Buy property in France

Guide to Buying a House Abroad Guide in UK Net Guide: Homes & Property Home Business Money & Finance Jobs & Education TV Guide News & Weather Arts & Entertainment Homes & Property Lifestyle & Dating Sports & Leisure Health & Fitness Travel & Holidays Shopping & Gifts Motoring Homes & Property Property Gardening Furniture DIY Rate This Guide Not Rated -- Web Search GO Local Business Finder GO Sorry, you need inline frames to see this poll. Home >> Homes & Property >> Guides >> Guide Homes & Property Guide to Buying a House Abroad More than two million Britons own a home abroad, and more and more of us dream of jumping on the same bandwagon. But whats involved? How do I find a home abroad? Most people spot something while they are on holiday. Otherwise, several magazines list foreign properties for sale, including Exchange & Mart, Homes Overseas and Foreign Property News, and there are hundreds of websites offering overseas sales. Im really keen to proceed Its time for a reality check. Half drunk on sun and sangria and on a break from the office, almost anywhere can seem appealing. Ask yourself these questions: What is this house like in winter? What happens to the local area in the off season? Do I want to go to the same place every year? Are you prepared to spend your holidays organising foreign builders, roping in friends and doing the hard graft yourself? Have you considered the cost of getting to your holiday home? Cheap flights have opened up large parts of Europe to British buyers, but dont assume that those routes will be there forever of or that prices will stay low. Dont assume your house will rise in value. This is a peculiar British obsession. If you are buying thinking you can sell at a profit later, you could be disappointed. It may make more financial sense to rent. How do I raise the money? If you can buy with cash, do it. You will own the property outright without increasing your mortgage debt. This will mean fewer bills. If you don't have the cash, there are two ways to pay for a foreign home. You can extend your main mortgage, or you can get a new mortgage for the property. Extending your mortgage is presently a cheap way of raising cash, but you may not be able to get a remortgage for more than 75% of the property's price. But remember, you risk losing both homes if you cannot keep up payments. The other option is to take out a second mortgage on your holiday home. Several High Street companies offer mortgages overseas, including Abbey National and Barclays. Conti Financial services in East Sussex is one of many companies that can arrange mortgages for homes abroad. You often have to have at least 10% of the price in cash. Can I get a mortgage in the local currency? Yes, but you need to be aware of all the risks. Taking out a foreign currency mortgage could be dangerous. You are exposed to currency fluctuations: the pound can move against the euro or the dollar - if it weakens, your payments will increase. On the other hand if you are buying property in another country your home will be valued in that currency so it could make more sense to borrow in that currency. How long will it take to complete? It depends on the country you are buying in. Buy property in France and it could take up to 20 weeks to complete the transaction. In Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal it will average between 12 to 18 weeks. Be aware the longer it takes to complete the transaction the more at risk you are from rate fluctuations, which could add thousands to the real cost of the property in the time it takes to complete. I don't speak the language You will need a reputable solicitor and valuer who is local. Your bank or mortgage lender should be able to help you find these professionals who also speak English. The Federation of Overseas Property Developers, Agents and Consultants has a list of lawyers who specialise in buying abroad. Beware that in some countries lawyers act for you and the seller, so make sure you're getting independent advice. Talk to a British lawyer before you sign anything, and remember, you often cannot pull out of an agreed offer as you can in England and Wales. Are there any hidden costs? Almost certainly. Britain has some of the cheapest home-buying costs in Europe. For example, French legal fees are high - ranging between 10% and 18% of the house price. There is also a regional tax and an occupancy tax if you live there more than eight months a year. In Spain, valuation costs 100, and loans must be signed by the public notary. This costs 580 on a 45,000 mortgage. Taxes and legal fees will normally amount to at least 10% of the property value. What about day to day running costs? The buying process is the not the end of the expense. Check carefully what local taxes you must pay, and be aware that in many blocks of flats you have to pay a service charge. You'll need to open a local bank account, as services such as water and electricity may only connect you if you sign a direct debit. Local bills must be paid in local currency - this costs money to buy and in some cases foreign banks charge extra for transactions. Are there tax implications? Yes. If you rent out your property abroad income will have to be declared to the British taxman. Check out the tax laws of the country you're buying in. There may be implications if you rent or sell the house. Many countries have reciprocal tax agreements with the UK so that you don't end up paying tax twice. You also need to make a will, as local inheritance tax laws may also come into play. Most of Europe is governed by Napoleonic law, which means that your children and spouse will be entitled to a share of your estate. This can create inheritance tax problems in the