Real Estate Loan

CNN/Money: Real Estate Web CNN/Money Home News Markets Technology Commentary Personal Finance Autos Real Estate Real Estate MONEY GALLERY Living la bonne vie Buying a home in the French countryside is a dream worth exploring. See 7 homes on the market now. ( more ) Video California housing market UCLA group predicts that real estate will slow, but state won't succumb to recession. CNN's Andy Serwer reports. ( more ) How to buy and build on rural land Dreaming of the perfect country getaway? Here's how to be sure you don't get taken. ( more ) Most overvalued housing markets Latest analysis of 299 markets: See how your hometown ranks. ( more ) When booms go bust... Home prices can and do go down. Here's what declines have looked like in the past. ( more ) Forecast: 100 markets Help with the loan hunt Most profitable renovations Some home improvements can recoup a lot, even all, of their costs. ( more ) MORTGAGE UPDATE 30-year mortgage: lowest in 2 months Dec 29: 11:14a Rates edge lower in the latest week but remain up considerably from a year earlier. ( more ) RATE SEARCH No points only 15 Year Fixed conforming - $165,000 15 Year Fixed jumbo - $385,000 30 Year Fixed conforming - $165,000 30 Year Fixed jumbo - $385,000 1 Year ARM conforming - $165,000 1 Year ARM jumbo - $385,000 3/1 Year ARM conforming - $165,000 3/1 Year ARM jumbo - $385,000 5/1 Year ARM conforming - $165,000 5/1 Year ARM jumbo - $385,000 7/1 Year ARM conforming - $165,000 7/1 Year ARM jumbo - $385,000 Select State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ESSENTIALS Money 101: Buying a home Top things to know The hunt Are you ready? Closing the deal Lining up cash For sellers only Picking a team Glossary MORE ESSENTIALS: Choosing the best mortgage Take a bite out of closing costs How to make your home sellable MONEY LIST Latest home prices: 147 markets tracked Third quarter numbers are in for nearly 147 markets. How does your home town stack up? ( more ) Market Growth 1. Phoenix, AZ 55.2% 2. Orlando, FL 44.8% 3. Fort Myers, FL 42.5% 4. Tuscon, AZ 34.7% 5. Daytona, FL 33.8% MORE LISTS: Million-dollar markets Most expensive markets CALCULATORS Renovation Wizard Compare cost of living How much house can you afford? Money Magazine -- Try an issue of MONEY FREE! Subscribe and SAVE! REAL ESTATE ARCHIVE Dec 29: 10:46a Home sales fall, inventories jump Dec 28: 7:22a Mortgage applications at 3-1/2 year low Dec 27: 2:04p 1 BR @ Plaza, no park view: $2M Dec 19: 11:59a Is it time to cash out? Dec 22: 12:37p Fastest-growing states Dec 19: 9:22a Neighbors behaving badly Dec 23: 11:58a New home sales tumble 11 percent Dec 21: 6:29a The boom that won't die Dec 20: 2:39p Feds fret over innovative mortgages Dec 14: 3:50p Least affordable rental markets Dec 19: 3:49p Protect your home in 2006 Dec 12: 2:47p Take this home market...and love it Dec 13: 11:15a Double jeopardy for landlords Dec 8: 2:01p There go 800,000 jobs out the door Dec 7: 1:13p Real estate investors bailing out? Dec 9: 3:02p Overvalued housing markets decline Dec 8: 4:37p 'Take this house and shove it' Dec 1: 4:02p Help with the loan hunt Dec 1: 12:34p Home prices rise but pace slows More »» CNN Money contact us | subscribe to Money magazine advertising -- | site map | glossary | RSS | press room OTHER NEWS: CNN | SI | Fortune | Business 2.0 | Time © 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms under which this service is provided to you. privacy policy Reprints of site stories are available.

