I just called three major real estate companies and asked if they would write a contract on my home and put up a sign. My only requirements were that they put my home for sale at a price that I needed in order to move on down the road.
Their answers were: Why should someone pay you that much for your home when we can find a comparable home for $250,000 less than what you are asking?
Understand that I’m asking $100,000 less for my home than it was appraised for only 10 months ago.
The figures are not important, but the conditions of the contract would allow agents a chance to make a great commission if the house sold. Their excuse was that we need to sell all the foreclosed homes first. That’s a poor excuse when the banks dictate how much the commissions for selling those foreclosed homes are.
The banks put up government bailout money to the real estate agents to evict renters to get more foreclosed homes on the market. The word on the street is that as much as $4,000 was being paid to renters to get out of these homes and their leases. Something is wrong with that.
My question No. 1: Why can’t my home be put on the market to encourage the market to raise the ante of the price of homes?
No. 2: Why can’t the banks sell the homes to people who have paid rent on these homes, some as long as four years, and let them use the $4,000 as a down payment on the home?
No. 3: If we had more homes for sale, wouldn’t the foreclosed homes sell faster? With this incentive, the prices would create an instant equity for many of the foreclosed homes.
No. 4: Wouldn’t this help the city generate revenue to keep its staff, including fire and police jobs?
This makes one believe that the meltdown is perpetrated by special interest agendas. Investors, developers and banks are all in control of the bailout money to pad their agendas. They give first-time buyers $18,000 to move into these foreclosed homes, and those buyers then lose them in a year because there are no jobs.
Real estate companies should step up to the plate and try this plan.
• Thomas A. Benigno, a farmer and businessman for more than 50 years, is retired and living with his wife in Tracy.
Well, Tom... your plan would just make too much sense, and that's all there is to it. The term "government" is synonymous with the term "bureaucracy" and there is simply no feasible plan with any seriousness that has ever been circulated, or "brainstormed" among federal senators or congressmen that would improve upon the situation enough to even notice.
"No. 2: Why can’t the banks sell the homes to people who have paid rent on these homes, some as long as four years, and let them use the $4,000 as a down payment on the home?"
OMG... Tom! Straight from your brainwaves emerges yet another do-able, win/win, economy-building idea! On the down side, however, that is exactly why such a measure would never even make it to the floor during an entire congressional session! :( No. 3: If we had more homes for sale, wouldn’t the foreclosed homes sell faster? With this incentive, the prices would create an instant equity for many of the foreclosed homes.
Is the "incentive" you refer to the renters' opportunity to buy their rental property, as you mentioned in your question just prior to this question??
I'm going to assume this IS the incentive you are referencing since I cannot see where you mentioned a different plan after that one... so, taking that leap of assumption:
This is one where you and I would have to disagree. I believe your plan of offering the current occupants a shot at home buying minus the downpayment of four grand is wonderful; it costs those property owners who are paying that amount anyway to renters on their property in order to break the landlord end of the contract. Not a single extra red cent would be necessary...(in THEORY or on PAPER, anyway.) And renters in general are EXTREMELY unlikely to ever save up four thousand dollars, even in their biggest piggybank... so this incentive is nearly their ONLY hope if they yearn to be homeowners at any point in their lives. Congress is virtually incapable, even as a collective body, of actually "thinking-up" (if you would) a similar idea that would have a snowball's chance of becoming a bill, let alone becoming law!
But there's a catch, (actually several) which is why I disagree. First... renters tend to rent what they can afford, which often means neighborhoods they would not choose as their home on a permanent basis. The house and property met their immediate needs and possibly allowed them to keep their cat, so THOSE reasons COULD be the only reasons why the "Renters Jones" reside in their current domicile.
Second... offering a downpayment waiver to the vast majority of home-buyer-aged renters is similar to sending a USEABLE credit card with a ridiculously high credit limit directly to them by mail when they had not even applied. Credit card companies actually adopted this practice and successfully used it during the last half of the 80's. Many-o-family fell deeply into ruin as a result. When there is no "buy-in," no ante whatsoever required, there is nothing to play the part of the "means" to remind these renters that saving, begging, and borrowing that much money was a near impossibility and yet they succeeded. Handing every dime of it over to a mortgage company within seconds of sitting down in their office would be a bitter pill to swallow. The ONLY silver lining is the pride of homeownership and the memory of the difficulty and sacrifice that was required to make it a reality. The mere knowledge that this had been worth all that to you, and your family, is the key to taking pride in the upkeep of the property.
No sacrifice, no need to go "all in"?? ... No lesson learned, and no benefit to the property values whatsoever. There would be no incentive without first a great sacrifice that displays the level of seriousness the renter has concerning this transaction. Under your plan, "Tom's Plan" nothing significant would change for the renters on your street. There was no risk to them, so no reason NOT to "give it a shot." But such things are unlikely to change personal motivation or behavior, and so the property values have nowhere to go but down!
More later when I wish to address your remaining inquiries. These are simply my own personal opinions, of course.
Thanks for the phone call. I appreciate that you took the time to explain your position(s) and also understand where I and other new familes, in Tracy, CA are coming from.
I much appreciate it!
Good luck in your home sale. I see from Zillow.com that there is some recent uptick in the home sales.
All the best to you and your future!
Cheers!
Skip
Who is the $4000 being paid to? Rentors? I recently saw a documentary and it didn't appear that the $4000 was paid to actual rentors?
Is the implication (in the above letter) that rentors can rent for free and even get $4000 dollars what incentive exists for one to purchase a home?
Where did the information in this letter, come from? Where is the realator's website?
What are your sources, here? I would just appreciate if you could list them, here, for us so we could get a close look at this market data, if available?
Some think this is the bottom...
But, if we live in a global market and jobs are leaving the State of California, wouldn't that mean that home prices are going up somewhere else in the world? Can you confirm? Is that happening anywhere?