South Lake Tahoe Weekly Real Estate Market Statistics
March 25, 2010
What you are looking at below are charts and numbers derived from the Northern Nevada Regional Multiple Listing Service for Single Family Homes and Condos for the East Shore. I just started tracking condos with homes as of October 28th, 2009 which will be give different results from previous market reports. The reason that I use this segment of the market is that it has the most influence on the general value trends
Stability is Good! To measure the most recent buyer activity on the market, I use the Market Activity Ratio which is the relationship between Active listings and Pending Sales. This past week the Market Activity Ratio slightly dipped from 13.9% to 13.1%. This is the result of the Active Listings going up by 13 as the Pending Sales increased by 1. We are at that time of year when we begin to see a rise in inventory as we approach the summer season.
There were 7 new sales this past week for a YTD of 99 sales. Four of the sales were below $350,000 and three sales were at $535,000 in Tahoe Keys, $605,000 in Tahoe Keys and $650,000 which was a bank owned property on Glenwood Way with 4193 SF. Short Sales and Bank Owned properties continue to influence our market and it represents about 67% of Pending Sales. The CA side is averaging 33 sales per month for the 1st Quarter of 2010.
| Listings per Status | |
Area Market Survey
|
| Listings as of 03/25/10 at 8:56am |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Equal Opportunity Housing * All information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed. |
| Info deemed reliable but not guaranteed. DOM may not reflect total days property has been on market Copyright ©2010 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. |
Area Market Survey
|
| Listings as of 03/25/10 at 8:56am |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Equal Opportunity Housing * All information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed. |
| Info deemed reliable but not guaranteed. DOM may not reflect total days property has been on market Copyright ©2010 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. |
Lake Tahoe Nevada East Shore Weekly Real Estate Market Statistics
March 25, 2010
What you are looking at below are charts and numbers derived from the Northern Nevada Regional Multiple Listing Service for Single Family Homes and Condos for the East Shore. I just started tracking condos with homes as of October 28th, 2009 which will be give different results from previous market reports. The reason that I use this segment of the market is that it has the most influence on the general value trends.
The Nevada market comes alive! To measure the most current buyer activity in the real estate market, I use the Market Activity Ratio which is the relationship between Active Listings and Pending Sales. The Market Activity Ratio increased from 11% to 13.8% this past week. This was the result of Active listings increasing by 1 as the Pending sale increased by 6. It’s interesting to note that the number of Short Sales remained the same at 13 which represents 50% of the Pending Sales.
There was only 1 new sale this past week for a YTD total of 27. This was a condo sale in Lake Village for $285,000. Despite that, the 6 month average is showing an increase by 1.2% to $730,777. The Nevada east shore is averaging 9 sales per month for the first quarter.
| Status | Class | Type | Area | No. of Listings | Dollar Volume | Average Price | Median Price | Average DOM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Listings | 187 | $397,373,276 | $2,124,991 | $719,000 | 318 | |||
| Listings Under Contract | 1 | $394,020 | $394,020 | $394,020 | 17 | |||
| Listings Sold 2010 | 27 | $12,900,050 | $477,780 | $449,000 | 231 | |||
| ACTIVE | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 35 | $10,309,400 | $294,554 | $265,500 | 296 | |||
| Upper Kingsbury | 6 | $5,461,000 | $910,167 | $649,000 | 366 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 6 | $4,237,000 | $706,167 | $519,500 | 363 | |||
| Lower Kingsbury | 5 | $8,247,000 | $1,649,400 | $1,850,000 | 180 | |||
| Lincoln Park | 1 | $1,695,000 | $1,695,000 | $1,695,000 | 510 | |||
| Lake Village | 10 | $4,419,000 | $441,900 | $362,500 | 263 | |||
| Round Hill | 13 | $13,108,999 | $1,008,385 | $749,000 | 423 | |||
| Elk Point | 2 | $3,820,000 | $1,910,000 | $1,910,000 | 200 | |||
| Pinewild/Marla | 6 | $6,340,677 | $1,056,780 | $884,950 | 167 | |||
| Zephyr Heights/Knolls | 12 | $9,804,000 | $817,000 | $720,000 | 210 | |||
| Skyland/Tall Pn/Snug Harbor | 5 | $4,167,000 | $833,400 | $799,000 | 184 | |||
