HoustonRealtor

My Verizon BlackBerry works fine for voice and data in SCR.

One thing that non-Realtors can't see is in the agent remarks: Home has been tested for mold and sheetrock has been removed in the affected areas. Remediation needed. That might provide a little more insight. Perhaps missjanel can give a little more info on how bad the mold situation appears to be, since she has seen it already.

Yes, it is Seven Acres. http://www.sevenacres.org/

I admit that I'm not a fan of the wall, but only because of privacy. The wall itself is attactive enough, I just wouldn't want it to be at the edge of my backyard. If the buyer started this house before the wall was there, the Newmark salesperson probably told the buyer that there would be a brick wall as their back fence. True...but misleading. My only concern at this point is uniformity, as others are sure to follow suit in creating their own privacy.

That's RAUNCHY. He said "ranchy". As far as large hotels, Hotel Derek has about as mod of a touch as you will probably find in Houston, although I know that's not saying much. Magnolia Hotel has a mix of contemporary and traditional furnishings. On a smaller scale, the only place that I have heard of is the Modern B&B on hazard (www.modernbb.com). None of these are likely to be what these visitors are looking for, but they are at least different than the Holiday Inn.

I'm not sure if they own the property or are just the leasing agent, but I assume it is for the entire center. The sign that has been there for 10+ years was near a driveway on the east side of the property, and it seems to me that it was angled so that westbound traffic would see it. My guess is that they are responsible for leasing the entire center so they keep a sign up all of the time.

I haven't been out there in a while, but Mickey Couch with Santa Fe Fidelity has had a sign on the property for years. Is there a new sign?

Yesterday I was driving by the stepchild of Southern Trails (The Enclave at Southern Trails, all by itself across CR 48) and noticed that one of the new homes that backs up to CR 48 has a newly installed wood fence across the rear property line. Not only is the fence visible through the wrought iron that sits atop the brick wall, it is taller than both of them combined. I would hope that the HOA addresses this ASAP, and hope even more that they didn't authorize it in the first place. While the fence is nice and new today, it will age and deteriorate over time. The fact that it is so visible detracts from the uniformity that was intended when the developer built the wall around the community. And even if this homeowner takes meticulous care of the fence, what is to prevent his neighbor from installing one and not maintaining it? And the guy two doors down might put one up and paint or stain it. Before you know it, what the developer intended to be appealing, could turn into an eyesore created by homeowners.

Small(er) makes sense for a lot of people, but be careful about buying TOO small. It can be difficult for resale. At the same time, I also don't see the point of buying a place that is way too big. It's expensive and wasteful to heat/cool space that isn't used.

This couple was on the Today show this morning. I have not seen it yet, but a friend caught it on TV and recorded it for me. I was told that the MSNBC legal analyst feels that the suit has no merit and that they would have to prove that the Realtor maliciously and willfully made them overpay for the house. She feels that it is just a case of buyer's remorse. It is just one person's opinion, but I thought that I would throw it out there for you. Each show is posted on their website and the interview was on at about 7:30, so anyone can catch it later on when it's posted. Update - It's online now, here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22840771/

Yes, it is now Dimassi's Mediterranean Buffet.

rem78, maybe you are referring to the construction on the north side of Shadow Creek Parkway at Reflection Bay. The taller building (6 stories?) on the corner is going to be a Hilton Garden Inn. I believe that the project east of there is a retirement community. I'm not sure if it will be a nursing home or just a "senior living facility".

As a very general rule, townhomes are typically more desirable here than lofts. There are a lot of people in the Houston market that don't want to live in a building shared by others, with elevator access and parking that is not right outside their front door. With that being said, there is a market for lofts, there just isn't as large of a base of buyers for them. Townhomes tend to provide more privacy, along with a private garage and a yard or patio. These are very appealing features to many people. The one issue that comes up most with townhomes is that they are on multiple levels. Some people don't want, or can't handle, the stairs. If you do a lot of entertaining (most people don't), keep the parking situation in mind. Some of the lofts have minimal parking so guests must park on the street or in a remote lot, usually for a fee. Townhomes may or may not have a private driveway, and street parking may be limited. For example, the Rice Military area has so many driveways, that there is little room to park. In addition, many streets are rather narrow. And don't forget the maintenance fee. It will be higher in a loft that has a building to maintain (including elevator, common space, etc), and even higher if there is a concierge or doorman. Townhomes vary depending on what is included. Many newer townhomes do not include maintaining the exterior, so it is the individual owner's responsibility to paint, re-roof, etc. as needed.

