The house next door to mine is being sold by the bank. I suspect that the guy who bought it overpaid for the 2bd/1.5 bath no basement and probably overestimated how much he could rent it out for. Rents in the eastern Shaw area (based on a quick Craigslist search) range from $1500- $1700 for similar units. Dude paid about $400K for the place. I’ve been in it, it isn’t worth $400K. Heck, even my beautifully renovated 1/2 painted house isn’t worth $400K.
Now it is on the market for something in the mid 300K range ‘as-is’. Competing with it on the same block is a nicer end unit in the low $400K. I don’t know how the two will play off each other, but have seen at least one set of buyers look at one and then the other.
I realize that this is not the only piece of real estate where some ‘investor’ paid too much and failed to notice that the mortgage, taxes and insurance were more than what the market would bear as a rental. But I’m not all that sympathetic to a group that jacked up the housing prices because they couldn’t gage the market. Also I think this is the same group that ‘renovated’ houses for flipping without a decent eye for beauty only to have their properties sit because they u-g-l-y. But that’s another post, for another day.
Tag: Housing
Alternative Future
In the book “Washington DC Present and Future” published in 1950 by the National Capitol Park & Planning Commission (so its a govt doc, copy away) there is a proposed idea, that never came to be. The above picture (from Truxtoncircle.org) shows an area bound by 7th, Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York Avenues NW. The left is a part of Shaw in the late 1940s, the right is the idea of what it would be, large apartment buildings, snaky townhouse rows, and lot of open space. Roads went missing in this alternative future, M & N Street are gone as well as small road like Warner and Franklin. Anyway, never happened, well not in this version. 1/2 of Franklin did disappear and there are a bunch of apartment buildings along 7th.
The road to Hell is paved with the very best of intentions
So, former Mayor-for-Life, current Ward 8 Councilman has proposed some housing bills recently, some not bad, others…. I don’t want to call them ‘stupid’ but I can’t find another word. It seems his heart is in the right place.
Let’s start off with the not-bad proposed legislation, Housing Support for Teachers Act of 2007 B17-0095, sponsored by our own Harry Thomas Jr., Vincent Gray, Carol Schwartz, Kwame Brown, and Marion Barry. A quick look at it seems to offer funds of $5K for individual teachers with moving expenses, housing down payments, and housing stipend. Good stuff for teachers. No complaint here.
The next one I mentioned to someone and he proclaimed the “Evictions with Dignity Amendment Act” as stupid. To me it is not so much stupid, but it looks like a huge liability for the city. Does the city have tons of storage space for people’s stuff? And what happens when someone precious thingamabob heirloom dohicky gets damaged by a water leak while in the City’s care? Anyway it is co-sponsored with Kwame Brown.
And the last of Barry proposed legislation that should be cause for concern for anyone who is/ will/ has rented out their basement, condo, house or part of their house, the Rent Control Expansion Amendment Act of 2007 (PDF). Barry is the sole sponsor of this really bad idea, that would seem to make every rental-able unit in the city subject to the Rent Control laws, which are now just limited to units of 4 or more. If I’m interpreting this thing right (and I hope I’m not) this would mess with owners of single units, and increase their risk. Also there are a lot of things that go into the expense for a single (or double if it is a house with a rentable basement) landlord that are beyond the control of that person that it seems rent control ignores, like condo fees and skyrocketing tax assessments. The proposed bill is very short and left me with two big questions. One was does it include single and half units (room in house)? And in Sec.3 ‘Fiscal impact statement’ is the language saying there will be an study of some sort to see what economic impact such legislation would have or is it saying that this will be based on a fiscal impact statement that was done already? If there is a study to be done, I hope the city would take a look at incentives for people to decide to make their basements rental units, or to rent out their condos or houses (short-term/ indefinitely) over just selling their properties. People make choices about what to do with their homes and the city shouldn’t put something out there that would give homeowners second thoughts about renting out their place as an extra source of income, and thus taking some units off the legal* market.
*Regarding basement units there are height and other requirements, but some folks rent out their basements regardless, and illegally.