Affordability of housing in Lawrence debated / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, July 9, 2007

As executive director of Lawrence Tenants to Homeowners, Rebecca Buford has overseen construction of 11 homes that are sold at below-market prices and launched the Lawrence Land Trust program. Her primary goal is to provide more affordable housing in Lawrence.

By Chad Lawhorn

July 9, 2007

Rebecca Buford, executive director of Tenants to Homeowners

Hear Rebecca Buford, executive director of Tenants to Homeowners, explain why she thinks it is in the community's interest to encourage home ownership.

It sure seems like a deal: A brand new, three-bedroom, two-bath home with a two-car garage and a daylight basement for $124,000.

Tenants to Homeowners will conduct a new homebuyers workshop from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Saturday at the United Way Center, 2518 Ridge Court.

The workshop will explain guidelines people must meet to qualify to be part of the Tenants to Homeowners program, which provides new housing at below-market prices.

There's no fee for the workshop, and pre-registration is not required.

Yes, it is in Lawrence, where such a home usually appraises for at least $180,000.

Yet, in a city where politicians frequently declare the need for more affordable housing, the home at 302 Ala. has been on the market for more than three months now.

It has been a bit baffling to Rebecca Buford, executive director of Tenants To Homeowners. The Lawrence-based organization, which works to build affordable housing for low- to moderate-income people, constructed the home.

"Usually we have waiting lists for our homes," Buford said. "Usually they aren't really on the market at all."

But this home and another home on Atherton Court have both been on the market for multiple months, something that has not happened to Tenants to Homeowners in the nearly 12 years it has been in existence.

Affordability at issue

It all begs the question of whether Lawrence's lack of affordable housing isn't nearly as severe as once thought. Buford said she's concerned that may be the conclusion some people incorrectly will draw.

"I know the needs are still out there," Buford said. "I don't want anyone saying we don't need to be building affordable housing. That would be very erroneous."

Others in the real estate community, though, said they thought the slowdown could be a sign that the affordable housing issue isn't as great as previously believed. Pat Flavin, president and managing broker of Lawrence Realty, said he's convinced that buying a home in Lawrence isn't as hard as it used to be.

He said lenders have loosened income requirements. A slowdown in the housing market also has allowed a number of people who previously had no option but to turn to organizations like Tenants to Homeowners to buy houses on the open market.

"I think, by and large, there has been affordable housing available for most people," Flavin said. "I don't think we ought to just forfeit the idea of pursuing (affordable housing programs). I think it is something you have to go forward with reasonably, but I don't see this huge disparity that others might see. I don't see that we have a giant void in affordability."

Workplace housing

How big the affordable housing issue is in Lawrence is an open question, City Commissioner Boog Highberger said.

"It has been tough for us to put together an overall strategy at the city level because there are different perceptions on how severe the problem is," Highberger said.

For example, Highberger - who chairs the city's Housing Needs Task Force - earlier this year sought to build support for a slight increase in the mortgage registration tax. He said the new revenues - $200,000 to $500,000 per year - could be used to fund affordable housing programs. But the idea never received much debate at City Hall.

"I'm really kind of frustrated with that," Highberger said.

Progress on a recommendation to add incentives to the city's zoning code to encourage affordable housing also has been slow.

But Highberger said he's still convinced the city has a housing affordability issue - he believes many people who work in Lawrence live elsewhere because of concerns about this community's housing prices.

Misconceptions

A working family is exactly the type of buyer Tenants to Homeowners built the 302 Ala. home for, Buford said. But she said she thinks many people in Lawrence's working class do not realize they can qualify for a Tenants to Homeowners house.

"I think a lot of people think our programs are really for only the very low-income," Buford said. "That's not the case at all. I want people to realize that Tenants to Homeowners serves the working class."

The program isn't open to everyone, though. A family must have a household income that is less than 80 percent of the median household income in Lawrence, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

For a family of two, that means an income of $41,400 or less. For a family of four, though, it rises to $51,750. Buford said she's not sure enough people know that the income guidelines are that high.

In addition to the income guidelines, participants in the Tenants to Homeowners program also must agree to some restrictions on how they sell their home. A home purchased through the Tenants to Homeowners program can't be sold for more than 25 percent of its increase in appraised value.