Any idea on who is building the townhomes and at what price point? I haven't been able to find much info on them, but I know some people that may be interested depending on the timing, product and price.

I've been going with the assumption that the house was $1,000,000. The "typical" 6% commission is split between the listing agent and the selling agent. I have assumed he only represented the buyers, and $30,000 is 3% of $1,000,000. Of course, it doesn't really matter what the price was in this case. I just wanted to present another view.

Please elaborate, because you lost me. I said that agents must provide information to both buyers and sellers (depending on who they represent) in order to make them more knowledgable. In the end, it is the buyer and seller that come to terms and complete the transaction. The agents involved do not have control over either of the parties...we represent them, but we do not complete the transaction for them. However, I did not say, or imply, that the agent has no other duties, responsibilities or involvement in the transaction if that is what you are getting at. Personally, I am very ethical, and have talked myself out of many commissions because I didn't think that my client was looking at the big picture. Some may say that it's bad business, but I would argue that when my clients are ready, they will come back to me because I was open and honest in the first place. I tell them my opinion, and in many cases they agree. In fact, I have a number of former "buyers" that never bought anything at all because of information that I gave them. Some were planning to relocate in a couple of years and were concerned about resale. I don't tell them what they want to hear just for the sake of the sale. If I don't feel that there is much room for appreciation, I let them know that. The last thing I want is to get their listing in a couple of years and have them bringing money to the table becuase their home didn't even appreciate enough to cover their closing costs. Other buyers have been looking at investment property that just didn't make sense unless they were only looking for a tax write-off. I have also passed on taking listings where the seller had no chance of selling their property for what they wanted. I would rather not take the listing than to constantly hit them up for a price reduction because I lied about the value up front in order to secure the listing. I know that there are less ethical agents that would have done what it took to get the listing, just like there are crooked people in every industry, but I don't work that way. As for the argument about being a buyers agent and not working to get the buyer the best deal when my commission is proportionally at stake, that has never been an issue for me. However, I know that isn't the case for everyone...and it's unfortunate. My goal is always to get my buyer the best deal. I will show them the comps and coach them on how to proceed. A recent client of mine purchased a home for *significantly* less than comparable sales in the neighborhood. I busted my butt putting the deal together with an agent and seller/investor that knew the area very well. On top of getting the house for less than my buyer ever expected, I also gave her the bonus that the seller was offering to the selling agent (which was me in this case). My buyer sent a glowing email about the service that I provided to everyone that she knew. I have since seen the email myself. The satisfaction from making someone that happy is much more than I would have received by getting her to buy the house at close to list price (which was a very fair number) and keeping the bonus for myself. Do I hope to get repeat business and referrals from her? Of course I do. I am building a business just like anyone else in any other industry. But I can honestly say that if I never hear from her again, I will always be happy about the deal that I helped her get. Not every agent is a crook.

