Have to admit that, even with homes flying off the market here and prices soaring, somehow I still didn't expect to see this:

 

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/10/u-haul-data-moving-ohio-and-akron-area-destination-spots-2020/6573760002/

 

People on the move coming to Akron more than they're leaving area

 

That road less traveled used to be the one headed toward Akron.

 

But not in 2020, according to data compiled by U-Haul International. ...

 

This year, according to U-Haul, Ohio was the No. 4 growth state in the nation, with only Tennessee, Texas and Florida outranking the Buckeye State.

 

=============================

 

Really surprised and wonder if this is something unique to UHaul or if data from full-service moving companies would show a similar trend.

WTF?

 

https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-02-22/cheaper-rent-bay-area-tenants-moving-oakland-san-francisco

 

Cheaper rent in San Francisco? For some Oakland tenants, the city across the Bay is more affordable now

 

The pandemic’s toll on San Francisco has created a scenario long unthinkable in the Bay Area. For some renters — mostly middle- and upper-income earners — it’s now more affordable to live in the famously expensive city than in its bluer-collar neighbor, Oakland.

 

============

 

This is about as pure a man-bites-dog story as I've read so far this year.  You couldn't get this level of role reversal at the edgiest clubs in SanFran.

There aren't anymore edgy clubs in San Francisco.  They are all Philz Coffee now.

This one went viral on reddit yesterday, and it's an interesting global perspective, assuming the underlying data holds up:

 

 

https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/buyer-competition-intensifies-4-offers-for-every-home-sold-in-february-2021?distinct_id=HkxrYwaXM&user

 

Quote

With demand for homes outpacing new listings, buyer competition continues to intensify. On average, there were four offers per home sold (closed) in February, according to NAR’s latest February REALTORS® Confidence Index Report, a monthly survey of REALTORS® about their transactions. One year ago, there were two to three buyers for every home sold. The intense competition has led to double-digit price growth and properties selling in record time. To get back to a healthy supply level equivalent to 6 months of monthly demand, an additional 2.7 million homes should be on the market for sale.

 

4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

This one went viral on reddit yesterday, and it's an interesting global perspective, assuming the underlying data holds up:

 

 

 

 

Wonder what Germany's deal is.

Realtor friend shared this. He's afraid of a crash once the CARES Act mortgage forbearance ends....

 

76 all-cash offers on one home. The housing madness shows no signs of slowing

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/29/success/when-will-housing-market-cool-off-feseries/index.html

Everyone constantly talks about home prices and how quickly they have moved over the last 12 months. What I can't understand is where are the appraisers in this and isn't their role to stop 10% price surges from happening in the short term? When you have all-cash buyers like the article above, sure. But the majority of houses are still being financed. 

 

My wife and I recently offered on a house that was listed at $158/sqft. It was a one street development where all of the houses were built between 2002-2004 all very comparable. The street had 4 sales in the last 6 months, a buyer's dream to know comps. Those 4 houses averaged $146/sqft. Home had no updates besides HVAC a few years ago. Our realtor said if we weren't willing to offer $50,000 over asking we wouldn't even be in the conversation (~$169/sqft). In a market where home prices are up 10% since last year, and now a house sells for at least 15% over those inflated prices, how aren't appraisers putting the brakes on this?

 

Low Supply / High Demand can only explain so much. Not everyone is a full cash buyer.  

1 hour ago, Dr_nkBear said:

Low Supply / High Demand can only explain so much. 

 

No, it describes everything. How is an appraiser supposed to convince 30 ravenous bidders for one house that they shouldn't pay more than what he/she says it's worth?

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

No, it describes everything. How is an appraiser supposed to convince 30 ravenous bidders for one house that they shouldn't pay more than what he/she says it's worth?

As I recall from the process, a lender may not approve a loan if the sale price is significantly over the appraised market value.  It is meant to protect the lender form irrational bidding wars.  

5 minutes ago, OH_Really said:

As I recall from the process, a lender may not approve a loan if the sale price is significantly over the appraised market value.  It is meant to protect the lender form irrational bidding wars.  

Yeah but it's not like it's just one or a couple of houses with bidding wars.  It's the entire market experiencing this and dictating the increase in values.  So it's not like an appraiser can really say that this house isn't worth this amount of money when literally everything (price of other houses being sold, scarcity of houses, the amount of cash offers, and all of the bidding wars) is pointing to the value being accurate.

When materials prices go back down it should help some since a lot of SFH jobs are being delayed because of them.

