More On Comps
In my post on researching "comparable" homes, I was taken to task that if it was available and affordable, then it should be counted as housing. No consideration was given by the commenter as to the condition of the property, and if it was so bad it was something I would not even let my dog live in.
It is not that simple. Actually, comps can be adjusted to many different variables. It isn't rocket science, but it also can't be as simple as "Okay, it's a house, so I'll just buy it." Ask any real estate agent you know. They will tell you what a pain it is driving people to look at this place, but the window in the kitchen is quite in the right spot, so let's go look at another, etc. etc.
Another commenter tried to say Ponte Vista could be compared to the Vue. Comparing the Vue to anything else is not a fair comparison. That's like comparing someone who has their office in the Interstate Building downtown, to someone who has their office in the Brown Brothers Building. Not that Ponte Vist will be that small, but comparing it to a 16-storey building is ridiculous. If you must compare it to something, the Gardens is themost valid since it is so spread out.
However, many people do comps based on square footage and number of bedrooms. They will do this to get a value per square foot and see if they want to spend more money on an SFR with a yard, or if they want condo living instead.
We do not yet know what the numbers on Ponte Vista will be. So really it is premature to start making comparisons. This is another reason why it is not yet appropriate to start picking numbers out of the air to estimate traffic for the new proposal for Ponte Vista.
On another note, I have also been accused of breaking the rules of the HOAs where I own a couple of investment properties and rented them out in violation of the CC&Rs. Let me be clear - I did not rent any of my condos out in violation of any CC&Rs of the complexes they are in. I wish these accusations had not been made blindly. What I was trying to do when I opened myself up to these unfounded allegations, was to illustrate that if we wanted to take preventitive measures over a large percentage of Ponte Vista units becoming rentals, we should strongly urge Bisno Development to write it into the CC&Rs.
Historically though, condos usually turn into rentals after the first turnover. Meaning that the original purchasers have done well enough they can move on to something larger. Many times, they will keep their original unit as a rental. Sometimes they have the financial strength to buy something else, but cannot get their asking price for the condo they wish to sell. In this case,many people just opt to keep it and rent it out.
Tom Field
4 comments:
Tom,
I feel if Bob is going to use high-rise condominium ITE trip generation tables, he leaves his project open to comparison with real high rise condominium structures like The Vue.
It would be more accurate to do comps between The Vue, Center Street Lofts, and other developments that have only a few buildings, as compared to Ponte Vista, but I feel Bob's use of a particular trip generation table that is more reflective of the types of buildings like The Vue, can and should be used.
I don't believe I criticized you in any way about your ownership of condos that were then rented out. I don't have any problem with that and it defends my position that many condos do, in fact become rentals and so the trip generation numbers for condos should not be used.
What I fail to see in this post is how to compare SFRs on R1 lots that are brand new very nearly new, because, as part of a large development, there simply are none to compare with in our local area.
You have written a pretty good post, and good comments about comparing condos to condos, but that also illustrates that, because there are no large developments of SFR's on R1 lots in the area, no comparisons can be made.
What is so wrong with having one more large development of SFRs on R1 lots? It has been quite a long time since the last development off of Park Western Drive was built. There have been many condo developments, apartment complexes, courtyard housing developments in the area, but no new SFRs on R1 lots.
We will be getting 134 brand new SFR units on small lots at Highland Park, off of Gaffey, but to find any new SFRs on larger lots we have to go onto the coast and see homes that will probably cost several millions of dollars to live in, and that is certainly not San Pedro.
So far and for that last great numbers of years, we have been allowed to be served apples. Many, many folks believe that San Pedro and nearby areas need at least one more orange. why can't we have our orange?
I may be wrong, but before Tarragonna was built, the previous SFR on R1 lots were either the Westmont neighborhood, begun around 1967 or so, or Palo de Encino, built by Ray Watt more at about the same time. I think Peninsula Verde Estates came between the older two developments and Tarragonna, but I may be wrong about that, and there are only 60 homes in that development.
I think many members of our community feel that our limited residential building area deserves what may be the last development of SFRs on R1 lots, no matter how much they cost, in OUR community.
It seems many developers build condos, or convert apartment complexes into condos.
Ponte Vista, in all it future glory will just be one more of many, many condominium developments in OUR community.
Progress is progress, but San Pedro is still San Pedro and many people feel that R1 should be granted in one last large area where homes of that type can be built.
MW
Mr. Wells,
This paragraph came directly from your blog.
"On Tom Field's blog we learn that he invested in condominiums. He lived in one of them and when he moved out, he continued to own it and either rented it out, or leased it out. Tom has every right to do that, even if it appears to go against the CC&R's of the developments he purchased units at. But if Tom can do that, just think of how many investors my want to do the same at Ponte Vista."
If it just me being thin-skinned, feel free to say so. However, my reading implies that I broke or ignored the CC&Rs of the HOAs my investment properties are in. I bought them as investment properties and never claimed to have lived in them as some people do. In fact, I stated in one of my posts that I thought this practice was not ethical.
On my second point, I tend to agree that the Vue, the Center Street Lofts and like projects would be valid real estate comps to use in valuing what a person would pay for a unit at Ponte Vista.
However, I still think that until some details are forthcoming about number of units, sizes, and how many bedrooms, it is premature to start estimating traffic. If there are a higher percentage of 1 and 2-bedroom units it will produce an entirely different traffic number than a development which is primarily 2 or 3-bedrooms (or more)? Wouldn't you agree? Why plant yourself in a position you might wind up changing in a couple weeks?
Additionally, the mix of number of bedrooms will affect how prone the units are to being rented at some future date. In any event, hopefully this can be prevented by strict enough CC&Rs.
I'm afraid my last point is going to cause some flaming comments. While we have proven our ability to discuss things in a civil manner, there are many folks out there who can't. But here goes anyway.
On the point of a condo development vs. single family detached houses, we are going to have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that we need the larger number of new housing units. You feel we should have single family detached houses. We have both made our respective cases for our opinions and will continue to do so. I will respect your right to have your opinion and will try, when I am able, to offer constructive suggestions. It is my desire that we can maintain an open dialogue and bring up ideas which ultimately help benefit us all.
Tom Field
Sorry Tom, in your comment and quote of my post or comment, I did make that statement, which you corrected me on.
When you wrote that your did not break any CC&Rs then perhaps they were not written in the best interests of the owner-occupants at the time, perhaps.
If CC&Rs you were under allowed for rentals and leases, then why should we believe any CC&Rs written by the management of or the new owners of units at Ponte Vista, will not create language too weak to keep renters and leases out of the development.
This may be another trust issue that many of us in OUR community are not willing to give Bob Bisno.
I do accept and appreciate our agreeing to disagree on the condo versus SFR on R1 lots issue. I think if I remember correctly, your proposal for 1700 units might have contained some SFRs as "courtyard" or "patio" style condominiums. I haven't reread your proposal recently, but it did contain a large mix of types of units.
I feel even SFRs like The Cape, or The Enclave, or even Highland Village would bring fewer renters than traditional shared-walled condominium units. Might I be correct in this feeling, Tom?
If this may be the case, then I could still hold my current proposal open as a reasonable possibility. A Senior Housing section with the remaining buildable residential land for SFRs on smaller than R1 lots.
Might this proposal work a little towards meeting your wishes, or do you still strongly believe that Ponte Vista must have non-age resricted units with at least one shared wall?
I think I have come about as far as I am willing to with the current proposal I have mentioned and allowing for SFR's as Courtyard or Patio styled homes.
Tom, your current proposal is for virtually the same types of units at Ponte Vista, only with a difference in number of Senior Housing units and only a about a 26% reduction in the number of units.
I have moved from an all R1 stance that actually calls for only "condominiums" and that is a pretty far stretch, don't you think?
You have correctly noted many of the problems of the shared-wall condominiums. I wonder how far I need to go to try to pursuade you to stick with your 700-unit Senior Housing section, that I basically agree totally with, but then call for the type of SFR condominiums I would feel may be possible at Ponte Vista.
condos at Ponte Vista will probably never be as inexpensive as places like The Loft or other smaller developments, because of the amenities at Ponte Vista will far outpace developments at projects with very few buildings involved.
Many supporters of Bob's want "affordable new homes." I contend, and evidence is currently under construction that, those types of units are already being sold in San Pedro or are currently under construction.
I am still trying to find out why "first time homebuyers" need to burden the rest of us with their wishes at our expense. There are plenty of brand new, or nearly new units available right now, as well as plenty of older units.
Your post that claims that these type of places are not plentiful to the few folks who are actually "first time homebuyers" and want to find a new home to buy (and then possibly rent out in the future) belies the facts concerning what is available at The Loft, The Vue, the Bank Lofts, and even Miraleste Canyon Estates. I counted 23 units for sale at M.C.E. the last time I looked. Are there more than 23 "first time homebuyers" in this area that are looking for homes? If that is the case, why are there 23 units listed at M.C.E that are less expensive that just about anything that may be built at Ponte Vista?
"First time homebuyers" have the great opportunity of buying their first home at M.C.E. then saving for a SFR on a small lot at Ponte Vista, then using the rent they charge when they move out of M.C.E. and into Ponte Vista, to help their overall finances. Is that such an unbelievable plan?
Folks who truly desire "affordable housing" in San Pedro need to look no farther than M.C.E. I feel. But then again, since so many of those units are now rentals, perhaps that development is not desireable for these folks. Couldn't the same thing happen at Ponte Vista in the future? It seems like a circle is beginning and may never end. Older condo projects become rentals and folks desiring owner-occupied condos look for larger new developments to move into, then they become rentals and other folks seek owner-occupied condo projects that then become rentals, and so forth and so on, until all the room to build anything is gone.
There will be more calls to buy up R1 lots, change the zoning and build even more condos that will become rentals that will neccessitate the wishes to build even more owner-occupied condos, that will become rentals, this is getting boring!
We cannot stop condos from becoming rentals and leases. We need to find some other method of dealing with this issue. There may be rentals and leases at places like The Cape and The Enclave, but they may have a lower ratio of rentals and leases to owner-occupied units.
If we can't have R1 for a large portion of Ponte Vista, then a reasonable alternative to seriously look at is SFRs on small lots, I feel.
MW
Mr. Wells,
You are correct. Let me re-phrase. I should not call it aa condo development. I fell in with what some critics have been calling it.
As I have said in my previous proposal, I would favor aminimum of 700 senior units and the balance to divided between lofts to 3-bedroom units, including "patio-homes". Just to be clear when I think of a "condo" I do not think of common wall issues. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I feel that with some creativity, the number of linear feet of common wall can be minimized. In addition, most modern methods of condominium construction include an air-space between walls so that it truly is a separate structure. Acertain amount of "small lot development" units would also go a long way in diversefying the type of homes available in the project.
Tom Field
Post a Comment