no yards in many newer homes (Sacramento: 2015, rent, HOA fees)

[norcalsocal]

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...8_M26215-32601

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...5_M10040-68597

[sacguy71]

thanks but in my view the realtor I am working with should be sending me listings that are not listed publicly for the competition to snatch up quickly before I can view them.

[wburg]

I have about 10 feet of yard in front and 20 feet in back, half of which is a driveway, and that's plenty for me. My neighbors are close but I don't give a hoot, they're nice people and I don't do anything too unpleasant in my backyard. It's fun, but a lot of work. Small yards can do a lot if one is creative and doesn't mind the presence of their neighbors--or is courteous enough to find ways to engage in one's hobbies without bothering them too much. Or, live in a part of town where the neighbors don't give a hoot!


If you like a big, big yard, there are plenty of places out there for you to buy, but I think they're going to become less and less common--and that's a good thing.

[luv4horses]

These days new houses are simply luxury versions of the old “trailer parks”. Thats about the amount of land allotted to each residence. The air space prevents direct transfer of sound or fire through shared walls. And more natural light gets in than in an apartment building. But values may have changed. There is perhaps lack of pride in creating beautiful private space using plants and outdoor artistry. Ho hum. People see other uses of their time as more valuable. So it goes.

Yes that’s an extreme view. But some truth to it.

[wburg]

Who says you can't turn a small yard into a beautiful private space using plants and outdoor artistry? It works just fine on my 1/13 acre lot, although I suppose it helps that the house is not unduly large. Trailer parks, oh, excuse me, mobile home estates, use even smaller lots and generally even smaller buildings (a single-wide trailer is about 400 square feet, the average new house today is around 2000 square feet) but even there you see lots of creative ways to create personal, private space that is also sociable and neighborly and aesthetically pleasing. You don't see this in brand new developments because the landscape hasn't had time to mature, and the new owners haven't had time to put their personal touch on it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sacguy71

So would you buy a nice home without a large yard? But yard give space and distance from neighbors plus privacy and room for a pool, workshop and clubhouse. Tiny yards come with Mello Roos taxes and no space outside.

I agree, we looked at new houses when we moved here but bought an older home primarily because it was on a quarter acre, if I had it to do over again I'd move to Shingle Springs or Placerville and get a house on at least a half acre.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sacguy71

thanks but in my view the realtor I am working with should be sending me listings that are not listed publicly for the competition to snatch up quickly before I can view them.

This is in Cameron Park, I'm not sure how fast houses sell there, it's 475k 1/3 acre with pool, you might want to run it past your realtor
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cameron-Pa...9udW1iZXI9MA==

[shelato]

Originally Posted by sacguy71

I see a disturbing trend in newer homes built after 2000 in places like Roseville that have tiny yards but sell for 500k or more. Why do newer homes no longer have decent sized yards like older homes?

It the Sacramento Regional Blueprint mandates the use of smaller lots. The developers like it because its more profitable to put in more houses per acre. The environmentalists like it because with smaller lots, there is less landscaping and thus less water use. Additionally in theory smaller lot sizes were supposed to increase density to make it easier to run mass transit more frequently, although in these newer suburban areas doesn't actually seem to be going up.

Sacramento Region Blueprint

Ultimately a lot of people who have these larger lots don't seem to be using them. Spend some time looking at homes in these older neighborhoods that still have the larger lots and look at how many just have weeds in the backyard, so they likely were over zoning for larger lots in the past. There is plenty of homes built on larger lots between 1950 and 2004 for the people who still want them.

[norcalsocal]

Originally Posted by sacguy71

thanks but in my view the realtor I am working with should be sending me listings that are not listed publicly for the competition to snatch up quickly before I can view them.

My point is that you probably have to decide on what you can afford. If you have just one income it is often not very realistic to expect to buy a house in a decent condition in Sac that has all of the above:

1) a good neighborhood
2) a sizable lot
3) a pool.

Just because many cannot afford a house >600K-700K on one income...

As for a realtor, it might be unrealistic to expect that the realtor will let you "snatch" something without paying a market price. It happens sometimes, but does not happen all the time.

Good luck.

[looker009]

Originally Posted by sacguy71

thanks but in my view the realtor I am working with should be sending me listings that are not listed publicly for the competition to snatch up quickly before I can view them.

There is coming listing but there is no more pocket listing, it got banned in May by MLS. Meaning while your Realtor can tell you about coming listing, they can't actually have you do the tour until it's active in MLS. There is no really such thing listed publicly anymore .