UK, where only assets left to a spouse are exempt from IHT. Get good advice. How do I insure my home? Ask your own home insurer if they offer a deal to insure a property abroad. Average User Rating: Not Rated -- Sponsored Links Buying in the Sun? Barclays' European mortgages and bank accounts - in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Guide to Moving Abroad Thinking of buying abroad? Try this site for advice and ideas. Save Money when Buying Property Abroad Great exchange rates, expert guidance, no commission and fast transactions. Make your money go further with Moneycorp. Advertising | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Email Us | Add URL | FAQ © UK Net Guide 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved. Thousands of properties on Loot.com now! Tools & Search Property Search Auction Search Compare Utilities Flatshare Search Home Insurance Search Mortgage Search New Homes Search Repossessed Homes Other Useful Guides More Guides... Answerbank's Popular Threads How to get you intrested Powermax 155x boiler lock-out gardening leaking mixer tap cold water side central heating boiler Cold shower - HELP!!! Showers with Body jets Tip of the day Ask a Question More from Answerbank about us | make us your homepage | add to favourites switch to answerbank

real estate prices in

MemeFirst: New York real-estate prices explained -- MemeFirst December 01, 2005 New York real-estate prices explained The 2.2 million jobs in Manhattan pay, on average, $2,025 per week . (You know that feeling you get when you find out you're below average? I've been having that for years.) Manhattan is 22 square miles, which means that the island of Manhattan pays, on average, $378 per square foot per year . And that includes Washington Heights. Posted by Felix at 02:54 PM GMT All proceeds go to MSF -- Comments #1 Pity we can't all work for Goldman Sachs. Posted by: Gherimiah on December 1, 2005 03:28 PM #2 I'll happily defer to someone with a firmer grasp of stats on this, but in the meantime, I wonder, does that average income number tell you very much? Given the massive disparity in Manhattan incomes, between, say, the dishwasher and the hedge-fund owner, which surely are among the widest in the country, wouldn't you also need to know the distribution of the data points? At a minium, wouldn't you want also to know the median income? Also, is this net or gross? Article talked about paychecks, which could probably mean either. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:36 PM #3 Oh, and also, Felix, presumably the 2.2 million people with jobs in Manhattan don't all live there, so your extrapolation doesn't wash. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:38 PM #4 Obvs mean incomemedian income, and I'd be surprised if more than 40% of Manhattanites made above average. Probably less. But even so. And actually, the fact that there are 2.2 million jobs to 1.5 million people in Manhattan actually only serves to exacerbate the demand-supply imbalance when it comes to real estate. Posted by: Felix on December 1, 2005 04:53 PM #5 I hate to be the one to break this to you, Felix, but nearly all residential housing in Manhattan consists of multi-story buildings. The salary range you describe explains real estate prices in Westchester County, NY and Bergen County, NJ to about the same degree as prices in Manhattan. Posted by: Sterling on December 1, 2005 07:05 PM #6 How delightful that the discussion of property prices one is sometimes unable to defuse at dinner parties just carries on here - almost as if taunting one with its dreary ineluctability. And how nice that Felix should bring along his no doubt expert appreciation of statistical lore. The one thing I am missing is the crucial evaluation of bedbug incidence as it affects property prices in Manhattan. In another thread, Betty has said this bedbug malarkey is all a plan of Bush's. For myself, I prefer to recall that bedbugs tend to originate in Belgium. Schtumm for now. More on this later. Posted by: Claude de Bigny on December 1, 2005 08:40 PM #7 Also, this seems to imply that everyone pays all of their income for housing, which is hopefully not the case. To be more realistic (ignoring the issues rightly brought up by the other commentators, including whether all of those people actually live in Manhattan and whether you can just take the sq ftge of Manhattan as the residential sq ftge), say people on average spend 40% of their income on housing. That gets your income for housing per sq ft to around $151. Posted by: Susan on December 1, 2005 09:14 PM #8 Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan is used for housing? According to this http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf (in case you are confused by the graph, the percents sum together veritcally and the land area sum horizontally). And even assuming that all "Mixed Residential and Commercial" was used for housing, less than 38% of the land in Manhattan is for housing. These data certainly allow for the idea that much of rent paid in Manhattan is for commercial use, and even then, a considerable percent is used for public space (Central Park alone is 10% of the area of Manhattan). Anyway, the amount people earn in a particular location is not directly related to the amount the people who live there earn, or the amount the people live there pay for rent. Look at this site: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/index.html The direct link is unavailable, but the Median household income for New York County was 43,573. Nassau County on the other hand is more than 71,000. In which place is it cheaper to rent by the foot? Posted by: Andrew on December 2, 2005 07:22 AM #9 I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan because of vertical construction b) a lot of upper-income Manhattan workers live outside Manhattan, and their buying power lifts prices in tony bedroom communities Posted by: Sterling on December 3, 2005 03:38 PM #10 OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan has 400 square feet to call their own: that works out to 1200 square feet for the average family of three and 1600 square feet for the average family of four. Generous, I'd say. That comes out to 600 million square feet of residential real estate in Manhattan. Using that figure, my calculation actually comes out slightly higher : $386 per square foot per year, rather than $378. What makes you think that there's more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan? As for your point b, I fail to see how it is in any way germane. Posted by: Felix on December 3, 2005 11:09 PM #11 OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1.5 million residents with 409 square feet of living space. But I don't believe that most Manhattan residents are actually so deprived, especially when you take into account common areas in apartment buildings such as laundry facilities, hallways, lobbies, etc. I'd be surprised if the average wasn't at least 600, and it's probably more than 800. And besides, that's not what you originally meant - you were dividing Manhattan's land footprint and not taking into account its vertical expansion. As for the second point, I suspect there's a strong tendency among $100,000 - $1,000,000 per annum Manhattan earners - which is well-off to wealthy-on-a-budget - to live in places like Valhalla and Ho-Ho-Kus, especially if they're married with kids. Family-flight in turn increases the average per-capita-square-footage of the Manhattan residential footprint through bleed-off of children. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:29 AM #12 Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping score at home, he really did just say that the average Manhattanite has 800 square feet of their own. So if you're an average person living with 2 roommates, that means you're in a 2400 square foot apartment. In Manhattan. Yeah. Oh, and that 350 square foot apartment you've got? It's not 350 square feet at all, it's probably more than 4000 square feet. You're just not including the lobby and all the hallways. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 02:43 AM #13 My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to between 600 and 800 square feet per resident of Manhattan. You're not only challenging this, but asserting that my claim is absurd. Sure you wanna do that? Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:59 AM #14 I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is measured in square footage, residential space is simply measured, in all documents, by units. But we can work with that. So far I've learned that 82% of zoned lots in Manhattan are residential, making up about 280,000,000 square feet, which includes permanently undeveloped spaces like yards and gardens. If the average height of development across all that land is four stories, then, we're looking at about 750 square feet per person. I've also learned that in 1999 there were about 727,000 residential units in Manhattan , which means that the average unit houses two people. So those three-roomies crammed into one 800-square-foot-tenement-with-the-bathtub-in-the-kitchen examples are mostly fiction. Which is a shame because I get a tingle from the mental picture of Manhattan twenty- and thirty-somethings living in cramped, dingy conditions. If we divide the total residential land area by the total number of units, we get 385 square feet, which works out to 192.5 square feet per person, assuming no dwellings above one story in height and no unimproved/vacant land. If the average height is assumed to be four stories, in this scenario we get about 770 square feet per person. Here's a report from Prudential Douglas Elliman that details its 1Q 2005 sales. Units sold averaged 1,334 square feet, which divided by two yields 767 square feet per person. Breaking it down further we find co-ops averaging 1,197 square feet, condos at 1,496 square feet, luxury at 2,921 and loft at 2,145. So that's 598.5 square feet per person at the low end all the way up to 1,460.5 at the top. There's three separate analytical models for you Felix, all of which yield per-person square footage of 750 or better. I admit they're not all that fleshed out, but I'm stuck inside with a cold watching The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three on DVD, and I'm disinclined to dig deeper. But you're welcome to. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 04:04 AM #15 Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw space? Building density is higher here than anywhere else in America, but 15% to circulation (in buildings and streets themeselves) would be an easily defended metric. Counting hallways in urban residential structures is like counting sidewalks as part of sf for suburban homes. As much Sterling does sound like a set designer for Friends, Felix, I gotta say, of the 25 or so apartments of people that I can definitely make an estimate of size, we average 500 sf easy. Most everyone is a half a standard tenement lot (25 x 25), with a couple of lofts and post-war, large-scale developments thrown in. This is skewed because many of them are single (I live in a 2bd alone) or have rent-controlled apartments from way back. Posted by: 99 on December 4, 2005 07:19 PM #16 Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd like to know. (They're also based on a multiplier of 4, which as far as I can tell came pretty much out of thin air.) As for apartment sales, in Manhattan individual condos and coops tend to be much larger than the apartments inside rental buildings. So if you look just at sold apartments as opposed to rented apartments, you're going to get a skewed figure. What's more, if a 3800-square-foot brownstone in Harlem, say, is sold and then the downstairs floor is rented out, that still counts as a 3800 square foot deal under these figures. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 09:21 PM #17 The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from this PDF . Sorry, thought I'd linked to it initially. As for rental apartments being smaller than privately owned condos or co-ops...not sure I buy that. But even if it's true, how much smaller could they be? 10%? Doesn't really matter. You can apologize any time now. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 10:06 PM #18 if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city? http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/applbyte.shtml in the meantime, simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about, i downloaded a list of all the residential tax lots from 14th street and below from propertyshark. only 14th street and below, because after 6000+ entries, i became bored. 14th street down is a good representative sample of the 99000+ residential tax lots in manhattan. it includes spacious luxury lofts of tribeca, tenements of the les, projects on the eastside, high rise high density battery park and half building condo conversions of downtown (note that a rental bldg with multiple units counts as a single tax lot with the number of units listed as a seperate data field). the average unit size works out to 1100sf with 590sf per person (based 2000 census population stats for 14th st & below). this includes all common space in a building as it is based on total building size for single tax lot (rental) buildings and counts common space tax lots for condo buildings (read lobbies, circ, etc.) multiplying back out by the 2000 census population numbers for manhattan of 1,537,195... we get 906,945,050sf of residential space in manhattan. let's call that an even 9Bsf since the city lists 3800 acres of lot area in manhattan (165,500,000sf), that gives a rough overbuild factor of 5.5. this will obviously skew higher with the ues & uws densities without actually affecting the sf/person. summary- -590sf of residential per person (inclusive of common areas). close to sterlings low estimate of 600, but nowhere near the 800sf -1100sf average size per unit (inclusive of common areas). again close to sterlings guess based on broker mumbojumbo, but still below the stated average. -9Bsf of residential space in manhattan sterling- close on your numbers, but not nearly close enough to be quite so pompously smug. stick to things you know about, like why bush is a foreign policy genius. felix- remind me what this related to? Posted by: geoff on December 5, 2005 12:34 AM #19 Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with such comedic outrage. Also, I don't think 14th St. and below is a good representative sample. Newer and I suspect more spacious high-rises make up a much larger proportion of housing from the 30s up through the low 100s. So I'm sticking with 600+. I suspect the actual number is around 750, as stated above. As for your justification of your work - "simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about" - I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps you meant to write "nothing" instead of "anything"? I'm not claiming to be right all the time - I am not right all the time. I am, however, pretty much always right whenever Felix gets all worked up and tells me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for your small role in marking off another example for me to throw back at him at some future date. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 06:19 AM #20 Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the PDF you yourself linked to shows (see page 24), the vast majority of apartments in Manhattan are renter-occupied. Think about it: one needs maybe 350 sq ft per person to live in some reasonable comfort. Beyond that, you're shelling out extra cash for extra space. Owners are happy doing that because they have 100% equity in that space: everyone has heard the advice that they should buy the biggest apartment they can afford. Renters, on the other hand, are simply giving away thousands of dollars in rent every month, with nothing at all to show for it. So they tend to go not for the biggest apartment they can afford, but rather the cheapest apartment they find adequate. Put it this way: Manhattan is full of individuals spending an enormous proportion of their income on outsize mortgage payments. Almost everyone, when they move from renting to buying, sees their monthly housing costs rise substantially. If you move to Manhattan and have a relatively low income, then you might spend a crazy amount of it on rent, it's true. But if your income is average or higher (and remember that average is $2,025 per week), I very much doubt that your rent is making nearly as much of a dent in your paycheck as it would if you owned your own apartment. You reach a standard of living you're comfortable with, and you stop. Anything beyond that is money which you could otherwise spend on clothes, or travel, or restaurants. Whereas if you buy , you're not spending so much as investing. The only money which you're really spending is the interest on your mortgage -- and even that comes with a tax deduction. Or let's put it another way. That Elliman report you linked to has an average sales price of $1.21 million. A typical rental yield in Manhattan these days is 4%, so if rentals were functionally identical to owner-occupied apartments, which you seem to assume, then the average rent in Manhattan would be over $4,000 a month. In fact, of course, it's nowhere near that. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 06:55 AM #21 There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th street. Sterling, dear, north of that bright white line, the housing stock is incredibly stable and consistent in terms of size and layout. Harlem is just now getting it's first 'luxury' apartment building in a half century. Any larger apartment complexes are housing projects, which have smaller units by definition, and, allowing for the dispersal of the towers in some International Style fantasy also insures that the density does not increase much. Posted by: 99 on December 5, 2005 04:03 PM #22 Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that everyone who owns an apartment paid that much. Rent prices move in sympathy with real estate prices but are less prone to bubbles. What you're missing here, and you've missed the same thing when we've talked about the stock market in the past, is the difference between speculative investors and income investors. Speculators don't buy an apartment (or apartment building) primarily for the benefit of the rent; their main motivation is the hope of flipping the property at some later date for a larger sum than they paid for it. The current Manhattan real estate bubble is the product of speculators. Real estate income investors view rent collection as their goal - most apartment buildings in any town or city in the U.S. are owned by income investors. They get less press than speculators, but they also tend to go bankrupt less often. The market value of a rental property can be determined by the amount of rent it generates for the owner, not the other way around. Manhattan rents are high - probably even ludicrously high - but that is a function of large demand chasing relatively low supply, and is only weakly related to current real estate prices. I do acknowledge your point about space not being a priority for Manhattan renters, there is some truth in that. People who do see space as a necessity tend to wind up in rental units in Brooklyn, Queens or Hudson County. But that's not exclusively the case. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 04:59 PM #23 This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be applied to support any and all political positions. Posted by: sac on December 5, 2005 06:39 PM #24 Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it. For one thing, co-op boards (and even condo boards, for that matter) hate flippers, and are likely to punish them. There's flip taxes, brokers' fees of 6% for the seller, and a luxury tax of 1% on any apartment over $1m for the buyer. Prices are so high that the carrying costs are enormous -- and you can't rent out the apartment in the meantime, because that makes it pretty much unsaleable. There are, of course, lots of buildings owned by income investors in New York. Most of the East Village, where I live, is comprised of such buildings: they normally have 20 or so apartments (say 5 floors, 4 apartments per floor), and they've been going up in price almost as much as individual apartments have -- the only reason they haven't gone up just as much is because many of the tenants are rent-controlled or rent-stabilised below market. These are typical New York apartments, from a renter's point of view -- but I can tell you, as someone who was apartment hunting in the East Village for almost a year, they're much less typical from an owner's point of view. Also, there's a strong incentive for for-sale apartments to be as large as possible: price per square foot is positively correlated with size. That's not the case in the rental market: it's easier to rent out a 650sqft apartment for $2500 than it is to rent out a 1300sqft apartment for $5000. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 09:14 PM #25 "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it." Felix, of course people speculate on property in Manhattan. Just because the barriers to entry are high doesn't mean some won't jump them. How else do you think a modest apartment winds up costing as much as a dozen Mercedes-Benz CL500s? Who do you imagine is providing demand at that level? You know banks are not issuing $1,000,000 mortgages to households with joint incomes of $200,000. It's trust fund kiddies - who are often divorced from fiscal reality - and speculators. As for your point about different-sized apartments being suitable for rent versus sale, I might agree with you except for the fact that every rental apartment IS OWNED by someone. It IS PART of the for sale market. I'd be surprised if fewer than half of the condos in Manhattan are rented out by their owners. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 01:51 AM #26 Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your feverish mind would like to imagine. Lots of global liquidity, driving down interest rates and banks' credit tests. Lots of demand, due to Manhattan's status as the center of the universe and high Wall Street bonuses. And very limited supply. The market for flippers is Miami, not NYC -- where a condo can be bought and sold three or four times before it is even built. As for your point about rental apartments being owned by someone, it sounds clever until you stop to think about what I've already said. Rental buildings are owned by landlords; the vast majority of condos and co-ops are owner-occupied. For one thing, co-ops vastly outnumber condos, and they're hard to rent. And as for condos, they generally get rented out when they're not the place their owner really wants to live. Given how valuable they are, few owners who don't want to live here would rather rent out their condos rather than simply sell them. Take my East Village condo building, for instance: when it went condo in 1983, only one owner lived here. Today, all the units bar one are owner-occupied. I haven't done my homework on this, but I'll happily accept your wager: I'll bet the standard bottle of vintage champagne that more than half the condos in Manhattan are owner-occupied. Deal? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 02:43 AM #27 If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor space in Manhattan divided by the number of residents of Manhattan is equal to or greater than 600 sq. ft., then it's a bet. How are we going to research this? FWIW, I am descended from a man who is reputed to be the first person to negotiate a real estate deal in New York: Wessel Wesselse (ten Broek). He may have been the man to offer 60 guilders (often misreported as $24) as the purchase price of Manhattan from the Canarsies. (Technically the Canarsies didn't own Manhattan Island - it's not for nothing that "Canarsie" is in Brooklyn. Also technically the Dutch West India Company didn't care which tribe owned it. It just needed some bunch of natives to smile and sign off on the deal to keep the English away.) This of course conveys no special knowledge upon me, but it certainly adds a humorous subtext to our disagreement. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 04:14 AM #28 I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the same time. But spell it out, and I'll be amenable. I do want to ensure, of course, that hallways and elevator shafts and the like do not count as residential floor space. And please also ensure that if one of the propositions can be determined while the other one can't, then the other wager still stands. Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 05:55 AM #29 I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. However, it occurs to me that Manhattan Borough probably requires a statement of total dwelling space for its Certificate of Occupancy, so that would work for me. And no, I think double or nothing sounds good to me, especially since we will be attempting to falsify two of my estimations, rather than either of yours. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:20 AM #30 You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the residential floor space, and no bet at all on the proportion of condos which are rented out? Or what? It makes no sense to me: "double or nothing" normally happens after A has lost a bet and B has won it. Then going double or nothing means that either B wins double the original amount, or he wins nothing. You essentially run the bet over again. Are you maybe trying to propose something whereby if I lose I lose 2BVCs, and if I win I win nothing? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:44 AM #31 Are you trying to squirm out of it? Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:03 PM #32 Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just tell me the terms! Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 06:12 PM #33 I did! Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:25 PM #34 OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow and slush. Um, OK. My terms for the bet is those two things specified, avg. sq. footage = 600 and = 50% of condos. Either side has to get both right to collect. gotta run Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:51 PM #35 So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unverifiable, then it's a wash? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:22 PM #36 Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to track residential rental inventory by units, rather than by square footage. Also, most owners of condominium units who rent them out do so through agents - even the tenant may be only vaguely aware of the legal status of the unit. In NJ I don't think an individual condo owner even needs to report the unit as a rental property if it's in a building that's already inspected under multi-family housing regulations (or if it's a standalone unit or duplex). The rent revenue has to be reported as taxable income, naturallly, but not to any entity with housing oversight. So make it for one bottle and yes both figures have to be verifiable. That said, if either of us can show a grouping of not-completely-conclusive figures from multiple sources that seem reasonable and fall long or short of my guesses by ten percent or more, then I think we should accept them. (Of course, I have arguably already met this condition with my square footage prediction, and Geoff's calculations don't contradict it under the 10% rule I suggest.) Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 10:05 PM #37 as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the city from the cities web site... google 'bytes of the big apple' and look at the 'pluto' product. the license fee is $250 or you can get the info from propertyshark.com. there are 99000+ listings for manhattan. at 100 listings per page, thats a lot of cutting and pasting into excel. both of these will give you tax lot sizes (whole buildings/unit count or condo unit), which will be inclusive of common area. 10-15% is considered a fairly standard deduction for circulation. mechanical space is not included in the floor area count. happy dueling Posted by: geoff on December 6, 2005 10:29 PM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Yes No Anti-spam question: Share four cupcakes equally among four people. How many does each person get (in digits)? Comments: XML Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0 Sources Eurof Felix Jame Michelle Mike Sage7 Stefan Sterling &c. Disclaimer Archive 12/05 11/05 10/05 09/05 