3 hours ago, KJP said:

No, it describes everything. How is an appraiser supposed to convince 30 ravenous bidders for one house that they shouldn't pay more than what he/she says it's worth?

 

1 hour ago, OH_Really said:

As I recall from the process, a lender may not approve a loan if the sale price is significantly over the appraised market value.  It is meant to protect the lender form irrational bidding wars.  

 

1 hour ago, cle_guy90 said:

Yeah but it's not like it's just one or a couple of houses with bidding wars.  It's the entire market experiencing this and dictating the increase in values.  So it's not like an appraiser can really say that this house isn't worth this amount of money when literally everything (price of other houses being sold, scarcity of houses, the amount of cash offers, and all of the bidding wars) is pointing to the value being accurate.

The real estate market is crazy right now.  The short supply, especially after such an extended period of time, is playing a huge factor.  Even now, I haven't seen an uptick in new listings that would normally pop up in the spring.  The market value is going up, being from bidding wars or all-cash deals that don't rely on getting lending approval.  All of this will factor in appraisals increasing.  Then factor in the ranking of school districts, crime, services and other quality of life factors.  The lending industry may be more "cautious" in lending, but if appraisals and market values are increasing, so will the money that will be lent out as well.  

 

The factors may be different, but one can't help but wondering what the ceiling may be.  Will this be another bubble like the one around 2007?  When will the point come that people finally start feeling comfortable about listing their houses once again?  I also have to question what is going to happen when certain communities that were built up in the 1950's and 1960's start facing a large increase in selling due to the aging of the home owners.  There are some suburbs that has 70% to 80% of the housing stock fall into two or perhaps three styles.  I've seen some extremely crazy sale prices in the neighborhood where I used to live.  I also know that there are still quite a few elderly who still live there and at any time their living situations can change.  I don't expect much demand for "vintage" unaltered mid-1950 to mid-1960 homes with no character if there ends up being a large number of them hitting the market at the same time.  When this happened to suburbs that were slightly older, it played a big factor in the bottom falling out of the real estate market for those cities.  

Plus, mortgage forbearance programs funded by the stimulus is helping to stimulate the housing market. When the forbearance program ends, look for the market to come back down to earth -- hopefully without a crash. But that may also put a lot of recent mortgages underwater.

1 hour ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

I don't expect much demand for "vintage" unaltered mid-1950 to mid-1960 homes with no character if there ends up being a large number of them hitting the market at the same time.  When this happened to suburbs that were slightly older, it played a big factor in the bottom falling out of the real estate market for those cities.  

 

As of right now, there is huge demand for those houses. Those are the ones the flippers are snapping up with cash since the foreclosure pipeline had been shut off for so long. That's one thing I've noticed too - the cash buyers are going for these "vintage" houses (bungalows alot of times) and giving them modern updates and reselling. The updated ones are the ones then going through the appraisal process and selling to buyers who have mortgages.

1 minute ago, PoshSteve said:

 

As of right now, there is huge demand for those houses. Those are the ones the flippers are snapping up with cash since the foreclosure pipeline had been shut off for so long. That's one thing I've noticed too - the cash buyers are going for these "vintage" houses (bungalows alot of times) and giving them modern updates and reselling. The updated ones are the ones then going through the appraisal process and selling to buyers who have mortgages.

Right now, the volume of bungalows on the market is a "manageable" percentage of the real estate market.  It helps were a community has held up well regarding crime and schools.  Once those start trending in the wrong direction or the volume of those types of houses increases, it will drive down prices.  I have also noticed that even some areas that do have a better "reputation", there has been an increase in houses becoming rentals.  If the peak or near peak in prices is not enough to cause the owner of a rental house to turn around and sell it now, then it tells me they are staying as rentals.    

16 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

When materials prices go back down it should help some since a lot of SFH jobs are being delayed because of them.

 

I think that should be an "if," not a "when." I am worried about inflation, particularly within construction costs and the trades. We are seeing a combination of inflationary pressures that is creating a fear we haven't had in a generation. COVID is impacting how people work, live, and play and thus about to drive construction and renovations of all sorts of facilities. $2 trillion is likely to be printed for infrastructure "stimulus" in addition to what's already been printed. Biden's policies have driven fuel costs up significantly, putting pressure on a market that was already seeing delays and additional costs due to COVID impacts.

 

Lumber is a good single item to look at to gauge material costs - and the price per 1000 board feet has risen at an astronomical rate - it's more than 3X what it was a year ago.

