A lesson in why newbuilds are not the answer

[Michele J]

Deed Date: Deed Book: Deed Page: Deed Type: Valid Sale:
2003-05-18T00:00:00.0000000-04:00 11029 9050 W- Warranty 0
Sale Price: Sales Condition: Parcel No.:
$91,670 G - Subst change 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deed Date: Deed Book: Deed Page: Deed Type: Valid Sale:
2007-08-13T00:00:00.0000000-04:00 11133 840 F- Foreclosure 0
Sale Price: Sales Condition: Parcel No.:
$81,738 0 - 1
203 Chester St built in 2001 sold for 91k a small 988 sq foot ranch..foreclosed on with a balance owing of 81k up for sale missing the HWT & furnace for 41k, cracks in basement floor noted as needing repair.will likely sell in the low to mids 30s making this an almost 50k loss. NEWBUILDS ARE NOT THE ANSWER..ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIRST!



http://hud1.towerauction.net/cgi-bin...e=e10&state=NY

[Michele J]

466 Monroe Built in 2003 sold for 86K foreclosed on 2007. HUD reselling it for 39K loss over 45K.. HUD report states cracks in basement floor and walls and needs a new roof ( only 4 yrs old?)
Deed Date: Deed Book: Deed Page: Deed Type: Valid Sale:
2004-02-27T00:00:00.0000000-05:00 11069 789 W- Warranty 0
Sale Price: Sales Condition: Parcel No.:
$86,427 G - Subst change 1

http://hud1.towerauction.net/cgi-bin...e=e10&state=NY

[CSense]

Wait....Suckmore Village will be New Build Failures - Part Deux

[Michele J]

I have been writing about Sycamore Village for over 2 years..Or as us activist types have dubbed it SICKAMORE Village..Fix Buffalo has written about it many times also.. IMHO a BIG MISTAKE... 24 homes 20 market rate 4 low income guess what? Only 4 have been sold Im wondering which 4 it is..3 of the nicest and largest newbuilds torn down,never lived in, Remediation,purchase of the land puts this project in the 3 million dollar range of money spent BEFORE any of this development is built.. Things that make you go HMMMM?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I do not think new builds are a problem.

I think the city building homes for much more then they are valued at and placing them in distressed streets is. The city is so desperate for construction, they will pay for it instead of making the necessary changes so the market will call for it. There is a difference.

Part of the reason why these homes are in distress is due to them being built in areas where they do not have a chance to appreciate and being sold to people who really should not be owning a home. Added to this, because the city is paying for construction, MOST LIKELY UNION CONSTRUCTION RATES, the contractor does not take the same measures they would if they were on the line in building themselves. Puts a HUGE dent in the Union quality BS some spread.

[Michele J]

Scattershot newbuilds almost always go into foreclosure.. You arent changing a neighborhood by building a few new houses on the street. The Quality of these homes has always been a concern of mine.. And obviously Im not far off in that thinking.. We need jobs, we need to remove the perhaps 20k vacant blighted properties in the city, we need to bring businesses back to the city BEFORE we build more housing.. The city is shrinking..

[Linda_D]

Scattershot newbuilds almost always go into foreclosure.. You arent changing a neighborhood by building a few new houses on the street. The Quality of these homes has always been a concern of mine.. And obviously Im not far off in that thinking.. We need jobs, we need to remove the perhaps 20k vacant blighted properties in the city, we need to bring businesses back to the city BEFORE we build more housing.. The city is shrinking..

I agree that scattershot newbuilds are not the answer, especially on the East Side where the chances of selling the house for a profit are slim and none. Plain and simple, the East Side has a bad reputation, and to make matters worse, most ES housing has no architectural merit that might "lure" gentrifiers. The plain fact is that except for people who already live on the East Side, most people looking to buy in Buffalo won't even most neighborhoods east of Main Street, especially south of Amherst Street.

Obviously the quality of the work is suspect from the two that you listed -- no roof should fail after just 4 years (did somebody not use flashing?) nor should there be cracks in the basement floor.

I think money would be much better spent rehabbing solid but shabby houses in still viable neighborhoods while taking down the surrounding wrecks and reconfiguring the lots to provide for off-street parking. I think the plans for places like "Sickamore Village" are driven by politics and developers.

[CSense]

The problem is city planning, along with HUD regulations that need to be revamped for cities like Buffalo. It's really that simple.

If you have a Mayor that has some semblance of a spine and a planning chief that passed Planning 101, these stupid developments would not exist.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I agree that scattershot newbuilds are not the answer, especially on the East Side where the chances of selling the house for a profit are slim and none. Plain and simple, the East Side has a bad reputation, and to make matters worse, most ES housing has no architectural merit that might "lure" gentrifiers. The plain fact is that except for people who already live on the East Side, most people looking to buy in Buffalo won't even most neighborhoods east of Main Street, especially south of Amherst Street.

Obviously the quality of the work is suspect from the two that you listed -- no roof should fail after just 4 years (did somebody not use flashing?) nor should there be cracks in the basement floor.

I think money would be much better spent rehabbing solid but shabby houses in still viable neighborhoods while taking down the surrounding wrecks and reconfiguring the lots to provide for off-street parking. I think the plans for places like "Sickamore Village" are driven by politics and developers.

I say in the really bad parts of the ES, instead of building out 20 homes on a block that has 10 and supposed to hold 30, take the money and demo the 10. The challenge with this is Bubby Brown can not hold several press conferences announcing that another 10 rotting homes were taken down.

There are some homes that do have architectural merit and those details should be removed before demo or they should simply move those scattered homes with merit into one area. I think there was an example of a home in the fruit belt that had a foyer that was worthy of Nottingham Terrace.

I watched a rehab show on HGTV where Chicago allowed for homes like this to be sold for $1 and provided tax breaks to move the homes to an area of town that would allow the home owner to safely invest the needed money to restore the home and actually see the investment be worth it on the resale market.

At the end of the day, there are some really good people who live on the ES. I have a friend from Amherst who just bought his first home off Fillmore Ave. His home is a gem that just needs some love. He loves his neighbors. However, the sad truth is there are just a lot of worthless people who have no desire to be a part of a vibrant community and most of these people are concentrated in the worst pockets on the ES. Until something is done to address this, nothing on mass scale is ever going to stick East of Main.

[nickelcityhomes]

Nobody at city hall gives a flying foghat whether or not these houses help or hurt the neighborhood. There is HUD money to be spent and builders to pay back for their generous campaign donations.

The appraisal is written at replacement value instead of market value. The appraisers are "encouraged" to value the home at the purchase price, or risk losing future business. The loan is then packaged up and shipped off to Wall St.

The people who win are the builders, mortgage brokers, underwriters, and real estate agents. I'm not sure what type of psychotropic substance you need to be ingesting to consider the purchase of one of these poor-quality new builds as an investment towards your family's future, but it never fails that some poor schmuck buys one.

A few years after the sale I'll get an order from the bank to take pictures, suggest a fair market value for liquidation, and perhaps offer cash for keys, trashout, and rekey the joint. The cycle will never be broken as long as HUD exists and FHA is guaranteeing loans to people who have no business owning a chia pet, yet alone a house.

The taxpayer gets boned coming and going.

[Bannister]

You would think someone who buys a brand new house, who's basement starts to crack and roof fails within four years, has a decent case for suing the builder.

[Genoobie]

Nobody at city hall gives a flying foghat whether or not these houses help or hurt the neighborhood. There is HUD money to be spent and builders to pay back for their generous campaign donations.

The appraisal is written at replacement value instead of market value. The appraisers are "encouraged" to value the home at the purchase price, or risk losing future business. The loan is then packaged up and shipped off to Wall St.

The people who win are the builders, mortgage brokers, underwriters, and real estate agents. I'm not sure what type of psychotropic substance you need to be ingesting to consider the purchase of one of these poor-quality new builds as an investment towards your family's future, but it never fails that some poor schmuck buys one.

A few years after the sale I'll get an order from the bank to take pictures, suggest a fair market value for liquidation, and perhaps offer cash for keys, trashout, and rekey the joint. The cycle will never be broken as long as HUD exists and FHA is guaranteeing loans to people who have no business owning a chia pet, yet alone a house.

The taxpayer gets boned coming and going.

Hello hellooooo...Right on the money!

[WNYresident]

You would think someone who buys a brand new house, who's basement starts to crack and roof fails within four years, has a decent case for suing the builder.

This is one of the reasons we didn't look at a new build. You figure if you buy a house a few decades it has settled already.

[Michele J]

[QUOTE=leftWNYbecauseofBS.

I watched a rehab show on HGTV where Chicago allowed for homes like this to be sold for $1 and provided tax breaks to move the homes to an area of town that would allow the home owner to safely invest the needed money to restore the home and actually see the investment be worth it on the resale market.[Quote]

Although there would be alot of red tape BS to work out I like the idea of giving homes away for $1 if they can prove they have the means to rehab them.And in a confined area not 1 over here and 1 3 blocks away... LANDBANKING is something the COB seems to be afraid of.. It has been successful in many other cities. I think Im going to run for Mayor of Housing..get rid of the Strategic Planning dept and let some of us run it for a few years! SAVE what is worth saving,move people into more populated areas and in those areas offer homes for $1.. And LANDBANK large areas to ready them for redevelopment which will happen in the future but not in the shape the city is in now...

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Although there would be alot of red tape BS to work out I like the idea of giving homes away for $1 if they can prove they have the means to rehab them.And in a confined area not 1 over here and 1 3 blocks away... LANDBANKING is something the COB seems to be afraid of.. It has been successful in many other cities. I think Im going to run for Mayor of Housing..get rid of the Strategic Planning dept and let some of us run it for a few years! SAVE what is worth saving,move people into more populated areas and in those areas offer homes for $1.. And LANDBANK large areas to ready them for redevelopment which will happen in the future but not in the shape the city is in now...

Still would not deal with the root of the problem.....