08/05 07/05 06/05 05/05 04/05 03/05 02/05 01/05 12/04 11/04 10/04 09/04 08/04 07/04 06/04 05/04 04/04 03/04 02/04 01/04 12/03 11/03 10/03 09/03 Old site Recent posts 08/12: Not man enough (1) 08/12: Fare's fair (0) 07/12: Briddishisms (5) 06/12: The Trial of Saddam (5) 05/12: Leg deficiencies (4) 01/12: New York real-estate prices explained (37) 30/11: Bad vibe (22) 30/11: Thick-headed bouncers (0) 29/11: Argentina's sinister move (2) 28/11: Bedbugs and the city (8) 27/11: I've got a fast card (1) 22/11: Pedestrianize Broadway! (5) 19/11: Century 21 the next casualty at Ground Zero? (23) 19/11: Johnny Depp - sunshine traitor (4) 18/11: Gawker F***** by Yahoo! (7) Comments 06/12: geoff: as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the ci 06/12: Sterling: Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to tr 06/12: Felix: So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unv 06/12: Sterling: OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow an 06/12: Sterling: I did! 06/12: Felix: Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just te 06/12: Sterling: Are you trying to squirm out of it? 06/12: Felix: You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the 06/12: Sterling: I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. 06/12: Felix: I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the s 06/12: Sterling: If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor spac 06/12: Felix: Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your 06/12: Sterling: "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, 05/12: Felix: Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and p 05/12: sac: This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be appli 05/12: Sterling: Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that ever 05/12: 99: There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th stree 05/12: Felix: Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the < 05/12: Sterling: Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with 05/12: geoff: if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city?<br 04/12: Sterling: The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from <a href 04/12: Felix: Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd 04/12: 99: Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw 04/12: Sterling: I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is 04/12: Sterling: My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to b 04/12: Felix: Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping 04/12: Sterling: OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1 03/12: Felix: OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan ha 03/12: Sterling: I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 02/12: Andrew: Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan i Trackbacks

Real Estate Broker Becoming

How to Become a Real Estate Broker - eHow.com Clear Instructions on How To Do (just about) Everything Web eHow.com Home Finance & Business Center Real Estate How to Become a Real Estate Broker Becoming a real estate broker requires a great deal of time, study and effort, but the rewards can be worth it. Steps: 1. Have your head examined. 2. Contact your state's Department of Real Estate. 3. Request a copy of the requirements needed to become a broker. 4. Take required classes. 5. Get real estate business experience (typically as a salesperson or in a position in a related field, such as title or escrow or property management) if required. 6. File necessary paperwork. 7. Pay required fees. 8. Contact a real estate school that specializes in courses for taking the real estate broker's exam. Check the yellow pages under "Real Estate - Schools." Studying and class work can typically be done at home. 9. Contact a local college or university that offers broker exam preparatory classes. These classes will require class attendance. 10. Study! 11. Pass the exam. 12. Pay any additional fees. 13. Provide any additional information. 14. Get your license. 15. Go into business. 16. Lose your mind. Tips: Many states have experience requirements for being in the real estate business. Most states have course requirements that you must meet. These can be fulfilled either through college or real estate school courses. Most states have no limit on the number of times a person can take the test. Warnings: The information contained in the test will not prepare you for the business of being a real estate broker. The exam strictly tests your ability to memorize certain real estate information. Please Share Your Tips with Us More Resources: Contribute to eHow: Write an eHow Article Suggest a Topic Give Us Feedback on This Article Related eHows: Read a Textbook Prepare for Class Choose a Financial Aid Program Choose a Graduate School Things You'll Need: pens electronic personal organizers notebooks personal organizers highlighter pens Project Details: Skill Advisory: Moderately challenging New! -- Related eHows: Read a Textbook Prepare for Class Choose a Financial Aid Program Choose a Graduate School Check out Thousands of How-To Solutions in eHow's Centers Automotive Careers & Education Computers & Home Electronics Family & Relationships Finance & Business Food & Entertaining Health Hobbies & Games Holidays & Traditions Home & Garden Personal Care & Style Pets Sports & Fitness Travel How to: --? Web eHow.com Home | Site Map | About Us | How To Books | Link to eHow Subscribe to the eHow of the Day Mailing List : Have the eHow of the Day appear on your My Yahoo! Page: Add the eHow of the Day to your RSS reader: © 1999-2005 eHow, Inc. How things get done. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the eHow Terms of Use and Privacy .

Colorado real estate available.

