I hate this market (Rockville Centre, Hauppauge: credit, home, buyer)

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by dman72

I've noticed that too..almost every house in other areas lists square footage. It's annoying. I'm sure it has something with trying to get around taxes or something.

We asked our buyer agent that, once. She said it's because realtors don't want to risk getting accused (or worse, sued) by buyers of "misleading" them about the square footage of the house, if later on it turns out that the house they said in their listing was 2500 square feet, turns out after purchase to actually be only 2000 square feet! IMHO that is the silliest excuse I have ever heard. If that were true, then the realtors in the states where the MLS requires square footage to be listed, would have been up in arms lobbying against it from the get-go. My SO said to her, then why not just find out what the sq footage is according to the home's records with the Town, and put "X square feet, as per Town" which would let the realtor off the hook. She had no answer to that.

I have my own theory: The realtors here don't want to list square footage (unless the house is so large that it's a selling point, and then they do mention it, you can be sure) because that would weed out too many potential buyers. Like us for instance. The selling realtors, by "not knowing" the square footage, can then tell the buyers "Let's see it and and find out" which gets the buyer inside the door, in hopes that they will like the house enough to not care as much about how big it is.

Until the MLS grows some you-know-whats and changes their requirements to include square footage (and they clearly won't do that without pressure from realtors who are MLS's bread-and-butter), this annoying state of affairs will never change.

[Kbinspections]

Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled

We asked our buyer agent that, once. She said it's because realtors don't want to risk getting accused (or worse, sued) by buyers of "misleading" them about the square footage of the house, if later on it turns out that the house they said in their listing was 2500 square feet, turns out after purchase to actually be only 2000 square feet! IMHO that is the silliest excuse I have ever heard. If that were true, then the realtors in the states where the MLS requires square footage to be listed, would have been up in arms lobbying against it from the get-go. My SO said to her, then why not just find out what the sq footage is according to the home's records with the Town, and put "X square feet, as per Town" which would let the realtor off the hook. She had no answer to that.

I have my own theory: The realtors here don't want to list square footage (unless the house is so large that it's a selling point, and then they do mention it, you can be sure) because that would weed out too many potential buyers. Like us for instance. The selling realtors, by "not knowing" the square footage, can then tell the buyers "Let's see it and and find out" which gets the buyer inside the door, in hopes that they will like the house enough to not care as much about how big it is.

Until the MLS grows some you-know-whats and changes their requirements to include square footage (and they clearly won't do that without pressure from realtors who are MLS's bread-and-butter), this annoying state of affairs will never change.

One of the issues about sq footage is how to calculate it properly, what is considered habitable space. How do you concider finished basements. There is no universal standard which has become an issue.

[max7418]

Originally Posted by lesscrappy

Yet another weekend of open houses turned out to be a total bust. It seems no matter what town I look at every house out there has some kind of major flaw and they don't want to come down in price no matter what. Everyone keeps telling me this is a buyers market but honestly it seems like nobodys market. All the inventory out there is terrible and anyone with a decent house would never put it on the market in this economic downfall. I've been looking in Rockville Centre and Wantagh and if the house isn't underneath the highways, its in the middle of a train track... I'm so sick of this long island market. This is my 2nd summer I'm looking for a house now and I have yet to find anything. Even the houses in the 800k-900k range are bad. Anyone else feeling my woes...

Lesscrappy,
I have read through your posts and to say that you can't find anything great in the $800-$900,000 range is crazy imo. Look at smithtown, hauppauge, northport, centerport, setauket, etc. you get the idea. I look at mls alot even though we just moved(always looking to trade up) and I can honestly say that I see at least 50 homes in those areas that are no higher than $900,000 that are just beautiful. Now beauty is subjective and maybe yours and my idea of it is a little off. If you are looking in garden city, manhasset, etc. you have a point about prices, but long island is a big place. I see so many deals on the higher end in so many areas than in that middle range of $450-$600,000 every time I look at mls.

[Transpl]

I agree the lack of Sq ft info is bizarre, I have not seen this anywhere else I have lived. Who advertises a house without stating the size, just strange.

OP I admire your fortitude hanging in for 2 years. I suspect your lack of success finding a home is more related to your uncompromising standards than the market. That is a long time to not find a suitable home.

[stan4]

Yeah, no buyer's market down here, either. We got excited when we heard prices were falling. Must be falling somewhere else.