| Hidden Woods | 3 | $6,470,000 | $2,156,667 | $2,595,000 | 233 | |||
| Upper & Lower Lakeridge - LT | 4 | $4,288,000 | $1,072,000 | $1,122,000 | 454 | |||
| Cave Rock | 8 | $15,879,000 | $1,984,875 | $1,950,000 | 254 | |||
| Logan/Cedarbrok | 1 | $4,495,000 | $4,495,000 | $4,495,000 | 899 | |||
| Glenbrk/Uppaway | 16 | $60,383,500 | $3,773,969 | $4,050,000 | 390 | |||
| Lakefront Propt | 17 | $202,485,000 | $11,910,882 | $4,995,000 | 466 | |||
| Sub Total | 150 | $365,609,576 | $2,437,397 | $749,000 | 325 | |||
| New | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 1 | $949,900 | $949,900 | $949,900 | 4 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 1 | $547,000 | $547,000 | $547,000 | 3 | |||
| Glenbrk/Uppaway | 1 | $1,695,000 | $1,695,000 | $1,695,000 | 4 | |||
| Sub Total | 3 | $3,191,900 | $1,063,967 | $949,900 | 4 | |||
| Extended | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 2 | $654,500 | $327,250 | $327,250 | 333 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 2 | $3,625,000 | $1,812,500 | $1,812,500 | 372 | |||
| Pinewild/Marla | 1 | $895,000 | $895,000 | $895,000 | 175 | |||
| Cave Rock | 1 | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | 1100 | |||
| Sub Total | 6 | $6,674,500 | $1,112,417 | $1,135,000 | 447 | |||
| Price Reduced | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 2 | $549,000 | $274,500 | $274,500 | 92 | |||
| Pinewild/Marla | 1 | $535,000 | $535,000 | $535,000 | 297 | |||
| Sub Total | 3 | $1,084,000 | $361,333 | $375,000 | 160 | |||
| Active/Pending-Call | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 1 | $239,000 | $239,000 | $239,000 | 429 | |||
| Upper Kingsbury | 1 | $535,000 | $535,000 | $535,000 | 20 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 1 | $449,500 | $449,500 | $449,500 | 87 | |||
| Skyland/Tall Pn/Snug Harbor | 1 | $895,000 | $895,000 | $895,000 | 344 | |||
| Logan/Cedarbrok | 1 | $1,195,000 | $1,195,000 | $1,195,000 | 951 | |||
| Lakefront Propt | 1 | $6,495,000 | $6,495,000 | $6,495,000 | 993 | |||
| Sub Total | 6 | $9,808,500 | $1,634,750 | $715,000 | 471 | |||
| Active/Pending-Loan | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Lake Village | 3 | $898,000 | $299,333 | $299,000 | 90 | |||
| Zephyr Cove | 1 | $799,900 | $799,900 | $799,900 | 917 | |||
| Upper & Lower Lakeridge - LT | 2 | $2,144,000 | $1,072,000 | $1,072,000 | 75 | |||
| Sub Total | 6 | $3,841,900 | $640,317 | $559,450 | 223 | |||
| Active/Pending-Short Sale | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 3 | $474,000 | $158,000 | $140,000 | 397 | |||
| Upper Kingsbury | 2 | $2,429,900 | $1,214,950 | $1,214,950 | 223 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 1 | $399,000 | $399,000 | $399,000 | 252 | |||
| Lower Kingsbury | 1 | $239,000 | $239,000 | $239,000 | 181 | |||
| Kahle Park | 1 | $279,000 | $279,000 | $279,000 | 390 | |||
| Round Hill | 3 | $1,233,000 | $411,000 | $425,000 | 129 | |||
| Zephyr Heights/Knolls | 2 | $2,109,000 | $1,054,500 | $1,054,500 | 263 | |||
| Sub Total | 13 | $7,162,900 | $550,992 | $359,000 | 259 | |||
| SOLD | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Summit/Tahoe VL | 23 | $4,756,250 | $206,793 | $170,000 | 184 | |||
| Upper Kingsbury | 6 | $4,803,900 | $800,650 | $356,500 | 232 | |||
| Mid Kingsbury | 7 | $3,653,386 | $521,912 | $485,000 | 273 | |||
| Lower Kingsbury | 2 | $809,900 | $404,950 | $404,950 | 95 | |||
| Lincoln Park | 1 | $450,000 | $450,000 | $450,000 | 174 | |||
| Lake Village | 7 | $2,428,900 | $346,986 | $285,000 | 73 | |||
| Round Hill | 6 | $4,576,250 | $762,708 | $452,500 | 164 | |||
| Pinewild/Marla | 2 | $975,000 | $487,500 | $487,500 | 249 | |||
| Zephyr Heights/Knolls | 3 | $1,759,000 | $586,333 | $535,000 | 425 | |||
| Skyland/Tall Pn/Snug Harbor | 2 | $1,311,000 | $655,500 | $655,500 | 190 | |||
| Upper & Lower Lakeridge - LT | 2 | $1,575,000 | $787,500 | $787,500 | 140 | |||
| Cave Rock | 1 | $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | 985 | |||
| Glenbrk/Uppaway | 4 | $7,975,000 | $1,993,750 | $1,725,000 | 315 | |||
| Lakefront Propt | 3 | $14,050,000 | $4,683,333 | $4,550,000 | 531 | |||
| Sub Total | 69 | $50,423,586 | $730,777 | $400,000 | 227 | |||
| PENDING-No Show | ||||||||
| RESIDENTIAL | ||||||||
| Residential | ||||||||
| Round Hill | 1 | $394,020 | $394,020 | $394,020 | 17 | |||
| Sub Total | 1 | $394,020 | $394,020 | $394,020 | 17 | |||
2009 Year End Statistics
March 23, 2010
Please click on this link, 2009-year-end-price-banding-charts
Central Tahoe Community Improvement Plan, a proposed new redevelopment project area to enhance where the locals live, work and play.
