wake-up call to fix all of those things.”
The report also asked residents whether immigration had an impact on their quality of life. Most voters – 47 percent – said immigration had no real impact. Yet of those who said immigration had changed California, 39 percent said it lowered their quality of life, while 10 percent said immigration made life here better.
Brian Peterson, 45, a landscape gardener in Yreka (Siskiyou County), said that if he had been polled, he would have answered Option B, “California is a nice but not outstanding place to live.”
In the past 20 years, Peterson said his community near the Oregon border has lost jobs in the timber and mining industries because of more stringent state regulations and pressure from environmentalists.
“The location is excellent,” Peterson said. “I love my local community. But the state politics suck. It comes from either Sacramento or Washington, D.C., and they don’t know what’s best for us up here.”
Peterson said illegal immigration – as opposed to legal immigration – has negatively impacted the state’s quality of life. That’s part of the reason he’s the unofficial spokesman for the State of Jefferson, a group of secessionists who would like to see Northern California counties create their own state.
“Our county is rural, poor, but big,” Peterson said. “If we could make decisions on our local laws and business rules that work for us – then our quality of life would increase.”
Hundreds of miles away at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach, surfer Mark Massara, a lifelong Californian, said he would have voted that California is still among the best places to live.
Massara, who’s a general counsel attorney for O’Neill Wetsuits, said the downed economy, ironically, had a positive impact on the shorelines. “The worse the economy is, the better off the coast is because people don’t have as much money to think up dumb development ideas,” he said.
Massara said the growth of California during his lifetime has presented challenges, but in his experience, it’s all been relative.
“There’s more people now, more congestion, development, more everything,” he said. “There’s a lot of things that you could allow to reduce your so-called quality of life. The flip side is, the older you get, you tend to appreciate what’s left. I can be at any beach in California, no matter how crowded or polluted, and still be stoked.”
Hat tip to daytrip for sending this along, fromaol.com:
A man who ran a defunct get-rich scheme agreed to settle a court order by paying the Federal Trade Commission $900,000 and surrendering the proceeds from the sale of his house and most of his personal property.
The federal court judgment against John Stefanchik was obtained by the FTC in 2007 for blatantly false claims that his “wealth building” program would teach consumers how to quickly make serious money by buying and selling mortgages.
Stefanchik, together with other defendants, telemarketed and sold a package of products and services as part of the “Stefanchik Program,” which included course materials, seminars, workshops, video tapes, audio tapes, and personal coaches supposedly designed to teach consumers how to buy and sell privately-held mortgages, commonly known as “paper.
The operation’s telemarketers told consumers they could earn huge amounts of money in their spare time, upwards of $10,000 every 30 days, if they purchased the Stefanchik program. All these claims, the FTC said, were lies, and most customers failed to earn a dime.
Victims typically paid $5,000 to $8,000 for the worthless program, but only Stefanchik and his cronies got rich.
As part of the settlement, the FTC will suspend a $17.8 million penalty imposed against Stefanchik by a federal court in 2007, which resulted from a lawsuit the agency filed against him and his company, Beringer Corporation, in 2004. The FTC was also forced to file a complaint in bankruptcy court in December 2009, accusing Stefanchik, his wife, Heidi Fogg, and her company, Warwick Properties LLC, of trying to hide their assets from the judgment.
Under the settlement, the $17.8 million fine will be suspended when Stefanchik pays the FTC $900,000, as well as proceeds from the sale of his personal property and house. If Stefanchik again tries to deceive the FTC about his or his wife’s assets, he’ll have to pay the whole penalty.
One part of the housing market is experiencing a rebound that will probably continue even if the rest of the market remains sluggish: remodeling.
A recent report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University predicted that remodeling would rebound strongly this year after a three-year downturn. The center estimated growth of 9.1 percent for the first quarter and 12.1 percent for the second quarter. The predicted rate drops for the end of the year, but annual growth in remodeling is expected to be around 8 percent. In fact, the study found, the remodeling market held up far better than housing construction during the recession, with annual spending still close to $300 billion.
Kermit Baker, director of the remodeling futures program at the Joint Center for Housing Studies, said that remodeling nationwide was likely to remain strong as homeowners who put off maintenance and improvement projects began to spend more freely again. The study also found that the industry was beginning to benefit from the rehabilitation of foreclosed properties.