For example, if a $100,000 home grew in value to $150,000, the home could not be sold for more than $112,500. The home also must be sold to someone who meets the low- to moderate-income guideline.

Buford said she didn't think those restrictions on future sales had scared people away from buying homes from Tenants to Homeowners.

Looking ahead

The slowdown comes at a pivotal time for Tenants to Homeowners. The nonprofit organization already has begun work on the largest project in its history - construction of 10 homes in East Lawrence near Bullene Avenue and La Salle Street.

Buford said the organization was moving ahead with the project because the homes will be smaller and less expensive than the $124,000 unsold house on Alabama Street, which is the largest home Tenants has ever built. The East Lawrence homes are expected to be priced at $90,000 to $110,000.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 July 2007
at 12:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

I'm sure this place being in a cruddy area has nothing to do with it.
9 July 2007
at 2:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

'Bout that. I don't know about that block in particular, but some of those streets are virtually unmanageable to drive or maneuver through, being warped brick and extremely narrow.

Really, it's just something of a mistake to draw conclusions off of two houses sitting without buyers for three months. There were a couple duplexes in our area that sat on the market for months, where usually they lasted a few weeks at most (when we bought ours, at least), and the thing they had in common was being represented by the most incompetent real-estate agent that I hope to ever have to deal with. (Our bid on one fell through, due to his incompetence). Personally, I find my housing to be highly affordable, but I don't suggest taking my single example to prove the other side, either.
9 July 2007
at 6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kookamooka (Anonymous) says…

With so many “townhomes” and multi-family housing options in Lawrence, in decent neighborhoods, I just wonder if families are deciding to pay rent so their kids can go to West Lawrence schools and walk down sidewalks without fear of the local pit bull attacking them.
9 July 2007
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Raider (Anonymous) says…

$124k is not that affordable to a lot of families. A family of two, making $41k / yr (combined) would have to really stretch to buy a $124k home. The mortgage on the place would be about $1200 / month and when your monthly income is only $3400 (before taxes) that's quite a chunk of change. It amazes me at what the leaders in this city thinks “affordable”housing is.
9 July 2007
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverat (Joe Hyde) says…

Thank you, Raider. How true, how true.
9 July 2007
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

markrcreamer (Anonymous) says…

I quote from the article:

“For example, if a $100,000 home grew in value to $150,000, the home could not be sold for more than $112,500. The home also must be sold to someone who meets the low- to moderate-income guideline.
Buford said she didn't think those restrictions on future sales had scared people away from buying homes from Tenants to Homeowners.”

This restriction would create more affordable housing stock, but who in there right mind would agree to the terms. Isn't the whole idea to get into a home so that your investment is growing with inflation. Leaving $37,500 on the table for the next low-income owner is a bad investment for an individual.
9 July 2007
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

A lot of my friends and acquaintances who can't buy a home have poor credit. They pay more in rent than a house payment would be, but they don't save any money, have no budget, and have a trail of poor credit making lenders reluctant to lend to them. Others are single and seem to have a harder time getting a loan. Lower cost housing helps, I'm all for it, but some people have other issues preventing them from purchasing a home.

9 July 2007
at 8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

Raider you are right on. How anyone can think that $124,000 is affordable to the working class is completely beyond me. There is no way folks at the $40-50K income level can afford that. No way. Next the city leaders and realtors will be saying, “Let them eat cake,” becuase that's how truly oblivous they are.
9 July 2007
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

funkdog1 (Anonymous) says…

I used to live in that neighborhood. It's great. People are nice and there's a good mix of race, income, etc. I'd live there again in a heartbeat.
9 July 2007
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Raider; Azure: Are working class incomes really topping out at 9.00 an hour? That seems really low to me.
9 July 2007
at 9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Raider (Anonymous) says…

Bowhunter, you're right in some circumstances, but not all. I purchased my home last spring. It's a 900sq ft, 50 yr old ranch on the east side. I was damn lucky to get it for $110k. So it's not a matter of “the house I want, at an affordable price”. It's a matter of the real estate industry (agents, builders etc) inflating the prices of homes so much that people can't afford to buy a home in Lawrence. A house comparable to mine in a decent neighborhood in KC costs about $75-80k. The real estate agents and builders in Lawrence have been allowed to run unchecked for so long that they're priced everyone out of the market.
9 July 2007
at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

“He said lenders have loosened income requirements”

What? That's why people have gotten in trouble the last 5 years because of that. When I went to school, they said buy a house around 2X-3X times your yearly household income. Banks where giving loans for 5X-6X income.
9 July 2007
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kujeeper (Anonymous) says…

If you can't afford to live somewhere, move to where you can. It is not a right to be able to afford a house, it's a privilege.
9 July 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

$124k is not that affordable to a lot of families.
==========
Then they shouldn't be looking for a home in Lawrence; Topeka maybe a better option for them.