Without all of the facts, none of us can (or should) be the jury. I agree that it is important to provide information to both buyers and sellers in order to make them more knowledgeable. My initial concern was that the buyer was taking the easy way out, much the same way people have tried to sue McDonald's because they are fat. This country has entirely too many frivolous lawsuits that tie up the justice system. If the agent was only looking out for his commission, then he deserves to be punished. He has been a Realtor for quite some time according to the article (26 years according to his own website). In that time, he has probably learned a thing or two about real estate. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and our justice system is required to do the same. Once provided with information about comparable sales in the area, it is the buyer's job to determine how much they will offer for a house. In this case, they made the offer and were apparently comfortable with it at the time. They even closed the deal. Real estate is not a "sure thing". I think too many people make purchases thinking that they are going to make a fortune eventually. When it doesn't happen, they are obviously disappointed. And sometimes when people are disappointed, they look for someone to blame. When the data is gathered and it can be determined when prices started falling, we will have a better idea of who, if anyone, is at fault. This may merely be a case of the buyers being in the market at the wrong time. But if there was a definite and obvious trend that the Realtor should have reasonably known about, then he may be in for a legitimate battle. I guess I will sum this up with what I should have said the first time around. I hope that whichever party should prevail ends up doing so. I don't want the Realtor to win only because of the fact that he is a fellow Realtor, but I also don't want the buyers to win merely because they bought a house that has depreciated rather than appreciated.

My first thought was "what next????". But in reality, it doesn't surprise me. People are always looking for someone to blame. As a Realtor, I can only hope that the buyers lose and a precedent is set. The buyers had to be aware of the market conditions where they were buying. And if they weren't, then shame on them, because the rest of the country knew that prices were out of control there. Former clients of mine are in a lawsuit over a transaction that fell apart. They have spent many times more in legal fees than what was at stake in the first place. Greed will make people do crazy things.

The teardown sold for $245,000.

Tax records must be incorrect because the original home that was torn down wasn't even sold until June 2005. This new construction was first listed in August 2006 with an estimated completion date of 4/30/2007. The listing was terminated on 5/4/2007 after 260 days. It was off the market from 5/4/2007 to 10/26/2007. It was relisted in October 2007 with an estimated completion date of 11/15/2007. The listing was terminated after 21 days. It was off the market from 11/16/2007 to 1/9/2007. It was relisted again two days ago with an estimated completion date of 2/28/2008. This time with the same agent that had the listing the first time. Sounds to me like the builder is both wishy-washy and slow. This project is way behind schedule and the price has been all over the place. Here are the prices, in order: 729,900 (8/2/2006) 825,000 (12/7/2006) 790,000 (3/27/2007) 835,000 (4/17/2007) 1,150,000 (10/26/2007) 500,000 (1/9/2007) I haven't seen the house, but my gut instinct says to pass on it. And heed sevfiv's warning. Being one block (2 streets) from the big toilet, I'd have to say that there are more desireable locations in Bellaire. Click on the link below and zoom out once... http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...p;z=18&om=1

My intention was not to stir up trouble, but to ensure that roadrunner (or any other potential renter) knew what the numbers showed. I agree that some renters may not have tried to negotiate at all, but at the same time, it is possible that they did and they just weren't successful. If a property is listed in MLS, I would hope that the listing agent would share the same type of info with their client at the time they list the property and when an offer comes in. And if they do so, then their clients will see the trends. If I was a landlord and saw that properties weren't being leased for drastically reduced amounts, I wouldn't want to give someone a drastic reduction on mine. Of course, if I am highly motivated...or even desperate...everything changes. By no means do I encourage someone going in and paying full price just for the heck of it, but I do think it's worthwhile knowing that a $150 reduction in rent is more of the exception than the rule.

This will likely work better for properties that are owned by investors. Properties that are owned by individuals that decide to lease rather than sell (for any number of reasons) won't likely be as negotiable. I ran a quick report in MLS for townhomes/condos that leased in area 16 (Central) during the month of December. I had no other criteria to limit the search. On average, they leased for 98% of asking price, which amounted to a $38 reduction. In addition, 29 of the 42 properties (69%) leased for full asking price. Knowledge is power. I hope this helps in your search!

I know that I've seen the woman sitting in a lawn chair out in front of the model on a few occasions. She had signs on her car and sat next to it with an umbrella (for the sun) while reading a book. It was nice to see a "silent" protest rather than being harrassed by someone. She wasn't offending anyone but the Trendmaker sales team. She definitely had a more subtle approach than the Lemon Lady at the Tremont Tower on Yupon @ Westeimer.

From MLS - Lot Value: Yes That might be an explanation for the lack of interior pics.

SOLD: $575,000