lot in Palm Bay...more growth expected, or not? (Pace: for sale, real estate market)

[j_k_k]

We own a vacant lot in Palm Bay, on Pace Drive NW. How we ended up with it is a long story. Yes, we are among the many absentee landowners, but look at it this way: we pay taxes and a utility assessment, but cannot vote, and thus have contributed some money over the years without any accompanying say in how you run your town. And this we understand. We are your boosters; no one wants Palm Bay to boom any more than we do, because the safer and better it gets, the greater our lot's value.

I'd be grateful for some observations from the front lines. What do you think of that area (not far from Pace Dr NW and Lamplighter Dr NW)? Do you believe that growth continues to run, and that remaining lots in the area are likely to become desirable? Or is this area undesirable, and likely to remain so? Right now, we could get our money back, and that would be all right; but we didn't take it off the estate's hands just to hold onto it for ten years and break even. The low price of lots in the city overall shocks me; where I live, more than half the property value is the lot itself. However, I understand that real estate crashed there, and is recovering. Obviously, we'd love to see it recover to the point where its value made the property tax so prohibitive we had to sell.

Input welcomed. We'll never know your area like you do.

[Nypafl4u]

Things are picking up very nicely in Palm Bay. No one can predict with certainty what will happen, but I do not see much slowing down yet. Prices for houses continue to rise at a steady pace. Lots have also been going up as builders are building again. I would think this "should" continue for the next several years, baring some unforeseen issue. Since you waited this long, I would wait a bit longer if you can.

[j_k_k]

Sure glad to hear that, thank you. We do not need the capital back any time soon, so we can afford to wait it out. I suspect that we'll know when it's time to consider selling it when we start to get postcards offering us well below market for it.

Of course, no one can be sure what that market will do.

[budlight]

I actually live right off of Pace. A few years ago there were so many foreclosures and houses for sale that I had no hope of any progress in the real estate market. Now almost all of the foreclosures are re-bought and the market has picked up significantly. I would suggest holding onto that property for a while longer.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by budlight

I actually live right off of Pace. A few years ago there were so many foreclosures and houses for sale that I had no hope of any progress in the real estate market. Now almost all of the foreclosures are re-bought and the market has picked up significantly. I would suggest holding onto that property for a while longer.

Seems to make sense to me. Eventually the inventory of utilitied lots has to diminish, and that should drive up pricing. If not, what the heck, win some, lose some.

What's kind of amusing is that, this very day (after not thinking about this property for some months), I got a code enforcement notice. Yeah, ideally I'd prefer not to pay to remedy it, but I have zero leverage not to, so remedying it is just one of the costs of ownership. Something that can't do me any good, but might do locals good: if the city's notice to me quotes the law correctly, they've misworded it so badly that it's not applicable. Here it is verbatim, except for condensing numbers:

"Requires that owners of unimproved property shall not permit weeds, grass or other vegetative matter to exceed 24" in height within 25' of lot lines that are within 30' of a residential or commercial structure that constitutes a public nuisance and serious threat to public welfare." {italics are mine}

Breaking it down: to fall under the rule, the lot lines in question must be within thirty feet of a building that constitutes a public nuisance and serious threat to the public welfare. So, if the house next door was raided as a crack house (I'd call that both a nuisance and threat), or has fallen down and harbors varmints (ditto), or there's any combination of ugliness and danger (it says 'and,' not 'or'), the rule applies. If however, the adjoining buildings within 30' of the lot line are perfectly pleasant residences lived in by responsible people who live lives that neither threaten nor bother anyone, the rule does not technically apply..

Not that it matters, of course. We know what the intent of the law is, and we also know that fighting it from out of state would be a quixotic episode of Not Knowing How To Choose One's Battles. But if I were local, I very well might. I'd look up the code, make sure the letter has quoted it correctly, then respond by telling them that until the house next door becomes a meth lab or something, would they please kindly stop sending me notices threatening me with inapplicable laws. (Of course, if I were local, I might just go mow the darn weeds myself for free.)

