ABOR speaks out on affordability (Austin, Pflugerville: sales, real estate, 2015)

[scm53]

Austin-area home prices hit all-time high for January, 2015

According to the report, 1,547 single-family homes were sold in the Austin area in January 2015, an 11 percent increase compared to January 2014. However, 54 percent of the homes sold during this time frame were in the $200,000-$500,000 price range, whereas only 35 percent sold for less than $200,000 – the typical price range for first-time and low-income homebuyers.

“Housing inventory is rising, but the current pace is not enough to alleviate Austin’s affordability challenges,” added Cooper. “Furthermore, more homes on the market will not increase housing affordability if those homes are all priced for move-up homebuyers. Austin needs a regulatory environment that will ensure development of all housing types, priced in an affordable range for all Austin residents.”

[centralaustinite]

What type of "regulatory environment" could ensure affordability? I am baffled by that statement. There is some magic wand of regulation that will increase the supply of affordable homes?

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

What type of "regulatory environment" could ensure affordability? I am baffled by that statement. There is some magic wand of regulation that will increase the supply of affordable homes?

One that allows "classes" of real estate agents (based upon the clientele they sell to or the sales price of the house) to likewise not be phased out of the market of course.

The trade group isn't altruistic - it is looking out for the controlling interest of its board. Unless there is a supply of "affordable" homes real estate agents lose out until the prices drop again. A regulatory environment would be intended to "push" that drop off well into the future to ensure the well being of real estate agents/brokers. Part of the problem is the price of the housing. Another part of the problem (for the trade group) is the number of people that suddenly want to become real estate agents when the market's good. The barriers to entry including educational requirements, etc. are not very high. (That's not intended to be an offensive statement). So if you get floods of new real estate agents when the market's good you need houses for 'em to be able to sell and a population capable of buying the houses. Otherwise the trade group members have to start cannibalizing each other (well their businesses anyway). Just an observer's opinion of what the trade group is seeking so that its ranks don't shrink due to self-cannibalization.

[FalconheadWest]

There are plenty of sub-$200k houses in the outlining areas. Del Valle, Manor, Hutto, Taylor... That price point is never going to be "near" the center of Austin again.

[TexasHorseLady]

Approximately 90% of real estate agents don't make it past a year because they go into it thinking it's easy money (just like those non-agents with a bias against real estate agents) and find out it is exactly the opposite. It's not ABOR's job to protect the incompetent or lazy; stating that demonstrates not only a very clear bias on the part of the person making that statement but a true lack of understanding of how it works and what ABOR does and not very good observation. Granted there are a lot of agents out there that should know what they're doing a lot better than they do; they're the ones that eventually get dinged by ABOR and TREC with fines and, in the case of TREC, sometimes more.

Just for the record, I'm an ace test taker, have been since elementary school. I usually score in the top 2% on standardized tests, not because I'm so smart, but because I suffer from no test anxiety whatsoever and I'm good at "reading" tests and knowing what answer they want whether I agree with it or not. The real estate exam shocked me by being one of the harder tests I've ever taken - I wasn't sure I'd even passed it.

I'm not sure what Barb Cooper is referencing, but I'll be looking into it.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by FalconheadWest

There are plenty of sub-$200k houses in the outlining areas. Del Valle, Manor, Hutto, Taylor... That price point is never going to be "near" the center of Austin again.

There are 66 houses right now in the MLS that are $200,000 or below. Some are in questionable neighborhoods, others in neighborhoods that aren't Falconhead but are perfectly livable. Ages of houses are from much older to 2013. A couple are in PF (Pflugerville MLS area) but have Austin addresses. There's N, NW, 1N, a lot of areas closer in than the ones you cited. None of them are the equivalent of Falconhead West, but a lot are in perfectly livable neighborhoods.

[scm53]

Once again, the Rorschach test effect of folks projecting their own agendas onto something completely unrelated. The referenced regulatory environment is about land use regulation, inside the city. There are multiple housing types that can be built, affordably, that aren't being built. It is the "missing middle" -- duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, live/work, townhouse, etc. -- as this report details, that are a potential solution to affordability. But there are powerful forces opposed to any implementation, and any move away from SF-3 zoning.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by scm53

Once again, the Rorschach test effect of folks projecting their own agendas onto something completely unrelated. The referenced regulatory environment is about land use regulation, inside the city. There are multiple housing types that can be built, affordably, that aren't being built. It is the "missing middle" -- duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, live/work, townhouse, etc. -- as this report details, that are a potential solution to affordability. But there are powerful forces opposed to any implementation, and any move away from SF-3 zoning.

Yes, I was thinking more along those lines. But I still found the statement obscure. I think it was veiled advocacy of less regulation. Do you really think that there is demand for such places in Austin if they could/would be built? seems like most who move here do so to pursue the single family, three car garage dream, not a more compact, denser living environment.

[FalconheadWest]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Yes, I was thinking more along those lines. But I still found the statement obscure. I think it was veiled advocacy of less regulation. Do you really think that there is demand for such places in Austin if they could/would be built? seems like most who move here do so to pursue the single family, three car garage dream, not a more compact, denser living environment.

That's what I was thinking. Also, they might sell as "brand new" as almost anything can sell brand new even backing to a horribly loud highway or railroad tracks, but once on the resale market, I don't think there would be any appeal for such living. People don't like to own something where they're living on top of someone with no privacy. I'm told over and over again that my clients don't want condos because they might as well just live in an apartment (not talking about the stand alone houses that are zoned condos).

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

What type of "regulatory environment" could ensure affordability? I am baffled by that statement. There is some magic wand of regulation that will increase the supply of affordable homes?

Yes, all the rules that dramatically increase the cost of teardowns or building multifamily in the city limits. Because of those costs people cant build multifamily housing which would increase the volume.

I wanted to build on a lot in the city. It would have cost 70k for engineering studies as it was partially in a flood plain.

Komeht posted a breakdown of costs due to regulations (tree ordinance, mandatory disabled compliance, etc etc)