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber

Persistent higher materials prices will be a net positive.  It will discourage wastefully large new construction SFH's while encouraging reuse of existing structures and less wasteful housing styles like apartments and townhouses.

1 hour ago, X said:

Persistent higher materials prices will be a net positive.  It will discourage wastefully large new construction SFH's while encouraging reuse of existing structures and less wasteful housing styles like apartments and townhouses.

 

Persistent higher material prices don't just impact new single family home construction, they impact larger multifamily and mixed-use complexes like the ones my organization builds, too--often at razor-thin margins because that's just the economics of affordable housing development even with LIHTC support.  I don't think the upside of higher raw material costs will be anything close to as positive as you're thinking, and I hope that we either see substantial moderation in such prices or the advent of a generational change in construction technology that allows for some kind of substitution for those materials while preserving structural integrity (e.g., commercially viable 3D-printed buildings).

Are they allowing lumber to come down from Western Canada or is that still blocked because of the virus?

42 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Persistent higher material prices don't just impact new single family home construction, they impact larger multifamily and mixed-use complexes like the ones my organization builds, too--often at razor-thin margins because that's just the economics of affordable housing development even with LIHTC support.  I don't think the upside of higher raw material costs will be anything close to as positive as you're thinking, and I hope that we either see substantial moderation in such prices or the advent of a generational change in construction technology that allows for some kind of substitution for those materials while preserving structural integrity (e.g., commercially viable 3D-printed buildings).

 

Higher material costs will impact all construction, sure.  That's obvious.  They will disproportionately impact the form of construction that uses the most materials per housing unit.  That should also be obvious.

4 minutes ago, X said:

 

Higher material costs will impact all construction, sure.  That's obvious.  They will disproportionately impact the form of construction that uses the most materials per housing unit.  That should also be obvious.

 

But that isn't obvious, because the economics aren't a straight function of material use.  And the economics are what determine what actually gets built.  If the market for sprawlburbia single-family homes is desperate for inventory, prices will simply rise to accommodate the higher material costs, the houses will still get built and still sell, and if there's a housing market collapse later (or a more broader economic stagnation because people are dealing with the higher mortgages they needed to buy those houses), then so it goes.  If the market for new multifamily construction in underserved, non-premium zip codes was already hanging on by a thread, then higher material prices can either get projects cancelled entirely or can at least force them to be much less ambitious in terms of scale--e.g., floors will get chopped off the top.

 

In addition, building larger complexes requires developers to put more eggs in one basket.  If our materials costs go up by $1M on a 40-unit complex, that's $25,000 per unit, maybe less than what builders of larger McMansions face per unit, but we can't start leasing units until the entire project is finished, and we have to find a way deal with the outlay until then.  Sprawling housing developments can be built in phases, or even just house by house, and sold individually.  Builders will start getting revenue back in the door sooner after commencement, which in turn makes them more willing to accept the risk of proceeding in the first place.

In the case of apartments, then you have to look at whether a developer is merely buying the land and building the building then selling it upon completion or if they continue on to be the landlords. In recent years the former has become popular. Whereas with condos there are pre-sales, sales upon completion and possibly some stragglers that don't sell right away.

21 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Right now, the volume of bungalows on the market is a "manageable" percentage of the real estate market.  It helps were a community has held up well regarding crime and schools.  Once those start trending in the wrong direction or the volume of those types of houses increases, it will drive down prices.  I have also noticed that even some areas that do have a better "reputation", there has been an increase in houses becoming rentals.  If the peak or near peak in prices is not enough to cause the owner of a rental house to turn around and sell it now, then it tells me they are staying as rentals.    

I get what you're saying, it's something that has worried me too. I wish I could find it, but there was a great article I read a few years ago that spoke of the dangers of small suburbs which were all built out at roughly the same time and have a large percentage of properties of the same age and style. You end up with two problems - the owners (who more often than not have not updated) dying all around the same time; and the houses reaching the age where they need substantial rehabs all at the same time. The article focused on Euclid, as the suburb with the largest percentage of 50s bungalows in the county (it also looked at cities in Chicagoland). I think its the main reason why even in this market, housing in Euclid is lagging other areas of the county in price increases. Compare it with Shaker Hts, which has a diverse mix of housing age and styles and prices stayed comparably stable before increasing now. Even South Euclid, which I'm most familiar with as working in the Housing Dept, has rapidly diverged from Euclid. Our average sales price has increased at rates closed to Ohio City and Detroit Shoreway lately, and we are one of only a few inner ring suburbs who have fully recovered past the 2005 peak. One reason I attribute to it is the more diverse housing stock. 