WHY THE REBOUND? It may seem counterintuitive that even as the housing market continues to suffer and the economic recovery feels tentative, the renovation market is picking up. But Mr. Baker pointed out that while home sales and construction were linked to mortgage rates, renovations were determined more by income levels and job security.
“Remodeling is not heavily financed,” he said. Instead, people are willing to spend cash, Mr. Baker said, because they have “a comfort level that the value of my home isn’t depreciating.”
He said during the peak years of 2006 and 2007, only 30 to 35 percent of renovations were financed through home equity loans or second mortgages. Last year, that number dropped to 15 to 20 percent.
He said there was more growth in smaller projects — energy-efficient windows and heating and air-conditioning systems — than in full-scale additions. Yet he said he expected continued growth across all types of renovations.
Historically, the Northeast and the Midwest have driven renovations because of older homes and higher personal income rates. That is happening this time around as well. But one difference is that the South and the West, where the house-building boom was centered, now have more homes that will need improvements. Foreclosures in these areas are also a factor in this.
“Houses are staying in the foreclosure process now for up to 500 days,” Mr. Baker said. “Owners are not putting money into maintaining the home because they’re ultimately going to be out on the street. A buyer who buys that home for 30 to 50 cents on the dollar or an investor who wants to flip it in nine months is going to have to put money in.”
Travis left this comment at #30 a couple of posts backhere:
I purchased my first home without knowing about value aside from recent comps. This time around I am trying to better understand “fair value” using indicators such as price-to-rent ratio. I sense that many in the BubbleInfo audience may also be looking at value in similar way.
Unfortunately, I observe that other buyers are not paying attention to value or have a different metric for determining value because I continue to see sales prices that I consider to be over-valued. If there are a line of buyers willing to pay market price even if over-valued, then as Jim said about the Not Players, those looking for a deal may have to wait a long time or get lucky.
This is what we are all battling.
The least-informed buyers create the market – especially in the Value Buys category.
When the market is hot, buyers get emotionally charged up, and rush into buying before being adequately prepared – and end up paying too much.
In areas where there is enough inventory, a run of these sales can create a trend.
The first few buyers who over-pay could look smarter a year later if the trend takes off, but it’ll be accidental. You want to be more deliberate with your purchase, because that same trend could go the wrong way.
What can you do?
1. Know your target neighborhoods – See the interiors of as many listings as you can. Even if you don’t buy them, the market knowledge gained about recent comps is a big advantage.
2. Take your shots – Make offers on those that interest you, but always at a comfortable price. Leave some gas in the tank too, in case you need to compete with other offerors later.
3. Be comfortable with fix-ups – Plan on spending $25,000 to $50,000 on any house you buy. Very few sellers spruce up their home to sell, and if they do, it’s usually just a cosmetic fly-by. Expect to at least carpet & paint, and there will probably be a few miscellaneous repair items too. If the sellers contribute, terrific (and we’ll fight for that), but if they refuse, don’t be surprised.
4. You are going to lose some – The less-informed will out-bid you on occasion. Shake it off, and get back on the horse.
5. Tie the property up – You don’t need repair quotes or appraisals to make an offer – you have the 17-day investigation period to find out what you are buying.
6. Winning the bidding war – You have to know how much mustard to add, and should rely on your agent for support.
The agent’s role is critical.
A realtor’s job is to: (a) provide an accurate interpretation of the value based on the comps and market conditions, (b) identify the other offers on the table, and (c) size up the listing agent, so we find the way to win – without overpaying.
How much do you offer in order to win?
A good agent should be able to pinpoint that number. Generally, most buyers hit the wall at 5% to 10% over list, so it’s a matter of how bad you want it!
7. Depending on how picky you are, be prepared to search for 3-36 months – Be deliberate and take your time, but don’t hesitate.
Not our usual fare, but if you wonder about local employment….
From the sddt.com:
While there has been a softening in the demand for for-lease biotechnology space in San Diego, you wouldn’t know it by the huge appetite publicly-traded real estate investment trusts have had for life science buildings here lately.
The status of the biotech industry, the life science leasing situation and the redevelopment of existing space were among the topics at a Commercial Real Estate Women (CREW)-sponsored session at the Sheraton La Jolla Thursday.
Bret Gossett, Pasadena-based Alexandria Real Estate Equities vice president, said while there were only $24 million in biotech property acquisitions in the San Diego region in 2009 and $43 million in 2008, investors (primarily REITs) had enough confidence in the biotech buildings here to purchase $586 million worth of them last year.