Selling Home & Garden

Home Buying / Selling, Home Selling Advice-How To Sell a House - HowTos  You are here: About > Home & Garden > Home Buying / Selling Home & Garden Home Buying / Selling Essentials 10 Things Home Buyers Shouldn't Do Best Tips for First Time Home Buyers "Must-Do" Tasks Before You Sell How to Buy a Home, Step by Step For Sale by Owner Advice Articles & Resources How To Buy a Home How To Sell a House Celebrity & Historic Credit Reports & Scores Design & Remodel Home Maintenance Inspections & Appraisals Investing & Foreclosures Modular & Manufactured Mold, Radon, Lead, etc. Mortgage Advice Moving & Relocation Real Estate Careers Real Estate For Sale Vacation Homes Buyer's Guide Before You Buy Top Picks Home Buying Books Foreclosure Books Mortgage Books Product Reviews Forums Help FREE Newsletter Sign Up Now for the Home Buying / Selling newsletter! See Online Courses   Search Home Buying / Selling Home Selling Advice-How To Sell a House HowTos Index How To Get Your Home Ready to Sell Get your home ready to sell. Tour the house with notebook in hand, then make needed updates and repairs before you show the home to potential home buyers. Important disclaimer information about this About site. Advertisement Related Blogs Mortgage Fraud Blog The Real Estate Blog The Money Pit Most Popular Modular and Manufactured Homes Finding Your Best Place to ... Home Buying Don'ts First Time Home Buyer Tips Before You Sell Your Home What's Hot Coping with Unethical People How To Buy Land Real Estate Appraisal Before You Buy a Log Home Package Home Buying / Selling - GuideReviews Related Topics Home Repair Architecture Credit / Debt Management Housekeeping Landscaping        Topic Index | Email to a Friend Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy ©2005 About, Inc., A part of the New York Times Company . All rights reserved. Around About Oprah's Life Vacation Ideas Shop Safely Online VIDEO: Craft Rooms VIDEO: Christmas Traditions What's Hot Coping with Unethical People How To Buy Land Real Estate Appraisal Before You Buy a Log Home Package Home Buying / Selling - GuideReviews Headlines Getting Ready to Sell Your House Guests and lots of activities make it difficult to show... Before You Buy Gas Logs Gas logs are growing in popularity every year, so manufacturers... Pros and Cons of Becoming a Real Estate Agent You've decided you want to become a real estate agent,... Step-by-Step Directions Help You Measure Square Footage Each year, home owners discover that their new home's square...

Texas Land Trusts About

Texas Land Trust Council: News Maincontent Local Navigation Supplemental Information print friendly search Regulations Publications Outdoor Learning Kids Game Warden Grants Get Involved Shop FAQ Calendar Español Experience Texas Fishing & Boating State Parks & Destinations Hunting & Wildlife Land & Water Doing Business Home Land & Water Land Private Tltc News Texas Land Trusts About Texas Land Trusts Starting a Land Trust Texas Land Trust Directory Foreword Listing Regional Index About the Texas Land Trust Council ( TLTC ) TLTC Board of Directors and Honorary Council News 2004 TLTC Conference Speech Bulletin Board TLTC Publications Land Trust Resources Texas Land Trusts Top 1-Million Mark in Acres Conserved What's this seal? 2004 Statewide Land Trust Conference What's a Lone Star Land Steward? Preserving Texas's Cultural Heritage Turning Brownfields Green Private Landowners Wildlife/Agricultural Tax Exemption The 2004 Statewide Land Trust Conference was held on Feb. 28-29 in Austin, Texas. This years' event was hosted by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, National Parks Service and the Texas Land Trust Council. A total of 176 attendees were made up of representatives from 24 land trusts, numerous state agencies, federal agencies, city and county agencies, as well as river authorities. Participants included appraisers, range managers, attorneys, landowners, realtors, and corporate representatives. Several new organizations were at the conference this year including the National Wild Turkey Federation. While Texans made up the majority of the crowd; TLTC was pleased to welcome folks from Washington D.C., South Carolina, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts. Saturday's morning plenary session sparked lots of interest. The panel of speakers discussed Ethics & Integrity in Land Conservation. Read the text of the speech from Ann Hamilton of the Houston Endowment from the Statewide Land Trust Conference. Event sponsors included Baker-Botts L.L.P., Locke Liddell & Sapp L.L.P. , Natural Texas, Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust, Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas Department of Agriculture, Jim Jeffries MAI, Magnolia Charitable Trust, Shield-Ayres Foundation, Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation, C.F. Zavala Group and Integra Realty Resources. Contact Us | Help | Accessibility | Media | Site Policies | Complaints | Intranet | State of Texas | TRAILS Search | TexasOnline | Compact with Texans Texas Parks and Wildlife Department , 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Toll Free: (800) 792-1112, Austin: (512) 389-4800 Content of this site © Texas Parks and Wildlife Department unless otherwise noted. Last modified: July 29, 2005, 4:38 pm