I can't afford a $450,000 home which is why I'm not looking to buy in Leawood. Do I complain about house prices in Leawood? Nope. I just know that my paycheck tells me that I can't afford to live there. It makes no sense to have champagne taste on a beer budget.
9 July 2007
at 9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Buford said, ” I want people to realize that Tenants to Homeowners serves the working class.”

Just who does she think “the working class” is? Does this imply that people who make more than $40K do not work? It is sad to see the government-think that bureaucrats use to divide the citizens into classes based on income. How archaic, and unproductive.

9 July 2007
at 10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

The notion that a 30-40K AGI is enough income to buy in Lawrence is a bunch of crap. Health insurance, car insurance, food, gas - should all these become luxeries just to have a roof over your head?

My 100K note is over $1000 payment each month and the people that work under me can't afford that anymore then they can afford a 124K home. Mortgage insurance, property taxes and homeowners insurance all together, a 124K payment is going to be $1200 when it's all said and done. Sure they could live somewhere where the housing is cheaper, but are they going to be able to find a job in the outlying communities? I've got people communiting from Ottawa and the like saying they are going to have to resign if gas goes up anymore because it deosn't make it worthwhile making only a few bucks an hour after gas an daycare they might as well be a one income family. I wonder how these single parent families make it, honestly.

You nouveau riches are in la-la land. You think you know what's best for everyone telling them how they are erring, all the mistakes they made so that everything in their life is their fault all with your noses high, highk, high in the air. Yup, let them eat cake.

You make me sick.
9 July 2007
at 10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ihatelv (Anonymous) says…

Azure, if you're paying $1000 a month for a 100k note, then you either got royaly screwed, or your credit is horrible…..
9 July 2007
at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dulcinea47 (Anonymous) says…

Antisecularman said: “The notion that 30-40,000 isn't enough is a bunch of crap.”

You're flat wrong.
My salary is in the low-middle of that range and there is no way on earth I could make a $1000 mortgage payment. That's a tad over half my take-home pay. Add utilities to that and you've left me a couple hundred dollars a month for food, clothing, household goods, medical care, gas, and other necessities. Nothing for savings and god forbid something should break on the house or car. Not to mention life is a bit grim with zero in the budget for any sort of pleasure or luxury.
9 July 2007
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

No, I'm not getting screwed. 5.75% fixed, I'm pretty sure. I do need to get an appraisal so I can get the mortgage insurance dropped from my note since we have enough equity to qualify. That's $75 or $85 each month, $70 for home owners insurance. It's the property taxes that jack the payment up so much, reallly.
9 July 2007
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

Sure they could live somewhere where the housing is cheaper, but are they going to be able to find a job in the outlying communities?
===========
That's up to them. In KC and Topeka, housing is cheaper and there are more jobs available.

Any questions?

(crickets chirping)

I didn't think so. 'Nuff said.
9 July 2007
at 10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

aquakej (Anonymous) says…

sure, housing is dirt cheap in Topeka, but I would never move there. Topeka sucks the life out of you.
9 July 2007
at 10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

I would love to move back to Lawrence, but I refuse to pay $200,000 for a fixer-upper, regardless of the neighborhood.

Even at $124K, it's not affordable for the people who qualify for the loan.

The housing market there is ridiculous.
9 July 2007
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

Let me clarify,
$124K is not affordable for people who qualify for a home loan up to $124K.

Thank you.

9 July 2007
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

aquakej-
I live North of Topeka in a new development, and believe it or not, I actually kind of like it.

And I bought a brand new 1800 sq. ft. house with a full walkout basement in a brand new neighborhood for $142K.

