If you had $300,000 to invest in the NOVA real estate market... (Arlington: rental homes, condo)

[Carlingtonian]

SFH in N. Arl, on cul-de-sac, listed at $240K; catch is that I-66 is in the backyard.

Here's a charming Cape with water damage in Falls Church, on a ginormous lot.

And here's a small, relatively unappealing frame house in S. Arlington, but you still would make money on this over the years.

I would pay for location and square footage of land.

[govmoneynvegas]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

SFH in N. Arl, on cul-de-sac, listed at $240K; catch is that I-66 is in the backyard.

Here's a charming Cape with water damage in Falls Church, on a ginormous lot.

And here's a small, relatively unappealing frame house in S. Arlington, but you still would make money on this over the years.

I would pay for location and square footage of land.

I would rather just stay in my overpriced apartment instead of living at some house grandma wouldn't even live in. Charming! Cozy! ...

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I would pay for location and square footage of land.

Well, that is exactly what you would be doing for those three properties. The houses are essentially unlivable. So, you aren't really buying a SFH for 300K, you're buying property with a lot of work attached.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Well, that is exactly what you would be doing for those three properties. The houses are essentially unlivable. So, you aren't really buying a SFH for 300K, you're buying property with a lot of work attached.

I just skimmed the listings, but unless I missed something, only the one with water damage looks to be unlivable. (A highway behind your backyard isn't most people's cup of tea, but it doesn't make the place unfit for habitation.)

That said, it's true that each of those has some drawback that explains the relatively low price for the location. And that's no surprise--because if there were no such issues, then each property would be priced a lot higher.

If I had 300K burning a hole in my pocket and wanted to invest it in real estate in the next week, all of those would be on my short list.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I just skimmed the listings, but unless I missed something, only the one with water damage looks to be unlivable. (A highway behind your backyard isn't most people's cup of tea, but it doesn't make the place unfit for habitation.)

That said, it's true that each of those has some drawback that explains the relatively low price for the location. And that's no surprise--because if there were no such issues, then each property would be priced a lot higher.

If I had 300K burning a hole in my pocket and wanted to invest it in real estate in the next week, all of those would be on my short list.

House #1 - Literally no description of the home. While being directly on 66 is a detriment, it normally only reduces prices about 10% from others in the neighborhood. Something is seriously wrong with this house. Oh, and it's been "under contract" since May 1. So, it also may be a short sale that won't ever go through at that price.

House #2 - Major water damage and "lots of work"

House #3 - the word "unlivable" actually appears on the "marketing" blurb.

[Carlingtonian]

OK, but he was asking about investment potential--not whether he could live in it in its current state. I think the bang for the buck is in the land.

[cdmurphy]

Originally Posted by spencgr

House #1 - Literally no description of the home. While being directly on 66 is a detriment, it normally only reduces prices about 10% from others in the neighborhood. Something is seriously wrong with this house. Oh, and it's been "under contract" since May 1. So, it also may be a short sale that won't ever go through at that price.

There are two other houses on that cul-de-sac for sale, one for $640K and one for $675K. Plus one MLS site had it listed as "LAND". So yeah, sounds like a teardown. And some sucker bought it for $630K back in 2006.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

OK, but he was asking about investment potential--not whether he could live in it in its current state. I think the bang for the buck is in the land.

I agree, but he only has $300K. So if he bought these property, he has no money to renovate, fix-up, or even demo. Personally, I find it doubtful that he'll make a lot of money sitting on a blighted property. Even if the land is valuable....

[CAVA1990]

You can invest in real estate without buying bottom dollar properties. Join a syndicate.

[VRE332]

I'd pay off my mortgage.