 

Regarding rentals, the general trend in the suburbs have been a decrease in rentals (they are picking up in neighborhoods of the city though) as owners who were underwater and had no option but to rent after the crash, are now able to cash out. South Euclid has seen a 7-8% decrease in total rental units in each of the last 3 years, and it seems to be continuing this year. One reason for this is that they are much easier to sell at this time. Alot of owner occupants are concerned with finding a new home to move into after selling theirs (and thus holding off on selling now), or worried about showings during the pandemic. A rental owner has it much easier where they can just not renew a lease, and easily have an empty house to sell.

5 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

I get what you're saying, it's something that has worried me too. I wish I could find it, but there was a great article I read a few years ago that spoke of the dangers of small suburbs which were all built out at roughly the same time and have a large percentage of properties of the same age and style. You end up with two problems - the owners (who more often than not have not updated) dying all around the same time; and the houses reaching the age where they need substantial rehabs all at the same time. The article focused on Euclid, as the suburb with the largest percentage of 50s bungalows in the county (it also looked at cities in Chicagoland). I think its the main reason why even in this market, housing in Euclid is lagging other areas of the county in price increases. Compare it with Shaker Hts, which has a diverse mix of housing age and styles and prices stayed comparably stable before increasing now.

Euclid was suffered from a convergence of many factors at the same time, all of which combined to cause a collapse in its housing market.  As you mentioned, there is a huge number of 1950's bungalows.  There is only so much that can be done with that style of house and it is further limited by the small lots.  That city also was faced with an elderly population where their health or passing away that caused a torrent of houses to flood the market.  Then the school system turned into one of the worst in the state and crime problems increased.  To make matters worse, the city/school district has collectively one of the highest local income tax rates at 2.85% and high property taxes.  For house-hunters, those are all things that drive away potential buyers.  Then the bottom fell out during the 2007 lending crisis.

 

In driving through cities like Lyndhurst and Mayfield Heights, it is easy to see some of the same factors coming into play.  The percentage of bungalows may not be as high as is found in Euclid, but they still make up a sizable number of homes.   In Mayfield Heights, the last of the big build-out in the first half of the 1960's saw a large number of small ranches constructed.  In both of those cities, small lots are standard.  Those cities were developed a little later, but the passage of 15 or so years is putting Lyndhurst and Mayfield Heights in the same situation that Euclid faced regarding housing stock limitations and age demographics. 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/stan-bullard-blog/lumber-costs-pose-risk-new-affordable-housing

 

Record-high lumber prices are making new construction difficult. Perhaps this is a good time for developers to look extra hard at developing Northeast Ohio's stock of dilapidated but salvageable single family, multifamily, and larger buildings in some of the oft-forgotten areas in the region. Or do retrofits and tear-out remodels require just as much wood as a new build?

 

Interested to hear perspectives on this.

Edited April 9, 20214 yr by LlamaLawyer

...Excuse me, what now?

 

Springfield deemed 5th hottest housing market in the country by USA Today

 

The Springfield area is the fifth hottest housing market in the country, according to USA Today.

 

The national publication released a list of what it deemed as the top 20 housing markets in the United States based on a number of housing trends.

 

Springfield came in at number 5 and bested other Ohio cities on the list such as Columbus, which came in at number 19, and Akron, which was last on the list.

 

More below:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/springfield-deemed-5th-hottest-housing-market-in-the-country-by-usa-today/D2KKSLTY3VFI5AF6RVRGZBQSOE/?fbclid=IwAR0GOUHOE0lLqJxRDdAam3lNf1YUUftj8nIkj8gV-5edf91b3blNwZCxc6w

On 4/9/2021 at 4:56 PM, LlamaLawyer said:

https://www.crainscleveland.com/stan-bullard-blog/lumber-costs-pose-risk-new-affordable-housing

 

Record-high lumber prices are making new construction difficult. Perhaps this is a good time for developers to look extra hard at developing Northeast Ohio's stock of dilapidated but salvageable single family, multifamily, and larger buildings in some of the oft-forgotten areas in the region. Or do retrofits and tear-out remodels require just as much wood as a new build?

 

Interested to hear perspectives on this.

There may be "savings" where there isn't as much new material involved, but there are trade-offs.  Being able to use the structure of the house in retrofits and tear-out remodels, will bring savings.  However, if there are structural issues due to prior work, deterioration, decay or changing codes, it may involve lots of new wood anyways.  Then there are the costs associated with remediation efforts as well.  Mold, lead paint and asbestos are expensive to deal with. Old, out-dated wiring and bad plumbing must be ripped out and replaced.  Cost savings in rehabbing an existing structure may be offset with costs associated with doing things correctly.  Then there are times when next to nothing can be saved/re-purposed.