Seaman is a very good school district, so I'm not unhappy to live here.
9 July 2007
at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…

To buy a home 3x my annual salary I'd have to find one for about $70,000. If I wanted to buy a home for $124,000 I would have to get a loan for 5.5x my annual salary. BUT and that's a big one - that does not include my deductions from my paycheck, utils, food, household items, gas, and medical cost. I'd literally have nothing left over for food, forget savings and I'd have to walk to work (which is not feasible for me). Nope there is no way in creation I'd be able to borrow a house from the bank (you see you never really own it). Not in this town, not anywhere. So I'm stuck with rentals and dealing with landlords who don't want to spend the money to improve the property.
Most of the people I work with (about 70) live in Topeka, a couple in KC and only 5 (including myself in Lawrence. They will not relocate because they say the cost of housing in Lawrence and property taxes are way too high.
9 July 2007
at 12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Once upon a time, Topeka municipal employees had to live in Topeka. Don't know if it is still that way or not. It used to be that way in Kansas City, Kansas, too. The City of Lawrence and the school district need to consider adding that requirement so we quit sending so many of our tax dollars out of town.
9 July 2007
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

Unified gov't employees still have to live in Wyandotte county.
9 July 2007
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to buy a house here. There are much better deals elsewhere, and much better cities.
9 July 2007
at 12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

$112k, 100% 30 year, taxes, insurance, etc, $957. Interest is up over 7 now on 100% notes.
9 July 2007
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Oh, and antisecularman? Just P&I on $125k at 6.5% is $790.09.
9 July 2007
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

Antisocialjerk, with a moniker like yours I am sure you like to think and express yourself as Christian. That would be in name only as your comments are pretty anti-christian. WWJD? I am sure his attitude would be far more charitable that yours. You express little concern and certainly no love for your fellow man. You should be ashamed of yourself.

9 July 2007
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

West_Sider (Anonymous) says…

I certainly don't consider Lawrence an inexpensive place to live. The housing market prices here are somewhat being driven by the factors I have identified below. My spouse and I make what I would consider great money but opt to live in Lawrence becuause of the commute factor. We live in a nice house but we could have an awesome house if we lived in either Topeka or Kansas City. We are not willing to make this sacrifice because one person would get stuck with a hell of a communte. Everyone needs to just accept that Lawrence is a bedroom community to Topeka and KC. The reason that most of my neighbors and myself live here is that:

A. ) Corporate jobs with good pay cannot be found in this town. I certainly don't see this changing anytime soon.
B.) We like the education system in Lawrence better than the one in the town that our job is in (This mainly applies to Topeka)
C.) One or both spouses work in Topeka or KC.
D.) The commute from the “nice” side of Topeka would be roughly the same as the commute from the West side of Lawrence (Payless Shoesource).

If you live and work in Lawrence and don't own your own business or your not a member of the KU Athletics racket you AND you are wanting a nice house, I would suggest dusting off your resume and heading for KC or Topeka.
9 July 2007
at 1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

There are much better deals elsewhere, and much better cities.
==========
Cite examples please.
9 July 2007
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

quietgirl (Anonymous) says…

antisecularman - you are very condescending. Just because someone does not make over $40,00 does not mean they are stupid or don't know how to handle money. I am single and live by myself. There is no way on a one-person salary that I could afford $124K for a home. People who spew junk out of their heads (like you) without knowing the full picture make me want to puke.
9 July 2007
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

^^this is a good point^^^
9 July 2007
at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Owning a home isn't for everyone. The reason we only have approximately 70% home ownership in this country (and shouldn't have much higher) is that not everyone is suitable financially to own their home. With property taxes, property insurance and other miscellaneous expenses, it is extremely expensive to own your own home, whether you paid $100,000 for it or $500,000. That is why there needs to be an adequate and affordable supply of rental housing.

If you want to own a home, you should be living in a moderately-priced rental to allow you to get your credit in order and save up enough cash for at least a 5% down payment. If a home is still not within your present financial means, you should consider getting some more education or workforce training so you can afford a home where you choose to live. Owning a home is not a right, it is a privilege. Unfortunately, like all other privileges, it is not meant for everyone.
9 July 2007
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

Eh, people live the lives they choose to lead, then like to blame it on “the man” when they can't afford what they want.
9 July 2007
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dulcinea47 (Anonymous) says…

antisecularman said: “If earning 35 to 45,000 isn't enough then get a second job. Get off the internet and get to work.”

