Skip to Navigation | Skip to Page Content

Realestock Blog

Tag >> President Obama

In the last few weeks, there have been plenty of discussions in terms of whether the new US Government financial stability plans are beneficial or yet another example of throwing away good money after bad (as my grandmother would say). Everyone has an opinion on the various stimulus packages that have been brought forward from both the current and previous administrations.

I have trouble deciding who should be bailed out, and who shouldn’t. No one wants to reward irresponsible behavior with a ton of money, but conversely, there are people who are underwater on their homes through no fault of their own. Many people make snap judgments on people who took out subprime mortgages, but frankly, these people need to get off their high horses. If someone offered you the chance to have something that you thought you could (just) afford, in a housing market that seemed to be on the up, many people would take the chance. Two or three years ago, your average Joe could not have predicted that there would be mass unemployment and an unprecedented drop in home prices.

Bailing out the big banks, mortgage companies, and other corporations leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Who could forget seeing the CEOs of the big three squirm in their seat when asked whether they would be selling their private jets and returning home via a commercial airline? However, as time goes on, jobs are being lost, houses are being foreclosed, and stock prices are shooting down, something needs to be done.

President Obama’s current packages seem to be taking a different technique from the last administration. While the Republicans’ strategy was more to encourage consumer spending and the growth of businesses, the Obama administration seems more aimed at directly helping consumers, particularly homebuyers.

In the last month, three new strategies have been launched by the administration: The $8,000 tax credit for first time buyers, and the Making Home Affordable Refinance and Modification options. These are available to the following buyers, and are summarized as follows (more in depth information can be found at http://www.recovery.gov) :

$8,000 First Time Buyer Credit. You may be eligible if:

- You are a first time buyer.

- if you have a single income of up to $75,000, or a combined income of up to $150,000 (this will mean you receive the full tax credit of $8,000)

- You bought your home on or after the 1st of January, 2009, up to the 1st December, 2009.

Home Affordable Refinance. You may be eligible if:

- The mortgage is on your primary residence

- The loan on your home is a conforming loan, controlled by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac

- You are current on your mortgage payments (meaning you haven’t missed a payment by more than 30 days in 12 months)

- You are not ‘underwater’ on your mortgage –(meaning you cannot owe more than 105% of the cost of your home. (But 80% - 105% is OK))

For those not eligible for this plan, there is also the Home Affordable Modification. You may be eligible if:

- The home is your primary residence

- You owe less than $729,750 on your mortgage

- You are in some kind of trouble with your mortgage that is beyond your control at this point: e.g

1) Your mortgage rates were increased significantly

2) Your income has been significantly reduced since you got your current loan

3) You have suffered a hardship that has increased your expenses (e.g. medical bills)

- You began your mortgage before January 1, 2009

What is your view on these packages? Will they help? Will they benefit the economy as a whole, or are they just a temporary band aid over the real issues? What do you think? Will the cost of these measures be more or less than the cost of many, many foreclosures? Feel free to comment below.

The views expressed on the blog portion of this site represent only the opinions of the author and may not necessarily be the opinions of Realestock.com


Originally, the concept of suburbia was to create a place of community and safety. People moved their families out of the city so that their children would be safe from crime, drug problems, and so that they could be brought up somewhere where everyone knew their neighbors, and where there was a real sense of community.

However, times have changed. Suburban areas are no longer immune to these kinds of problems – a day doesn’t go by where we don’t hear about shootings and other crimes going on in suburbs of any major city. The community element has changed too. People know their neighbors, but many people work long hours in the city, and spend most of their evenings gridlocked in the daily commute, leaving little time for socializing. And I’m not even touching on the effect that rising gas prices have had on the suburban lifestyle, because there's enough material there for another ten blog posts!

An article in last week’s Globe and Mail Newspaper looked at the growing number of families who are moving from large suburban houses to smaller places in the city. This is becoming a widespread trend all over the world. The families mentioned in the article citied a range of reasons for leaving their suburban houses, including shorter commuting times, more activities for their children, exposure to a more diverse mix of cultures, and close proximity to restaurants, shops and bars.

However, there are a number of plus points to staying in suburbia. If you work from home, it can have many advantages. There are lots of community events and groups, and if you’re not spending your evenings gridlocked somewhere on the 401, then you have the opportunity to really get to know your community. Also, even though crime is rising in the suburbs it very rarely compares to the city, so your kids are still safer in suburbia. Not just that, you get much more space, in terms of indoor square footage, and outdoor acreage, which is tempting when looking at a new home.

It’s an interesting situation. Do you sacrifice the space and tranquility of the suburbs for being five seconds walk from your nearest Starbucks? It’s a hard one. As an ex-English major, I love a good compare/contrast piece, so I had a look at the prices in Bloor West Village (a community in Downtown Toronto) and Caledon, Ontario, a town which is part of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). I chose these places because they were examples given in the article, and also they are both desirable ‘luxury’ areas of the GTA. I looked at detached houses on MLS.ca priced between $650,000 and $800,000 (average spend for a single detached family house in Bloor West Village seems to be in the high $500,000s) in both areas, and then looked at what you could get for a cool million. The differences were very interesting, although not entirely unexpected:

Caledon, Ontario

In Caledon, $650,000 buys you a three bedroom, four bathroom, two storey detached house, with a saltwater pool in the back yard, and a games room. Said back yard? About five acres

For just over $650,000 you can get a five bed, five bath detached Victorian/Heritage house, which includes a suite to rent out, and has a range of period features, such as vaulted ceilings

For just over a million You can get a four bed, 2.5 bath Victorian house set on 25 acres. Unique features include a stone fireplace, and your own private waterfall(!)

For just under $1,100,000 you can get a hundred acres of land – and a six bedroom, six bathroom house with a workshop and heated stone floors

Toronto (Bloor West Village)

For over $650,000, you can get a four bedroom, two bathroom detached house with features such as a finished basement, and a renovated kitchen

For over $650,000, There is a work/live house which has two offices, one bedroom and three bathrooms. Features include a ‘loft like’ setting, and a renovated basement with a separate entrance

For just over a million you can get a three bed, three bath detached property, with a landscaped yard

For just under $1,100,000 you can get a five bed, five bath ‘Georgian-style’ house with a family rec room, and a nanny suite(!)

While the differences do not seem that monumental, it is worth noting that MLS doesn’t list the acreage on the Toronto properties, which indicates that you get little to no land.

To sum up, it depends entirely on your lifestyle, and how much you have to spend. If you can spend upwards of $600,000, then in either place, you’ll be living in a beautiful and quality house. However, the difference will be the space inside and outside – if you want all the conveniences of living in the city, you have to give up the space and privacy that comes with living in a small town. Granted, the lower costs to keep up a smaller place, plus the lack (or reduced use) of a car, will save you money, but the cost of groceries and house maintenance is much more expensive in the city, compared to a small suburban town.

The views expressed on the blog portion of this site represent only the opinions of the author and may not necessarily be the opinions of Realestock.com

Are you thinking of moving to the city? Or have you already done it? Let us know by posting below!

 

 


Tags