Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:45 am
Dr. Keller –
We all have concerns about Lakewood’s housing stock. I’m just suggesting that your scenario failed to support your opinion that “the return on rentals is low.†Now you are saying that “we would have invested differently†if the intent was to increase the return on the property.
Yes, it’s a tough market for sellers. Buy low sell high is still the appropriate business mantra. Owners who are being forced to sell are having a tough time of it. However, any analysis must take into consideration that Lakewood, the area and nation had just experienced a major real estate up-surge. This downturn/lull is following all time highs. Still, though, over the course of 20+ years real estate investments maintain their ROI.
You, I and city leaders should always be concerned about the impact of market forces on the portfolio of Lakewood’s overall housing stock. According to U.S. Census Factfinder (based on 2000 Census):
Lakewood Total Housing Units – 28,416
1-unit, detached: 9,762 or 34.3%
1-unit, attached: 949 or 3.3% (Single family-owner occupied – 8,781 or 82% of all 1-unit homes)
2 units: 5,481 or 19.3% (the percentage owner-occupied is not provided but would be great to know)
3 or 4 units: 2,007 or 7.1% (the percentage owner-occupied is not provided but would be great to know)
5 to 9 units: 1,093 or 3.7%
10 to 19 units: 2,103 or 7.4%
20 or more units: 7,030 or 24.7%
Year Structures Built
1999-2000: 37 or .1%
1995-1998: 36 or .1%
1990-1994: 37 or .1%
1980-1989: 433 or 1.5%
1970-1979: 1,591 or 5.6%
1960-1969: 3,658 or 12.9%
1940-1959: 5,410 or 19.0%
1939 or earlier: 17,214 or 60.6%
What suggestions would CSU’s Levin College of Urban Affairs make to Lakewood as current and forecasted trends intersect with this profile? Are there any public policy implications or is our fair city simply subject to the whims of the prime and sub-prime mortgage industry?
Could/should the City of Lakewood be doing more/less?
We all have concerns about Lakewood’s housing stock. I’m just suggesting that your scenario failed to support your opinion that “the return on rentals is low.†Now you are saying that “we would have invested differently†if the intent was to increase the return on the property.
Yes, it’s a tough market for sellers. Buy low sell high is still the appropriate business mantra. Owners who are being forced to sell are having a tough time of it. However, any analysis must take into consideration that Lakewood, the area and nation had just experienced a major real estate up-surge. This downturn/lull is following all time highs. Still, though, over the course of 20+ years real estate investments maintain their ROI.
You, I and city leaders should always be concerned about the impact of market forces on the portfolio of Lakewood’s overall housing stock. According to U.S. Census Factfinder (based on 2000 Census):
Lakewood Total Housing Units – 28,416
1-unit, detached: 9,762 or 34.3%
1-unit, attached: 949 or 3.3% (Single family-owner occupied – 8,781 or 82% of all 1-unit homes)
2 units: 5,481 or 19.3% (the percentage owner-occupied is not provided but would be great to know)
3 or 4 units: 2,007 or 7.1% (the percentage owner-occupied is not provided but would be great to know)
5 to 9 units: 1,093 or 3.7%
10 to 19 units: 2,103 or 7.4%
20 or more units: 7,030 or 24.7%
Year Structures Built
1999-2000: 37 or .1%
1995-1998: 36 or .1%
1990-1994: 37 or .1%
1980-1989: 433 or 1.5%
1970-1979: 1,591 or 5.6%
1960-1969: 3,658 or 12.9%
1940-1959: 5,410 or 19.0%
1939 or earlier: 17,214 or 60.6%
What suggestions would CSU’s Levin College of Urban Affairs make to Lakewood as current and forecasted trends intersect with this profile? Are there any public policy implications or is our fair city simply subject to the whims of the prime and sub-prime mortgage industry?
Could/should the City of Lakewood be doing more/less?