I wouldn't build or even rehab anything right now. Materials prices are just too insane. People think it's only lumber; hell no. Electrical is up 2.5X even. And electrical doesn't give a crap if it's a rehab or new -- you're still going to use basically the same amount. Same with plumbing.

Contacts in the construction industry say that they are completely overwhelmed. They don't have enough workers and materials are taking a long time to deliver because truck drivers going up to Canada or to Mexico have to quarantine for 14 days. They have no idea where they are gonna come up with the workers and material for all of the major new construction projects that are planned for downtown Cleveland.

15 hours ago, KJP said:

Contacts in the construction industry say that they are completely overwhelmed. They don't have enough workers and materials are taking a long time to deliver because truck drivers going up to Canada or to Mexico have to quarantine for 14 days. They have no idea where they are gonna come up with the workers and material for all of the major new construction projects that are planned for downtown Cleveland.

 

I've been seeing the same. I've had several projects that can't find subcontractors for certain trades because they're all busy and booked out for months. The sort of people who clamor for $15 minimum wage could grab a hard hat and go make double that right now.

 

The lack of available labor causes schedule delays and/or the need to swap out certain materials and products (for example, can't get a mason? no bricks). Costs haven't skyrocketed, though. A few recent projects I'm on have actually come in under-budget. Schedules are what seem to get hit hardest.

On 4/24/2021 at 11:04 AM, GCrites80s said:

I wouldn't build or even rehab anything right now. Materials prices are just too insane. People think it's only lumber; hell no. Electrical is up 2.5X even. And electrical doesn't give a crap if it's a rehab or new -- you're still going to use basically the same amount. Same with plumbing.

 

And if you want to buy a resale/existing house, be prepared to go 10+% above list price, offer an appraisal gap, offer to pay seller's closing costs, and waive remedies upon inspection.

 

A real lose/lose situation if you're a buyer right now.

Wave remedies? I'd hate to pay for a furnace right now.

On 4/27/2021 at 12:09 PM, GCrites80s said:

Wave remedies? I'd hate to pay for a furnace right now.

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/2021/04/25/ten-tips-housing-market-buyers-homes-for-sale/7241096002/

 

Quote

Want to buy a home? Here are 10 tips for navigating a difficult housing market

-Be ready to offer over asking price

-Be ready to act fast

-Sweeten the pot

Instead, buyers are the ones who have to offer the perks. Some common ones to consider: offer flexibility on the occupancy date if sellers need time to find a place; offer to waive any requests to remedy inspection problems (never waive the inspection itself, agents caution); provide earnest money with the offer so the seller knows you're serious; offer to pay sellers' costs such as title fees and real estate commissions; and offer to make up the difference between the appraisal value and the sales price, if the appraisal comes in low.  

 

1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

Want to buy a home? Here are 10 tips for navigating a difficult housing market

-Be ready to offer over asking price

-Be ready to act fast

-Sweeten the pot

Instead, buyers are the ones who have to offer the perks. Some common ones to consider: offer flexibility on the occupancy date if sellers need time to find a place; offer to waive any requests to remedy inspection problems (never waive the inspection itself, agents caution); provide earnest money with the offer so the seller knows you're serious; offer to pay sellers' costs such as title fees and real estate commissions; and offer to make up the difference between the appraisal value and the sales price, if the appraisal comes in low.  

 

I came across a listing the other day that required potential buyers to waive the inspection. It went pending within hours. In Cincinnati I've heard of lots of people waiving inspections altogether.

 

From a seller's perspective, a waived inspection is a huge plus because it eliminates one of the few ways a buyer can back out of the deal and keep their earnest money. Buyers can easily take advantage of the inspection process - they may make offers on multiple properties, knowing there's almost always something in a report that they can use to walk away.

That sets a horrible precedent. Turns the industry into a crappy used car lot on the edge of town.

On 4/27/2021 at 12:09 PM, GCrites80s said:

Wave remedies? I'd hate to pay for a furnace right now.

I had to get one new furnace last year and pleasantly surprised to find it come in under 4K, given my house has four of them. 