buy property to prevent

Neighbors Buying Property To Prevent The Establishment Of A Group Home The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Issue: Housing About News In court Take action Publications More resources Topics : Information sheets Advocacy resources on fair housing Jump to an issue: Advance Psych. Directives Children Civil Rights and the ADA Criminalization Education Elders with Mental Illnesses Housing Insurance Involuntary Commitment Managed Care Medicaid Medicare Rx Drug Benefit Mental Healthcare Privacy Restraint and Seclusion Supports in the Community - SSI - Temp. Assist. for Families Voting Fair Housing Information Sheet # 3 Neighbors Buying Property To Prevent The Establishment Of A Group Home Imagine the following scenario: A house in a residential neighborhood is for sale. A provider of residential services to persons with mental retardation believes that the house would be a great location for a group home for three women and submits a bid to purchase the house. Neighbors of the seller learn of the provider's interest in the home and meet to develop strategies for preventing the women from moving into the neighborhood. Eventually, the neighbors conclude that the only way to prevent the provider from purchasing the home is to submit a higher bid. The neighbors realize that none of them can afford to buy the home alone, so they pool their resources, give the money collected to one of the neighbors, and that person offers the seller $5,000 more for the home than does the provider. The seller sells the home to the neighbor acting on behalf of the group. Do the actions of the seller or of the neighbors who purchased the home violate the Fair Housing Act? The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicapof (A) that buyer or renter; (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(1). The FHA contains an exemption for single-family houses sold or rented by an owner, provided that the owner does not use the services of a real estate agent or broker, own more than three such single-family houses, and, if the owner is not a resident, has not completed more than one sale within a 24-month period. 42 U.S.C. 3603(b). Thus, assuming the listed conditions are met, it is likely that the owner cannot be found liable under the 3604(f)(1) of the FHA. But what of the neighbors, who banded together to buy the home in order to prevent persons with disabilities from living there? Courts that have faced this and similar scenarios have answered the question in different ways. In Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Babin , 18 F.3d 337, 344 (6 th Cir. 1994), the Sixth Circuit called action similar to that described above as "normal economic competition." The Babin court analyzed the liability of the neighbors who contributed extra funds to make the purchase possible under 3604(f)(1), specifically the "otherwise make unavailable" provision. The court explained that, in normal economic competition, every purchase of a unique commodity affects availability to others. Thus, the court concluded, finding the neighbors liable would cause the statute's reach to be overbroad, and it affirmed the summary judgment entered by the court below. A claim also was asserted against the seller and the neighbors pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3617, which makes illegal interfering with the exercise and enjoyment of the right to fair housing. The Sixth Circuit also rejected this argument, finding that the seller was motivated purely by economic considerations and that, while the purchase of the house disrupted the provider's negotiations, it did not prevent the provider from making an even higher bid on the property. Babin, then, stands for the proposition that actions related to the purchase of property — even when taken for the sole reason of preventing the use of that property by persons protected under the FHA — is "normal economic competition" and therefore is not a violation of the FHA. Not every court that has considered the issue since the Babin decision has agreed with that proposition, however. In United States v. Hughes , 849 F. Supp. 685 (D. Neb. 1994), the court denied a motion to dismiss and found the Babin decision "plainly wrong" in suggesting that there is an economic competition exception to the FHA. In Hughes , the court determined that a lender, who agreed to finance the purchase of property knowing that the intention of the buyer was to prevent the establishment of a group home, could be liable under 42 U.S.C. 3617. The court held that a bank violates the FHA by intentionally aiding buyers in keeping a home from other purchasers because those other purchasers are or are associated with persons with mental illness: [T]rue ' economic competition' does not exist when the purpose of the competition is to deny a protected person access to housing, as opposed to securing housing for oneself or for investment purposes. In fact, it is irrational to spend money for the purpose of prohibiting someone else from living next to you, if the reason you do not wish to live next to that person is because he or she has a handicap protected by the Act.-- Hughes at 686 (emphasis in original). A third opinion on this issue adopts the Hughes analysis. In Step-by-Step v. Lazarus , No. CV-97-1006 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 1997), the court, in denying a motion to dismiss, held that the FHA "does apply to a buyer who purchases a property with the intention of preventing the purchase by an entity planning to use the property as a Group Home for members protected by the Act." Id. , slip op. at 1. In reaching this conclusion, the court agreed with the Hughes reasoning and stated that normal economic considerations do not exist where the underlying intent of the purchaser is to discriminate. The court found support for this proposition in 24 C.F.R. 103.20(a), which allows the filing of a complaint against "any person" engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, and in 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(3), which makes it unlawful to engage in "any conduct" that denies or makes housing unavailable to persons with disabilities. As these cases demonstrate, determining the motives of a buyer, seller, or neighbors and whether such motives are legally relevant is a complex issue. On the one hand, Congress has clearly mandated an end to discrimination in housing, and a narrow interpretation of the FHA, such as in Babin , allows persons with discriminatory intent to prevent individuals with disabilities from moving into a community. On the other hand, examining the private motives to all the various parties to a real estate transaction may be both unwieldy and burdensome. Clearly, it is helpful to fair housing advocates that the reasoning in Babin — even though articulated by an appellate court — was not convincing to the next two courts to consider very similar situations. While it remains too soon to make any definitive pronouncements on the merits of the issues, it is apparent, given the holdings in Hughes and Step-by-Step , that the actions of neighbors who buy property to prevent the establishment of group homes remain subject to viable challenge under the FHA. This information sheet was produced under a contract with the Advocacy Training/Technical Assistance Center of the National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems For more information, contact Michael Allen, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1212 Washington, D.C. 20005-5002. Phone: 202/467-5730 ext. 117. E-mail: Michaela@bazelon.org . Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-467-5730 Fax: 202-223-0409 Email: webmaster@bazelon.org Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-467-5730 Fax: 202-223-0409 Email: webmaster@bazelon.org

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