March 23, 2010
Welcome! To the City of South Lake Tahoe and South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency’s website where you can get all the information about the proposed new redevelopment project area, the Central Tahoe Community Improvement Plan (CTCIP) also known as South Tahoe Redevelopment (STR) Project Area 2. These pages and the links to other pages and information are provided to make it easier for the community to access documents and staff reports presented to City Council and Planning Commission on the proposed project area and a project map. This site will be updated regularly as new documents are released by the City. If you need information you don’t find here, please give us a call and we’ll be happy to assist you.
Redevelopment: A Tool to Build a Better City
The City of South Lake Tahoe is a beautiful place to live and work and it is home to over 24,000 people. Like most cities, the City of South Lake Tahoe has many needs, from more affordable housing, fixing aging buildings, stimulating economic growth and upgrading streets and storm drainage systems. The City constantly examines the range of services it provides and how to pay for those services and improve them. Like every other California city, the City of South Lake Tahoe has a tool available to help finance some of those unmet needs. This tool is redevelopment. Redevelopment is an economic engine that drives vitalization and opportunities where they can be focused on specific areas identified.
Redevelopment funds come from the Redevelopment Law (passed by the state legislature), which allows cities to keep a greater share of the future growth of property taxes. Property owners pay the same property tax as they normally would, they do not pay any more. Without Redevelopment, the property tax paid by local property owner doesn’t stay in the community in which the property is located (it goes to the state and other government agencies). Once a city adopts a Redevelopment Agency, the property owner pays their tax as they normally would, but a greater share stays with the local agency. Then as new private investment and natural turnover of properties occur, the increase in the tax, that new additional amount, is known as Tax Increment.
State redevelopment law allows the City to use taxes generated from the higher property values that result after the properties are improved (the Tax Increment) to pay for the repairs and improvements that would otherwise require higher fees or taxes on ratepayers, which is why Redevelopment is so valuable to a community. If it were not for Redevelopment, the funds for affordable housing, to improve aging buildings, upgrade infrastructure and to address economic issues would have to be drained from other city services or not be done at all. Prior to the Redevelopment Law, cities and counties were not able to provide affordable housing without adding new taxes. According to data collected by the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), “Redevelopment agencies are the largest contributor to affordable housing in California, second only to the federal government. Since 1994, Redevelopment agencies have helped build or rehabilitate 73,120 affordable housing units.”
Redevelopment dollars have also been used to provide new buildings for public safety (fire and police stations), and reduce crime by revitalizing rundown neighborhood. Redevelopment dollars have also been used to build and repair roads and water systems and especially valuable, create jobs and stimulate the economy.
The CRA indicates redevelopment agencies in California generate $31.8 billion in economic activity and create more than 300,000 good paying jobs every year.
Central Tahoe Community Improvement Plan South Tahoe Redevelopment Project Area 2
The new proposed redevelopment project area (Central Tahoe Community Improvement Plan, STR Project Area 2) would allow the City of South Lake Tahoe to keep roughly 75-80% of future grown in property taxes rather than the current 17-18%. Redevelopment does not raise taxes, as described above, it merely changes the way the property taxes are distributed keeping local dollars local.
City officials recently began an update to the South Lake Tahoe General Plan, which will create policies for community land use and guide investment over the next twenty years. In addition, the City Council has initiated a specific planning process, called the Tahoe Valley Community Plan, to define preferred land use policies tailored specifically for the Tahoe Valley (aka the “Y”) Area.
Once the Tahoe Valley Community Plan is approved by the City Council and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency the question then becomes one of implementation. How can private investment be encouraged to undertake change? City officials want to ensure that needed and desired public infrastructure improvements, like sidewalks and street lighting, do not result in tax increases. As a result, the City Council has authorized an evaluation of the use of different financing tools to see if it makes sense to pay for needed improvements through redevelopment rather than through tax increases in the community.