I don't recall saying that I was desperate to buy a home here or asking for your advice. I simply stated, from experience, that your idea that $30-$40K a year is enough to buy a house is incorrect.
9 July 2007
at 2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

horsegirl (Anonymous) says…

I grew up in Topeka and I wouldn't move back there if I had a gun held to my head. Sure I could buy a nicer house for less money, however, I would have to live in a backward, segregated community, with a higher crime rate and a lot of people with bad hair styles! OMG, I still see people with rat tails and mullets!!!! lol!!!

Seriously. I moved here to go to college and stayed because of the wonderful diverse, cultural community. My first house was in an old neighborhood by campus and was a real fixer-upper. Took 12 years to get it all done, but I doubled my investment.

Sometimes people expect too much for a starter home.

9 July 2007
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

niles (Anonymous) says…

____________________
Realtors are to blame.
____________________

Two major factors contribute to high Lawrence home prices. The first is natural market supply and demand forces. Nothing short of government intervention can (nor should) be done to modify this as free market economies are optimally efficient.

The second cause is one that we can all help to change. The market forces previously mentioned has attracted a veritable plague of realtors to the Lawrence area. There are probably around 250 realtors whose average salary is probably somewhere between 25 and 50k/year. So lets do the math: 250 realtors * 30,000$/year = 7.5 million dollars just to support all of the realtors per year! One could easily add another 2.5 million to support the brokers, advertising, and inefficient use of land for the numerous realestate buildings around town. That equates to 100$/year per woman, man, and child in Lawrence.

Realtors are a lot like travel agents. the value of both can be delivered at a small fraction of the cost via economies of scale delivered by the Internet (vs the old days when proximity mattered). This is so obvious and indisputable that one is left to suspicion what kind of shady lobbying the real estate industry is using to maintain it's lucrative position as the 6% middlemen.

Until some internet company like Google liberates homeowners from the onerous burden of supporting these inefficiencies, homeowners can either demand that realtors work for a fair value of 1/3 to 1/2 of their current commision rate (does 4,000$ really seem that unreasonable of a 'tax' on a 200,000$ home?), or to use FSBO (for sale by owner) sites such as http://lawrencefsbo.com and do it themselves. Since it takes no more than 10 hours of homework and a meager portion of self confidence to learn what is necessary to independently transact a home exchange, the payoff is somewhere along the lines of 400$/hour on average per home owner/buyer.

There are 3 things you can be sure of: death, taxes, and your realtor prioritizing her interests over yours.
9 July 2007
at 2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

niles (Anonymous) says…

PS. I want to be clear that I don't have anything against realtors. I just think that they should not be exempt from contributing legitimate value to society like everyone else who expects a paycheck.
9 July 2007
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I am not sure how you can blame developers, builders, and realtors for the price of new homes. Home prices aren't arbitrarily set by these folks, at least not in this market. Home values are declining in Lawrence just in case you missed it. Used homes, which new homes have to compete with on housing, it is the seller that sets that price and a buyer who is willing to pay that price.

Average home prices nationwide are quite a bit higher than in Lawrence although so is average family income. Home prices are high relative to income in Lawrence, for sure. But that is hardly the fault of the developers, builders, and realtors.
http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/…
9 July 2007
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

Topeka gets a bad rap. Sure, some parts of Topeka are bad, so just don't go there. You don't hang out at Edgewood or the Crosstown at night eather here.
9 July 2007
at 2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Niles —

You don't have to use a real estate agent to sell your home. If you don't feel like you need to make use of their particular services, it is perfectly legal (many people do) to sell or buy a home on the market without representation. If you choose not to engage a real estate agent to sell your home, research shows that your house will be on the market much longer and it will sell for considerably less. Just like any other service, you are not mandated to make use of a real estate agent. If you don't see the value in their representation, don't use one.