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled

I have my own theory: The realtors here don't want to list square footage (unless the house is so large that it's a selling point, and then they do mention it, you can be sure) because that would weed out too many potential buyers. Like us for instance. The selling realtors, by "not knowing" the square footage, can then tell the buyers "Let's see it and and find out" which gets the buyer inside the door, in hopes that they will like the house enough to not care as much about how big it is.

I think you are reading too much into this. Real estate agents do not list square footage simply because there is no field in the MLS to do so. If it was there, agents would use it. Why not voice your opinion to LIBOR at 631-661-4800.

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

I think you are reading too much into this. Real estate agents do not list square footage simply because there is no field in the MLS to do so. If it was there, agents would use it.

Ah but it IS there! There are actually not one but TWO fields for it. Pull up any Stratus listing you wish. In the "center" column of data, the one where the field for "W/W carpet" appears at the top: the 18th field from the top is "Approx Int Sq Ft". And in addition to that, in the righthand column of data, the one where the top field is "School District", the 6th field from the top is "Building Size".

The fields for this information ARE there but most agents do NOT use it. And until the MLS requires them to use it, apparantly most will not. As a realtor, do you use either of these fields? If not, why not?

Even if there were no fields in which to enter it (which however there clearly are), why would a realtor not enter the square footage information into the listing description? Why not enter something that is such a useful piece of information to a potential buyer?

[Jrprofess]

Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled

A big problem with the MLS is that it gives a buyer NO CLUE has to how big the house is. I'm sure there are lots of renovated older 4-br houses for under 400K but even leaving aside the economic characteristics of the areas, how big are those houses? And more importantly, how big are the lot sizes? There are tons of houses in Northport Village but most of them are on LESS than 1/4 acre. Check out the MLS site and see how many are on .15 or .18 acre. For many people that is waaay too small. For many people, even 1/4 acre is too small (it sure is for us). So often in that under 400K price range the house is small, the property is small, or often both. The MLS will tell you the property size but hardly ever the house size. I can't tell you how many times we were told, after saying "Sorry, it's too small for us", that "we could always add to it". HELLOOOO??! We don't want the hassle and EXPENSE of adding on, which is why we have a MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE requirement.

House shopping via the Internet would be a heck of a lot easier if the Long Island MLS would wake up, bring itself into the modern world, and REQUIRE the square footage of the house to be included in the listing. Like OTHER states do!

If you are solely looking for lots that are well in excess of a typical .2 or .25 acre then I think you will continue to confront struggles with homes on these larger zoned lots, which are far more infrequent to find, missing your expectations versus the cost. A .5 acre lot in a "desired" section will probably trump the falling market a bit, particularly as you move closer to the city. Simply because they are far more sparse than the standard LI lot. I am on the north shore suffolk (smithtown area) and am a bit surprised you are finding fixer-uppers in that price range.

[totallyfrazzled]

Originally Posted by Jrprofess

I am on the north shore suffolk (smithtown area) and am a bit surprised you are finding fixer-uppers in that price range.

The OP was looking for houses in Wantagh and Rockville Centre which sounds like he wants to be in closer commuting distance to NYC than Suffolk would be. It also means that lots are going to be in the 1/4 acre range although I think RVC has some larger ones. I *am* surprised to hear that the 800K range is turning up so much garbage UNLESS he's looking at the waterfront sections like Mandalay (in Wantagh) and others, or the more elegant older parts of RVC.

I didn't mean to suggest that the 400K range in Northport is necesssarily a fixer-upper, only that for that price it's likely to be on a less than 1/4 acre lot and that can be a deal-killer for many people, especially if they want to eventually put in a swimming pool.

And of course "fixer-upper" is SO subjective a term. One buyer's Fixer-upper is another buyer's Acceptable and another buyer's Utter-teardown. I know people who consider any house without central air, windows that are more than 15 years old, and original siding from the 60s or 70s as definitely a fixer-upper.

[KarenBo]

I'm not having much success in this market either, although I'm nowhere near your budget. I've been seeing something else the last month that is odd to me.

The weirdest thing I've been encountering lately is price ranges instead of simple asking price. I've seen about 6 houses lately that had a range of 30K to 60K difference in price (ex. A house listed for 339K to 398K) I don't understand it. I even made an offer on two such houses (in the middle of the range) only to be told that the seller really wants the top of the range. Well, then why mislead your potential buyers?

If you want $X why would even put a number 60K below that anywhere in your listing? The agent said, "to increase interest" but its not real interest. People who are looking for a 400K house aren't going to be able to pay 469K just because you got them in the door?

It just confounds me.