That figure was even better than 2007 when the total reached a high-water mark of $564 million.
Alexandria paid $128 million late last year for the 360,000-square-foot Nobel Research Center. Then Illumina (Nasdaq: ILMN) paid $335 million to lease the space.
“And the general consolidation (of companies) has been nothing short of phenomenal,” Gossett said.
These transactions have included Novartis’ acquisition of Genoptix for $470 million in January, Aventis’ purchase of Targegen for $560 million last June and San Diego-based Illumina’s $105 million acquisition of Helixis in April 2010.
Recent major leases in the San Diego area from 2010 to the present have included Illumina (which has taken a total of 470,000 square feet), Advanced BioHealing for 110,000 square feet and a renewal for Althea Technologies of 105,000 square feet.
Gossett said the total life science ownership of properties in the central San Diego area has grown from about 10.13 million square feet as of the end of 2005 to 13.07 million as of the end of 2010.
He said the biotech vacancy is running at about 15 percent, but that much of this space could be absorbed fairly quickly once the economy improves.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) re-introduced legislation late Thursday that would end the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and end their conservatorship in two years.
“It’s time to enact fundamental reform of Fannie and Freddie before these companies go from ‘too big to fail’ to ‘too late to fix,’” Hensarling said in a statement released Thursday.
The GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act would immediately implement several reforms. It would repeal the GSE’s affordable housing goals and would cap their maximum mortgage portfolio size at $700 billion. That cap would gradually come down to $250 billion over five years.
The bill would also reduce the GSEs’ market share by returning the conforming loan limit to $417,000, and it would increase fees they charge for guaranteeing its securities, or G-Fees, to bring more competitive private capital to the market.
Once conservatorship ends for the Fannie and Freddie, their regulator the Federal Housing Finance Agency would evaluate the financial status of each company and place them into receivership if necessary. If not, the GSEs would be allowed to resume their “limited market operations” for a maximum of three years under certain rules.
According to the bill, during these three years, the minimum down payment would be at least 5% for all new loans. That would increase to 7.5% in the second year and 10% by the third year. After the end of that three-year period, each GSE’s charter expires, according to the bill.
“At that point, Fannie and Freddie must conduct all new operations as fully private sector companies competing on a level playing field without any government advantages,” according to Hensarling.
“Our goal is to help homebuyers stay homeowners, and free taxpayers of the burden that comes when homes get sold to buyers who simply can’t afford them,” Hensarling said. “It’s my hope that President Obama will work with us to pursue a path that will protect taxpayers, end the billions of dollars in bailouts, and bring certainty back to the mortgage market.”
The San Diego MLS is run by Sandicor, who refuses to create a powerful website to help educate consumers and support the agents. In Houston the association of realtors is doing a great job – they help the agents create their own promotional video and then keeps them together on the HAR website. They have their own HAR TV, they promote the members’ blog, and they also have an agent rating system where the clients leave feedback about their experience with the individual realtors. The agent rating system would be an invaluable tool just to keep agents honest – but Sandicor does nothing. Now others are raising the bar – it doesn’t matter how effective this idea is, just trying to create some extra value gets the consumer’s attention:
Whoa! Redfin just launched a big new upgrade on our website, showing customers our agents’ comments about the listings we’ve toured. We call these notes Agent Insights:
The big upgrade also shares private comments about each listing with the listing agent: the tool we use to schedule and track tours prompts our agents to say whether the lawn needs to be mowed or if the place showed well. Then we automatically send an email to the listing agent.
Features for both home-buying customers and listing agents are important, as we’re trying to strike a balance between our obligations as members of the real estate profession and our mission to change the game in customers’ favor.
13,793 Agent Insights, 31% of Seattle Homes Toured
What makes this upgrade a real game-changer for customers is the sheer number of homes we tour. Agent Insights isn’t an empty social network that we are hoping will one day come alive, or one patrolled by trolls and spammers.
On the day of launch, we already have 13,793 Agent Insights about homes currently for sale, each one from a licensed Redfin agent, each double-checked to make sure it is factual and intelligible to customers.
The Golden State’s residents rated their quality of life at its lowest mark in almost 20 years, citing the economic downturn and stagnant personal finances, according to a joint UC Berkeley and Field Poll.
The agent’s role is critical.