I personally have received nothing but value from my use of a real estate agent and now consider my agent to be one of my best friends. Thus, when I buy or sell my next home, I will be exercising my freedom of choice to use a real estate agent. What do you do for a living which adds such “value” to the world???
9 July 2007
at 3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Two alternative and viable conclusions can also be drawn from this: First, people are generally tired of Lawrence and its hyper-regulations and just simply want out of the city. Thus, the demand for residential housing has diminished as a result of over-regulation, frivolous lawsuits, hyper-taxation, irrational government spending, and gross incompetence relating to city infrastructure. Second, the average household income of people wanting to live in Lawrence doesn't support a home in the $130,000 price range.
9 July 2007
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

niles (Anonymous) says…

shiker - thanks for sharing the novel insight regarding regarding my freedom of choice. I regret that you must pay so dearly for friends. I create value by preventing material impact to a bluechip company which is likely in your retirement portfolio.

Lets have some fun - why don't you actually present a cogent argument against my assertions?
9 July 2007
at 3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

formerlyKS (Anonymous) says…

Evidently Lawrence is losing its luster.

US Census estimates show Topeka is gaining more population than Lawrence, so the thinking that Lawrence is so superior to Topeka is so 1995. Topeka is consistently gaining in sales tax collections (Lawrence is losing), and people are getting fed up with higher commuting costs and, more importantly, the toll it takes being away from their communities and/or families.

As I'm on “vacation” from California and visiting relatives in Topeka, I'm astonished how well housing is selling there—in areas much nicer than any Lawrence has: Lake Sherwood, for example. And, interestingly, at many of these newly-sold homes, I'm seeing out-of-state license plates (such as California). People are realizing the value of living in the midwest compared to other places. Lawrence is cheap—Topeka is a downright bargain.

Personally, I think the ugliest, nastiest cities I've been to are KCK, Fresno, and Wichita (in that order).

9 July 2007
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

formerlyKS (Anonymous) says…

Horesegirl,

Lawrence is diverse compared to Topeka? Last I remember, all I saw were a bunch of white, snotty, upper class kids from Chicago. How exactly is that diverse? BTW, congratulations…your life long accomplishment took you a whopping 20 miles east of Topeka. It must feel good. And, you probably still work there, too!
9 July 2007
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Now that's funny, formerlyKS!!! It's also true.
9 July 2007
at 3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Niles —

This is an easy one, even a closet Einstein like yourself should be able to figure this one out. I will spell it out nice and slowly for you. If you do not want to use a real estate agent to buy or sell a home, you are not required by law to use their services. You are perfectly capable of buying or selling a home on your own without the assistance of a real estate agent. However, should you choose to sell your own home without the assistance of a real estate agent:

“In 2006, just 12 percent of sellers chose the FSBO (“For Sale By Owner”) route, down from 13 percent the previous year, according to NAR's 2006 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers. This is down from about 20 percent in 1987. But more telling than the decline in FSBOs is the fact that 40 percent of all FSBOs sold their homes to someone they knew prior to the transaction. This means that only 7 percent of all home sales are open market FSBO transactions. The rest are simply unrepresented sellers in private transactions.”

“Homes sold with the help of a real estate professional in 2006 sold on average for 32 percent more than FSBO sales. The median FSBO selling price in 2006 was $187,200, compared with $247,000 for agent-assisted transactions.”

What alleged blue-chip corporation do you work for? If it is in my portfolio, I want to drop it. I'm sure a first-class gentleman like yourself is a high-quality employee.
9 July 2007
at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

niles (Anonymous) says…

care to give your sources the due credit they deserve? :) go to college - its worth the money.
9 July 2007
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Niles —

I guess I'm not as “intelligent” as your oh so distinguished self, but I'm assuming that when a quotation says “according to NAR's 2006 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers” this would probably mean that this information came from … drum roll please … NAR's 2006 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers.

Look it up on Google. You do have access to the wonderful and amazing World Wide where you work? Or does your blue-chip company not provide computers with access to such complicated research mechanisms as Google?