The Planning Commission defined an area (see proposed “Project Area” map) and advisors have studied the proposed Project Area in depth evaluating the area for eligibility of redevelopment assistance. This evaluation process has taken many months to complete because it is a comprehensive look at the entire project area. The evaluation resulted in a portion of the area recommended to be removed from the final Project Area. The recommendation must go to the Planning Commission and then the City Council.
A Redevelopment Area for the Locals
The existing Stateline redevelopment area was established to enhance an important tourist portion of the City and has resulted in providing significant improvements to the area, generating funds to provide affordable housing in the community, and needed infrastructure.
The goals for the new project area (Central Tahoe Community Improvement Plan) would focus on improvements serving local residents and business owners and strengthen the area. The area needs an investment tool to help vitalize the area to provide enhanced amenities for locals. Approximately one-third of the City’s Commercial Floor Area is located in the new project area, but incentives for private investment are relatively few. Redevelopment can provide the needed incentives to encourage investment in the area.
In 2008, when the idea of a new redevelopment project area for the locals was being considered, the City Council made the decision early on if the project is adopted it would not be subject to eminent domain authority. The City Council adopted Resolution 2008-16 ensuring eminent domain could not be used on any property within the proposed project area. Residents, businesses, and property owners will need to work together voluntarily to make improvements and maximize the potential benefits of redevelopment.
With that in mind, the City Council needs your help in creating specific public objectives that will encourage private parties to improve the use of our limited commercial floor area. Already, it is known that redevelopment tax increment could help pay for:
- Fixing up commercial properties at lower costs.
- Making repairs to homes, and assisting in the development of high-quality work-force housing.
- Improving the attractiveness of private or public areas surrounding commercial buildings.
- Upgrading the fire protection and water system in the Lukins Area.
- Addressing water treatment and drainage, traffic conditions, pedestrian facilities, and lighting.
- Creating attractive open spaces, pocket parks or plazas for public gatherings.
Nabbing a Bargain-Basement Mortgage Before Rates Rise .
March 23, 2010
By JAMES R. HAGERTY
Is it time to rush out and buy a house before mortgage rates go up?
As the Federal Reserve winds down its intervention in the mortgage market, rates on home loans are generally expected to rise at least modestly during the rest of this year from today’s unusually low levels. Some analysts believe mortgage rates will jump to around 6% by year end from 5% in recent weeks, while others see only a slight increase.
![[MORTGAGE]](http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BC013A_MORTG_NS_20100312214601.gif)
Meanwhile, federal tax credits available for some home buyers are due to expire at the end of April, adding to the sense of urgency many shoppers feel.
“I’d hate to miss out on really low [mortgage] rates” or the tax credit, says Jennifer Hale, a veterinarian who is looking for a new home near Minneapolis with her fiance, Lawrence Nystrom.
If rates do go up sharply, that will have a big effect on home buyers. Richard Redmond, a mortgage adviser at All California Mortgage in Larkspur, Calif., offers the example of a couple with combined pretax income of $100,000 a year and debt obligations (excluding mortgage) of $500 a month. At a 5% mortgage rate, he figures, the couple could qualify for a loan big enough to buy a $590,000 house, assuming a 20% down payment. At 6%, that would fall to $540,000.
Since late 2008, 30-year fixed-rate mortgages have been available for people with strong credit records at around 5%, near the lowest levels since the 1950s, thanks to the Federal Reserve’s heavy purchases of mortgage securities. At the end of March, the Fed is due to stop buying the securities. Most mortgage analysts think the immediate effect of the Fed’s withdrawal will be modest.
Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at mortgage-bond trader Amherst Securities Group LP in New York, estimates that the Fed move will add a maximum of about 0.25 percentage point to mortgage rates. “There is a lot of private money on the sidelines,” waiting to buy mortgage securities once the Fed stops gobbling most of them up, Ms. Goodman says. She points to banks, money managers and foreign investors.
What happens to interest rates over the rest of this year depends on many factors that are hard to predict, including the strength of the economy, Fed policies and foreign investors’ willingness to buy U.S. debt.
Projections vary widely. At the lower end of the scale, analysts at Credit Suisse and FTN Financial Capital Markets forecast that mortgage rates will be in a range of roughly 5% to 5.25% at the end of 2010. Moody’s Economy.com projects about 5.7%, and Barclays Capital 6%. Barclays cites a general rise in interest rates propelled by heavy government borrowing and a strengthening economy as the main factors.
John W. Anderson, a broker at Twin Oaks Realty of Crystal, Minn., who is helping Ms. Hale and Mr. Nystrom search for a house, says the tax credit and fear of higher interest rates are motivating buyers “to move a little faster.” But he cautions against moving too fast because of the risk of overpaying or ending up with a home you don’t really like. “Getting the right home is the No. 1 thing,” he says.
Write to James R. Hagerty at bob.hagerty@wsj.com