Just to point out, you can waive having a private inspection, but you can not waive having a city inspection if one is required (as it is in many cities in NEO). I've come across that alot lately where the sellers say the buyers waived having an inspection. Well that has nothing to do with our requirements. Bottom line, familiarize yourself (buyers and sellers) with the laws. Realtors should be, but alot of times they aren't, or think they can get around it. 

18 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Just to point out, you can waive having a private inspection, but you can not waive having a city inspection if one is required (as it is in many cities in NEO). I've come across that alot lately where the sellers say the buyers waived having an inspection. Well that has nothing to do with our requirements. Bottom line, familiarize yourself (buyers and sellers) with the laws. Realtors should be, but alot of times they aren't, or think they can get around it. 

Where would you find such city inspection requirement? I don't think Cleveland proper has a city inspection requirement do they?

3 minutes ago, dastler said:

Where would you find such city inspection requirement? I don't think Cleveland proper has a city inspection requirement do they?

University Heights and Shaker Heights do.

I know there has been a lot of litigation challenging some of these city inspections upon disposition of property in the last few years. There was a big case in Bedford I remember but not sure what came of it. 

I'm sure they have some rationale for doing them, but it seems like a bit of a racket and a functional tax on home transfers.

10 minutes ago, gg707 said:

I'm sure they have some rationale for doing them, but it seems like a bit of a racket and a functional tax on home transfers.

Point if sake inspection. Under the guise of maintaining housing stock and ensuring that it's all up to code. Some jurisdictions (Shaker) are very intense and nitpicky.  I can understand if there are major safety issues with a house but often it is very minor stuff 

15 minutes ago, gg707 said:

I'm sure they have some rationale for doing them, but it seems like a bit of a racket and a functional tax on home transfers.

Like @freefourursaid, point of sale inspection with the intent to maintain housing stock, especially in older cities.  Cities usually don't have the resources to constantly inspect all homes on a regular basis so they make do with occasional inspections at point of sale.  Usual a convenient time to do repairs whether it is done by the seller (usually) or the buyer assumes them.  Some cities also have regular outside home inspections (maybe every 5-6 years) like Cleveland Hts.  but my experience is that they don't enforce diligently after the notice unless big issues are noted (again lack of resources to follow up I imagine).

Bexley once made my landlord paint the duplex I was renting. The place didn't look that bad, I thought.

Edited April 30, 20214 yr by GCrites80s

 

On 4/30/2021 at 1:00 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

I know there has been a lot of litigation challenging some of these city inspections upon disposition of property in the last few years. There was a big case in Bedford I remember but not sure what came of it. 

 

I'm actually surprised that state law allows this. Seems extremely intrusive - I would hate this as either a buyer or seller. Having an inspection when construction or renovation takes place makes sense. Having a government official scour your entire house just because Person A wants to sell it to Person B seems like a stretch. At most, these inspections should be limited to exterior items visible from the right of way.

 

I've never heard of this until now, so I'd be surprised if there are many municipalities around Cincinnati that do this.

3 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

I'm actually surprised that state law allows this. Seems extremely intrusive - I would hate this as either a buyer or seller. Having an inspection when construction or renovation takes place makes sense. Having a government official scour your entire house just because Person A wants to sell it to Person B seems like a stretch. At most, these inspections should be limited to exterior items visible from the right of way.

 

I've never heard of this until now, so I'd be surprised if there are many municipalities around Cincinnati that do this.

The problem with inspections at renovation is that many people do renovations without permits. 

3 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

I'm actually surprised that state law allows this. Seems extremely intrusive - I would hate this as either a buyer or seller. Having an inspection when construction or renovation takes place makes sense. Having a government official scour your entire house just because Person A wants to sell it to Person B seems like a stretch. At most, these inspections should be limited to exterior items visible from the right of way.

 

I've never heard of this until now, so I'd be surprised if there are many municipalities around Cincinnati that do this.

It is a money grab under the auspeices of health and safety. It is really about raising fees

On 4/30/2021 at 12:18 PM, dastler said:

I don't think Cleveland proper has a city inspection requirement do they?

🙄😜🙄  Even if they did, the city would be so far behind your house contract today would have to have a 5 year contingency.  

 I had a friend that wanted to sell his 2 flat Cleveland double in North Collinwod about ten years ago, and the city made him do a bunch of upgrades to the exterior. Painting the entire building and reinforcing the upper porch which was sagging mainly. 

 

And honestly, his property was one of the best maintained properties on the block, I think it was near Arcade and 156th. I think this is it, and the parking lot to the left used to be a bar. You can see the support he added to prop up the upper porch.

Edited May 2, 20214 yr by metrocity