College was worth the money … so was law school, even though it was the most miserable three years of my life.
9 July 2007
at 5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

horsegirl (Anonymous) says…

FormerlyKS,
Yes Diverse. My kids' best friends are mixed race, Dominican and Asian. I went to Highland Park in Topeka, so don't even try to talk diversity with me. Topeka is so segregated, it is sick. Did Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education actually do anything to help Topeka? Maybe back in the 60s! Otherwise, all the whites want to stay in West Topeka, the blacks in East Topeka, and the Mexicans mostly in Oakland. Or maybe more appropriately, the the whites want to stay away from the other areas. Sure, West Topeka is really nice, but I don't want to live in West Topeka. Actually, I really like Washburn Rural. It looks like a really nice school with so many nice physcial features, just of the school grounds themselves. But do I want my kids to not experience diversity? No. As for the 501 school system, it sucks. I was a product of that system and I actually did great, but so many of my fellow classmates failed miserably. That is why I choose to send my kids to a grade school which has wide ethnic group and socioeconomic levels, in fact, it is considered a “low-income” school. I'm very happy with the diversity and I'm very happy with my kids' education.

As for my lifelong accomplishments, you don't know me. So don't try to pretend you know what they are or why I chose to do what I did. I'm really amazed how people use this forum as a way to be confrontational with others. People can put on such a brave-front when all they have to look at is a computer screen…
9 July 2007
at 5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackson (Anonymous) says…

Central Lawrence has aproximately 4,000 overpriced Single Family Neighborhood Zoned “starter” homes because over 50% are used for the 'business' of rental to un-related renters (students).

This unfair situation (caused by poor zoning) automatically increases their value by 50% (more than they are worth to a family). Rental housing in SF zoned neighborhoods has eliminated “affordable” housing, closed several elementary schools, and doomed the central city for quality family living.

Inflated values translate into “inflated taxes” for all central city housing. Lawrence is NOT neighborhood friendly, because it “caters” to the business of supplying rental property for students, thus relieving KU of it's student housing responsibility.
9 July 2007
at 6:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

kshiker said “: so was law school, even though it was the most miserable three years of my life.”

Oh my God, you were once more miserable than you are now? Ouch!

9 July 2007
at 7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

coneflower (Anonymous) says…

kshiker (Anonymous) says:
“If you choose not to engage a real estate agent to sell your home, research shows that your house will be on the market much longer and it will sell for considerably less.”

Research may show that, but my experience is different.

I sold one home for the appraisal price; it was never officially on the market. I had bought this half of a duplex directly from the owner; I had once rented it.

I sold another for 23% more than the highest price of three realtors who gave me market estimates. I had two offers for full price on the table - both for cash (both buyers from California) - on day #6. I knew my neighborhood better than the realtors, having lived there and watched the market for a few years. And I marketed it myself, in the newspaper and on the internet. I had bought this same home directly from the owner who had it on the market a week. Yes, it was something special.

I bought my house in Lawrence from the owners. It had been on the market about a month. They didn't clean up and I didn't steal it, but each of us got a better deal than if the realtor had gotten their $20k. I paid my lawyer $160 to read the contract and the seller had a lawyer read the contract, too.

I'm not sure I'll ever need to use a realtor again. I'm sure they're valuable and I know they earn their money; I just haven't had great service from them. I haven't tried to buy without realtors, it has just worked out that way.
9 July 2007
at 7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

kshiker says
What do you do for a living which adds such “value” to the world???

that

The correct grammar in that sentence is “…that adds such value….”
9 July 2007
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

kshiker said to someone,
“What alleged blue-chip corporation do you work for? If it is in my portfolio, I want to drop it.”

I sure hope you are not my lawyer, because if you are, I'd like to drop you. You are a very mean person.
9 July 2007
at 7:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Uh…when they talk about $30-40k incomes, are they talking about what people actually earn, or what they actually take home?

There's no way in hell I could afford a $124k house…even if I had excellent credit. There are a whole lot of people who couldn't.
9 July 2007
at 8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lifelong_Lawrencian (Anonymous) says…

What a bunch of whiners! If you think your home is overvalued, protest it with the county appraisers office. http://www.douglas-county.com/apprais…

Your assessed value is supposed to be within 10% of it's value. If you can show within reason that it is more than 10% overvalued, they will reduce it.
9 July 2007
at 8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Yabut (Anonymous) says…

Since when does “affordable housing” equal home ownership????? Let's call it what it really is : “affordable home ownership”. I think part of the problem is generational. Some of those who are in the first time home buyer category and have grown up in middle class homes and expect to get out, get a job, and get the same level of house their parents had immediately. In a lot of cases, what they don't realize is that Mom and Dad had to work to get where they were, started small and worked their way up. Can't afford a 3 bed, 2 bath home? Why not start with a townhome or duplex? Can't afford that? Why not start with a condo?