[Nypafl4u]

Was this an improved lot, meaning trees were cleared and it was mowed at some point of its history with you? I ask because, unless things have changed recently, an unimproved lot in its natural state should not need any maintenance. At least that is what it used to be. All bets are off if it was cleared at some point. I tell this to people all the time. If buying a natural lot, do nothing to it or you will from that point on need to keep it neat.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Nypafl4u

Was this an improved lot, meaning trees were cleared and it was mowed at some point of its history with you? I ask because, unless things have changed recently, an unimproved lot in its natural state should not need any maintenance. At least that is what it used to be. All bets are off if it was cleared at some point. I tell this to people all the time. If buying a natural lot, do nothing to it or you will from that point on need to keep it neat.

I guess technically, yes. It had about ten beetle-killed pines, and I didn't want them falling on anyone or anything, so I had them taken down. I'm pretty sure I paid about double what the job was worth, but live and learn. That was right about when we acquired it, maybe eight years back. So I probably did put myself in that position. Good to know for the future. Whether it was cleared or tended in prior years, that I don't know, but since I had the trees taken down it's probably moot.

[Rabflmom]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

I guess technically, yes. It had about ten beetle-killed pines, and I didn't want them falling on anyone or anything, so I had them taken down. I'm pretty sure I paid about double what the job was worth, but live and learn. That was right about when we acquired it, maybe eight years back. So I probably did put myself in that position. Good to know for the future. Whether it was cleared or tended in prior years, that I don't know, but since I had the trees taken down it's probably moot.

Technically anyone who owns a lot is supposed to keep their lots in shape(brush 5 feet from line at least all around the property)/to help stop wild fires which PB is known for. If a homeowner next door calls the city about brush or too tall grass too close to their property the city will send out a crew to cut back your lot and you will be billed. When the house next door went into foreclosure and grass got knee high we called and the city came out once but after that a mowing company must have been hired by the bank because it was probably cheaper than paying the city price.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Rabflmom

Technically anyone who owns a lot is supposed to keep their lots in shape(brush 5 feet from line at least all around the property)/to help stop wild fires which PB is known for. If a homeowner next door calls the city about brush or too tall grass too close to their property the city will send out a crew to cut back your lot and you will be billed. When the house next door went into foreclosure and grass got knee high we called and the city came out once but after that a mowing company must have been hired by the bank because it was probably cheaper than paying the city price.

Yeah, if there is one thing I take on faith with doubt, it is that this'll be cheaper if I hire it done and pick who does it. If the city had to take care of it, I assume they'd charge me well above the going rate plus tack on a fine for the trouble. It's not a bad law or anything (except, of course, that as mentioned before, either my letter misquotes the code, or the code was not well written).

[clnewman]

We learned the hard way that unimproved lots in their natural state require zero maintenance on the owner's part. We live next door to a vacant, unimproved lot. The vegetation was interfering with utilities (the pole feeding our house is on the vacant lot), and was knocking down our fence.

After a conversation with the County, and a visit from code enforcement, we were told that the owners of the lot were under no obligation to do anything. Zip... zero... nada.

So, we replaced the fence, and had a contractor clear a 6' "buffer" zone on the other side of the fence, laying a barrier and mulch. I walk over there every 6 weeks or so, and give anything in the area a healthy dose of round up.

FPL came out and cleared the vegetation away from their power lines, but did nothing to the other utilities on the same pole (cable and phone). Brighthouse came out and ran a new cable line (that wasn't needed), but would not clear the vegetation. They've since had to come out again, and did the same thing (incredibly stupid and short sighted on their part). The phone line (which we didn't use) eventually came down in a storm. I called AT&T twice, and they never responded... probably because we aren't a customer. I eventually just coiled the cable up, and it's stowed on the side of the house.