Telluride Real Estate, Telluride, Telluride Lodging, Colorado Land For Sale, Colorado Mountain Homes, Ski Resort Real Estate, Luxury Real Estate Featured Listings Search » Homes Fractional Condominiums Land Commercial All Regional Listings Services » Brokers/Agents Sales Statistics Colorado Mountain Homes and Colorado Land for Sale Alpine Lodging and Real Estate offers the some of the most amazing and luxurious Colorado real estate available. We list a wide range of land, homes and condos . Enjoy the luxury of your own Telluride lodging when you visit Telluride’s famous ski resort. Invest in Telluride Colorado real estate today and make an investment in your financial future with a beautiful home of your own. Experience and enjoy Telluride’s world renowned ski resort from your own backdoor. Search our selection of land for sale or Colorado mountain homes and you might just find the property of your dreams. Whether you want to have a panoramic mountain view, a woodland setting getaway or just a place where you can hop out of your front door and onto the slopes; Alpine Lodging and Real Estate in Telluride has all the properties you want. We list a great selection of stunning and beautiful Colorado real estate, Colorado Mountain homes and Colorado land for sale. STATS Monthly real estate reports HOMES The one you've been dreaming of CONDOS Your private little getaway Your Name: Email: Property Type: Homes Condo Land Business Opportunities Price range: $500,000 - $1 million $1 million - $2 million Over $2 million Home Plan Your Trip Hot Deals Things to Do About Telluride Real Estate Useful Info Events © 1994-2005 Multimedia Venture, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Contact Us Privacy Policy

Texas Land Added to

Texas, Land Added to Endangered Bird Haven (TX): The Trust for Public Land - Select State - Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Col... Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Home View by Region Central Chicago Michigan Minnesota Ohio Oklahoma St. Louis Texas Wisconsin Mid-Atlantic New England Northwest & Rockies Southeast West About TPL Support TPL City Parks Research Conservation Services Initiatives Federal Programs Local Programs Newsroom Publications Activities Jobs TPL Store HOME View by Region Central Texas Land Added to Endangered Bird Haven (TX) Contact: Benjamin Larkin, (512) 478-4644; Deborah Holle, (512) 339-9432 Hill Country Views Photo by: AUSTIN, Texas, 3/26/04: The Trust for Public Land (TPL) announced today it has preserved 96 acres of Hill Country terrain, completing the protection of the 457-acre McKeever property. Located about 30 miles northwest of Austin, the property will be included in the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge. TPL transferred the property from the McKeever family to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for permanent protection and management. The latest tract is a top FWS priority because the land provides ideal habitat for two federally protected songbirds—the golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo. The primary purpose of the refuge is to conserve the nesting habitat for these endangered songbirds and other bird species which visit the area during the annual migration from breeding grounds in the United States and Canada to wintering grounds in Mexico, Central and South America. The property was purchased by FWS with funds from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was secured by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. "We Texans are lovers of nature and the outdoors," Senator Hutchison said. "Protecting our natural habitats and wildlife is a desire we all share. I was proud to help secure these funds to enhance the Texas Hill Country and its wildlife. This effort will help protect the endangered species and unique environment of the Balcones for generations to come." "Protecting such a unique place so close to Austin, with this partnership, has been very special," said Jenny Parks, TPL project manager. "We deeply appreciate the leadership shown by Senator Hutchison, which has helped protect this special place. It is exciting that Texans now have another place where they can experience the fascinating wildlife that pass through this region." "We're thrilled to have added this ideal songbird habitat to the Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, rather than lose it to development," said Deborah Holle, refuge manager. "We value our partnership with the Trust for Public Land, and are hopeful that this relationship will continue to produce significant conservation achievements for Balcones, and allow us to provide more recreational opportunities for generations to come." The McKeever property—owned jointly by three brothers: Grant, Clark, and John, has been owned by the McKeever family for more than 50 years and has been used for ranching and family recreation. In 2002, after meeting with officials from the FWS, TPL crafted a deal with the brothers to convey shares of their property to the Balcones Refuge for permanent protection. "This has always been a special place for our family, and we're very happy that we can now share it with others," said John McKeever, part-owner of the property. "There's so much to explore out here and no other place quite like it in the state." The Balcones Canyonlands NWR was established in 1992. Currently, only 19,000 acres of the 46,000 acres needed to complete the Refuge have been preserved. Additional funds are being sought this year from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase other significant bird habitat lands to be included in the refuge. The golden-cheeked warbler is a migratory bird that nests in only 33 counties in central Texas. Male warblers arrive in mid-March and establish territories of 3 to 6 acres. Females arrive a few days later and quickly select their mates. Male warblers sing loud and vigorously defend their territories in order to attract females. By the end of July, the warblers fly to the mountainous areas of southern Mexico and to the east-central Guatemala through Honduras to Nicaragua. During the winter, the Black-capped Vireo is found on the West Coast of Mexico. Often returning to the same area in subsequent years, male vireos arrive in Texas from late March to mid-April and set up territories that average 2 to 4 acres. Females chose mates as soon as possible after they arrive. Together, they build a single nest and participate in the incubation of the eggs. From August to September, the songbirds migrate back to Mexico for the winter. The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit land conservation organization that conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. Since its founding in 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 1.9 million acres of land in 45 states. In Texas, TPL has protected more than 26,000 acres for communities, including areas in and around Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. The Trust for Public Land depends on the support and generosity of individuals, foundations, and businesses to achieve our land for people mission. Contact Us | Home | Donate Now | Site Map © 2005 The Trust for Public Land. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy