The One Thing You Must Do Before Listing Your Home for Sale

Think you're ready to go on the market? If you haven't taken care of this task, you're not.

When it comes time to sell your home, you know you’ll need to spend some time cleaning the carpets, decluttering, and landscaping for maximum curb appeal. But there’s another key task to add to your to-do list: checking in with your local government to be sure it has accurate information about your home.

No matter the type or size of your home or where it is, your local municipality has documentation on it. Both the building department and the town assessor will have a record about your home. But those records may not match your home’s reality — and any issues you don’t resolve could hold up your sale or even kill the deal altogether.

What is the building department?
The town keeps records of every building constructed and every permit issued. It’s the job of the lead building inspector to be sure that any changes made to a home meet current codes, and that licensed contractors do the work.

Home health and safety issues are the primary concerns of the building department. Whenever someone applies for a permit, an inspector must be physically called out to approve and sign off on the work of the contractor, plumber or electrician.

Why should a seller care?
Once you make a deal with a buyer, they will go to the building department to do their due diligence. If there’s an open permit (meaning the permit was applied for, but the contractor never had the inspector sign off on the work to close the permit) or, worse, if there’s no record of your finished basement or newly renovated kitchen, they may not move ahead with the purchase.

Often, sellers find that somewhere along the line someone made a mistake — permits weren’t closed out properly when you assumed they were. These errors could have been the fault of a contractor, the previous owner, or even the building department directly.

Additionally, a homeowner may assume that the bathroom renovated by their Uncle Bob 15 years ago was up to code, but it may turn out that it’s not.

Both scenarios can pose a problem when selling. Once the home transfers, the new homeowner is on the hook for any illegal work, and no buyer wants to take on that liability.

What are assessor’s records?
The town assessor keeps tabs on the local real estate market to be certain that the town’s assessed value of your home (which affects property taxes) is in line with the market.

When the market slows down, she won’t proactively lower your assessed value, and most assessors regularly scrape the building department permits.

Why? Because if you’ve recently made a major improvement to your home, she will want to raise your assessed value, which means higher taxes.

It’s also very possible that your home is over- or under-assessed. If it’s the former, you want to attempt to grieve your assessment by providing the assessor some recent sale statistics and making sure that their records are accurate. Every municipality has a grieving process for homeowners.

Get ahead of any issues
Before listing, a seller should go to the town hall and check their property records. Most of the time, remedying issues like open permits or misinformation on a property is a quick fix. It’s better to get ahead of it than to have to react to a buyer’s concerns and jeopardize your deal.

If it’s a bigger issue, it’s better to hold off on listing your home for sale until you have resolved it. Getting your assessment down can impact your taxes, and that will be great news to your potential buyers.

Source: Zillow Pourchlight, Brendon DeSimone
http://www.zillow.com/blog/go-town-hall-listing-home-sale-202338/

REALTORS®' Top Concerns Heading into 2016

REALTORS®' Top Concerns Heading into 2016

An improving job market, still-low interest rates, and recent measures to make credit more accessible are all offering help to the housing market’s recovery, but several challenges prompting closing delays remain.

The latest REALTORS® Confidence Index conducted in November reveals some of the top concerns on real estate professionals' minds. The survey is based on more than 2,500 responses from members about local market conditions.

Here are some of the most common concerns that REALTORS® raised in the latest survey:

1. New mortgage disclosure rules: The implementation of the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulations on Oct. 3 has been delaying closings and having an impact on sales, according to members. About 47 percent of respondents reported longer closing times compared to a year ago, up from 37 percent in the October 2015 survey.  It typically took another 40 days to close a sale, up from 35 days in July 2015.

2. Condo financing: REALTORS® continued to report difficulty in obtaining financing for condominium unit purchases because many condominiums are not FHA or GSE eligible. Read more.

3. Tight inventories: A smaller number of homes for sale across the country are limiting choices for buyers and pushing prices up, decreasing housing affordability. REALTORS® particularly reported low inventory of properties in the lower price range and for those that are move-in ready.

4. Tight credit: Stringent credit standards continue to affect sales, particularly for first-time home buyers who are still struggling to qualify for financing, according to the REALTORS® surveyed. “Credit profiles that fail to meet tighter underwriting standards are conditions that continue to work against first-time home buyers,” according to the report.

5. Appraisal issues: “Late” and “low” appraisal valuations was also cited by REALTORS® as being problematic in transactions.

Source: National Association of REALTORS
http://www.realtor.org/reports/realtors-confidence-index

Government considering plan to force the poor in with the rich

The Silicon Valley has its share of wealthy communities such as Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos and Palo Alto. Now imagine for a moment owning a spectacular home in one of these communities that you've worked hard to earn the money to pay for and then to wake up one day to learn that bureaucrats in the federal government are forcing your community to build low cost housing a few blocks down the street from you. How would you feel? What effect would it have on your property value and that of your neighbor's home? Do you think it would affect quality of live issues in your community such as higher crime rates?

Well, now it seems the White House is considering a plan that would force cities to report out every 3-5 years on their housing patterns for racial bias and go even further by setting and tracking goals to further reduce segregation. HUD will withhold funding from communities that fail to comply with their utopian vision of how their community is supposed to look.

I won't get into the politics of it. I'll let others do that, but all I'll say is that if this plan is allowed to go forward, it doesn't seem to me to be a good idea. I mean, after all, I am a Realtor. I love to help first time home buyers buy a home of their dream. I would truly love to see everyone own a home, BUT I am also a realist in that I mean that if someone can't afford a particular zip code or neighborhood, then they can't afford it. That's just the way it is. Let the market determine who lives where. Someone in Washington, thousands of miles away from here, shouldn't be sticking their fingers into the hyper local business of residential real estate.

The plan will be carried out through HUD (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) and Obama's HUD Secretary Julian Castro seems to be fully on board with it. 

"This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."

Of course I realize that on the local level, cities such as San Jose are requiring new developers to designate a certain percentage of of units to low income. And I know there are section 8 housing units in different areas of this valley, so I know both of these are basically examples of government control that is already in place of meddling in housing market with the feel good goal of helping the poor. BUT, my point is, do we really need another government entity dictating who lives where, especially seeing how far removed a Washington bureaucrat will be from this community? What say you? Let me know if the comments below.

"This overreaching new regulation is an attempt to extort communities into giving up control of local zoning decisions and reengineer the makeup of our neighborhoods, just as the president has used the DOJ, IRS and DHS as a political weapon, he has now expanded his arsenal to include HUD as a way of punishing neighborhoods that don’t fall in line with his liberal agenda, how we can live, where we go to school, how we will vote” and “what this utopian type of neighborhood should look like." - Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz

Good intentions or power grab? HUD unveils regs to diversify neighborhoods

WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration announced new rules on Wednesday that are meant to racially integrate America's neighborhoods but some conservatives claim are an attempt by Washington to play a heavy-handed role in creating “utopias.”

The new HUD housing rule comes on the heels of a landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the federal agency’s power to ban housing policies that hurt minorities.

The Fair Housing Act, which originally was passed in 1968 and barred racial discrimination, demanded the government end segregation.

The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation.

“Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future,” Julian Castro, the secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development, said Wednesday in a written statement. “This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity.”

But others say the rule is nothing short of a government power grab.

“This overreaching new regulation is an attempt to extort communities into giving up control of local zoning decisions and reengineer the makeup of our neighborhoods,” Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., told FoxNews.com in a written statement on Wednesday. 

“Just as the president has used the DOJ, IRS and DHS as a political weapon, he has now expanded his arsenal to include HUD as a way of punishing neighborhoods that don’t fall in line with his liberal agenda," he added.

In June, Gosar said the HUD rule attempts to tell Americans “how we can live, where we go to school, how we will vote” and “what this utopian type of neighborhood should look like.”

Gosar believes the proposal will have far-reaching consequences that only boosts the federal government’s power over where homes can be built and who can live in them. He adds that if cheaper homes start to crop up on the outskirts of wealthier properties, it could potentially depress property values.

Gosar sponsored an amendment to the House HUD spending bill – which passed -- that would block any future funding for the new rules.

“This rule is not about racial integration; racial segregation in housing is illegal and has been for decades,” Heritage Foundation fellow Hans Von Spakovsky told FoxNews.com. “Americans have the ability to live anywhere they want. This is about left-wing, progressive social urban planners who have taken control through the Obama administration who hate suburbs and don’t like Americans using cars or owning single family homes in neighborhoods that are not high-density.”

Von Spakovsky believes the rule will make things worse for the poor.

“They are using federal housing money intended to improve the bad housing of poor Americans as the lever to force compliance with these new regulations,” he said. “But that money is most needed in blighted, inner city urban neighborhoods, where there are a large number of African Americans. This federal utopian vision will divert that needed federal money into suburbs where it is not needed, leaving poor Americans living in substandard, terrible housing.”

Last month, Castro defended the new rule to skeptical lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“It’s not just about affordable housing -- It’s about good transit. It’s about access to good schools; it’s about all that,” he said at the time.

Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, pressed Castro during the Housing and Urban Development Department Oversight Hearing, for examples where the federal government has been able to successfully diversify areas or end discrimination.

“I know that, as mayor, you wouldn’t want the federal government coming in to tell you what to do with your zoning laws or with your rules, because you have more skin in the game; you have more of an incentive to take care of the people that live in your areas,” Love told Castro, who served as mayor of San Antonio, between 2009 and 2014.

Source: Fox News, Barnini Chakrbory

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/

Plan to require fireplace retrofits at homes for sale heats up smoke debate

I'm all for a clean environment and clean breathable air, but I am not for adding a significant financial burden on the average home owner trying to sell their home. A real estate transaction is already complicated enough, and if the Bay Area Air Quality Management District gets their way, selling a home will will be even more complicated.


Plan to require fireplace retrofits at homes for sale heats up smoke debate

In a move that could burn a hole in the pocket of property owners looking to sell or rent their homes, Bay Area air quality officials are ratcheting up their campaign against smoke pollution with a proposal aimed at phasing out the old-fashioned fireplace.

Bay Area homes with wood-burning fireplaces could not be sold or rented unless they were equipped with cleaner devices, such as gas, under the first proposal of its kind in California. Retrofit costs could range from hundreds of dollars to $2,000 to $3,000 or more -- depending on the home and device installed.

Air officials also propose banning all wood-burning devices -- whether or not they're certified by the federal Environmental Protection Agency -- in new construction, effective Nov. 1. Currently, only open hearth fireplaces in new buildings are banned.

The move by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has fueled a debate on how far government should go in limiting wood burning to reduce public exposure to smoke. It also serves as an acknowledgment that Spare the Air alerts designed to curb such activities are difficult to enforce.

The rule would add a financial burden to homeowners, but proponents say the ban is worth it to protect people.

Tyler Baldwin, a San Jose resident preparing to sell his home, said he would never use his fireplace on days when it is banned, but he resents the proposal.

"They are forcing steep costs on thousands of people who are not burning on Spare the Air days and who just want to sell their home," Baldwin said. "If I obey the law not to burn on certain days, it's none of their business what I use to burn in my home."

Air quality regulators and clean air advocates say the move protects people from tiny wood smoke particles that can lodge deep in human lungs and cause lung and heart diseases, asthma attacks and strokes.

"Removing polluting devices during point of sale is good public health policy," said Jenny Bard, a spokeswoman for the American Lung Association in California. "Just like we need to take polluting cars off the road, we need to prohibit polluting devices from being used."

The debate begins to unfold Wednesday as the nine-county air district holds the first of nine public workshops on proposals to reduce smoke in the Bay Area. The first is in Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County. The proposal will be fine-tuned after the workshops, reviewed by air district staff and then presented to the board at a later date. There is no timetable on a vote or adoption of the rules.

A 2007 rule outlawed burning wood on nights that the district predicts fine particle pollution concentrations will violate federal public health standards.

This new proposal goes much further.

It recommends that after Nov. 1, 2016, Bay Area homes and commercial buildings could not be sold if they contained old fireplaces, stoves or other wood-burning devices that failed to meet federal EPA emission standards.

A home seller could comply by replacing an open hearth fireplace with one fueled by clean natural gas or electricity, a closed-loop insert that is typically encased in glass, or an EPA-certified stove. A property seller also would have the option of making the old fireplace inoperable, for example by sealing it off with bricks, said Wayne Kino, the air district's director of enforcement.

"We thought of this as a doable way of trying to get our wood-burning emissions in the Bay Area ratcheted down over time," Kino said. "Our winter air quality has improved significantly, but we still have a regional problem with fine particulates."

The federal government continues to give the Bay Area a failing grade for meeting the public health standard for fine particulates.

The air district had six days of unhealthy particulates in the most recent Spare the Air season from Nov. 1 through Feb. 28, 15 in the 2013-14 season, and a lone bad air day in 2012-13.

Real estate industry representatives say the requirement would cost property owners too much for too small a benefit.

"This is a bad solution looking for a problem," said David Stark, public affairs director of the East Bay Association of Realtors, which is active in southern and eastern Alameda County. "Why don't they focus on the people burning illegally on no-burn days instead of imposing a financial burden on thousands of people?"

Air district officials say that while most people comply with the law, some don't, and it's impossible to catch all violators among the 1.4 million Bay Area homes with wood fire places and stoves.

District officials said they worry about the health of people in small valleys, where just one or two smoky fireplaces can foul air in a neighborhood.

"The air can be unhealthy in those localized areas even (though) high readings aren't picked up by our regional system of monitors," said Kristine Roselius, a district spokeswoman.

Last winter, the air district received 3,739 public complaints about wood burning, and issued 155 tickets to burn violators.

First-time violators are given a choice of paying a $100 fine or taking an online smoke-education class. Second-time offenders are fined $500.



Source: San Jose Mercury News, Dennis Cuff
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27765576/plan-require-fireplace-retrofits-at-homes-sale-heats