On the other hand, Lawrence is really expensive. I just did a search on www.realtor.com for the same exact features of my outside of Lawrence home (and I'm not talking anything fancy, same # of beds and baths, plus a basement, fireplace and central ac) and the cheapest I could find was $337,900. That's slightly more than double what I paid for my current home. Removing the basement and fp is still 55% more than my current home. Appraisals are through the roof. When I sold my Lawrence home, it increased 44% in value over the 6 years I owned it. Shoulda kept it for another 7 years to see it double….
9 July 2007
at 9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

Most people could take on a second part-time job and get far enough ahead to buy a house. It would be hard with children, but if you're childless or even single you can do it.
9 July 2007
at 10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

He has a point, however. If you learn to live slightly below your means, you'll get ahead. It may mean giving up a few luxuries but it's worth it.

Most Americans live on credit. Other than a mortgage, people should not use credit. You never get ahead, the banks get it all.

9 July 2007
at 10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

perkins (Anonymous) says…

Nobody has yet mentioned purchasing/selling a home under “contract for deed.” Cap Fed has a robust escrow department and Topeka has a well-known escrow service that facilitates home ownership in northeast Kansas. The premise is that some homeowners looking to sell would prefer to get their money over time, say fifteen years, at an interest rate several % points above the CD rate. Not for everyone, but sure helped me and thousands of others achieve home ownership. The local title companies or real estate agents should be able to help if you desire more info.
9 July 2007
at 10:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Stain (on Humanity's Bedsheet) —

Your comments are insightful and relevant as always. You truly are a blessing to humanity. I'm in awe of your incredible contributions to this comment board.
9 July 2007
at 10:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

I would agree with Yabut. Affordable housing does not mean affordable home ownership. Not everyone should own their own home. For those with incomes and credit scores who are suitable for mortgage lending, there are opportunities to own homes in Lawrence and Douglas County. For those who need time to repair their credit or increase their income, then the private market will supply affordable rental housing if there is a demonstrated need for such.

If you are living anywhere in Lawrence, especially on the west side, then you are paying a premium for your home above and beyond what you would pay in Topeka or other places. Because of the proximity to beloved KU and the convenient location almost exactly halfway between Kansas City and Topeka, Lawrence is a very nice place to live if you are a commuter, which I expect includes many people in both east and west Lawrence. There is a reason that all 3 lanes heading towards Topeka and K-10 towards Kansas City are crowded every morning, everyone who can buy afford to buy a home here has to work in Topeka or Kansas City. There are no decent-paying jobs in Lawrence for college graduates with advanced degrees. Believe me, I would love to find a job with a similar salary in Lawrence. It wouldn't kill me to not have to spend over an hour a day on the highway.
9 July 2007
at 11:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

“Most people could take on a second part-time job and get far enough ahead to buy a house. It would be hard with children, but if you're childless or even single you can do it.”

For what purpose? If you have to work that many hours, you'd never be able to be home to enjoy it anyway.
10 July 2007
at 12:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

crazyks:
Uh, to get together a down payment to buy a home? Duh! No wonder you don't own one. Everybody has to start somewhere. If you aren't willing to work more than 40 hours a week for awhile to get ahead, you don't get my sympathy. We all had to, at some point. I often still do.
10 July 2007
at 2:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Work is not the end-all and be-all of existence, blackwalnut. There are things I would rather do without than work my life away. If you think differently, I feel sorry for you.

And I suspect you are young. Those jobs, part-time or not, don't come nearly as easily to older people.

I guess it really bothers a lot of you that there really are people who work their damn butts off and still can't afford some things.
10 July 2007
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dulcinea47 (Anonymous) says…

Shower twice a week, are you f'ing kidding me?? I don't think I”m going to get a better job if I stink.
10 July 2007
at 11:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

crazyks (Anonymous) says:
Work is not the end-all and be-all of existence, blackwalnut.

I've always been willing to work harder temporarily to meet a goal. It's how I worked my way through college, bought my first car, bought my first house. It doesn't seem like a big deal. Some work is more enjoyable than other work. Maybe you hate all work.

You accuse me of being young; I'm not. I remember the day Kennedy got shot, if that gives my age away.