PR: Home Buying Incentives at Willow Creek Goleta

Got this press release and thought the incentives were rather creative. --Sara

FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS BENEFIT FROM CREATIVE INCENTIVES IN SANTA BARBARA TOWNHOME COMMUNITY

Willow Creek Townhomes Offers Extra $15,000 in Credits
On Top of 2009 Federal and State Government Homebuyer Tax Credits

GOLETA, CALIF. (Apr. 1, 2009) – Bargain prices, deals and credits are all the rage for first-time homebuyers. But in Santa Barbara County, it’s not just the government luring buyers with extra incentives. Willow Creek, a private enclave of charming Craftsman-style two- and three-bedroom townhomes, is adding $15,000 in purchase credits, a one-of-a-kind incentive program in the city, for first-time home buyers of new homes for a limited time. Willow Creek’s $15,000 credit would give first-time buyers up to $33,000 in purchase credits because it works in tandem with the recent federal and state economic-stimulus package:

As part of the federal program, first-time homebuyers who purchase a home between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009, are eligible for a tax credit of 10 percent of the value of their home, up to $8,000.
The California state tax credit, on the other hand, is not limited to first-time home buyers and offers either five percent of the purchase price or $10,000 in state assistance taken over the period of three years for new home purchases only.

Four buyers have taken part in the Willow Creek incentive program. One of the recent buyers is Joseph Crosby, 32, born and raised in Santa Barbara. He works for the Santa Barbara Roasting Company as a sales manager. A first-time buyer, Crosby and his wife spent the last two years house hunting in the area. When Crosby learned that he qualified for the federal, state and extra Willow Creek incentives, he made the decision to buy within two days.

“We were on the fence with buying a house and the credits, especially the added boost of $15,000 from Willow Creek really got us off the fence to buy the home of our dreams,” said Crosby. “My two-year-old daughter can live in a new home within a beautiful and safe community and the property value is expected to go up in the next five years, especially in this area—it’s a win-win situation for all.”

The incentive is geared toward single taxpayers with incomes up to $75,000 and married couples with incomes up to $150,000. For the state tax credit, there are no maximum income limitations so any buyer purchasing a previously unoccupied home can qualify.

“We introduced our incentive program to give home buyers much needed relief especially in this economy. In the last month, we have seen more people interested in buying at Willow Creek because of our $15,000 credit incentive,” said Kim Crawford, Willow Creek Sales Agent. “And it helps that we’re located next to UC Santa Barbara and other colleges and businesses close by. Students and their parents, recent graduates and faculty want to live in new homes in the Santa Barbara area and they can finally do so at a much affordable price by purchasing a townhome in Willow Creek.”

The new credit does not have to be repaid. For more information on the federal tax credit, visit www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com.

The difference between the state and federal credit is that qualified buyers must purchase a qualified principal residence that has never been occupied. For more information on the state tax credit, visit www.ftb.ca.gov.

About Willow Creek
Willow Creek is a 37-unit development of Craftsman-style townhomes located in the heart of Old Town Goleta. With construction completed in September 2007, the two and three-bedroom homes feature spacious living areas, vaulted master bedroom ceilings, sleek granite kitchen countertops and soothing limestone-style tile flooring. Prices start in the mid-$400,000’s. Four layouts are available ranging from 905 to 1,413 square-feet. Willow Creek is owned by Hollister Development Company, LLC.

Just a 10-minute drive from Santa Barbara, the lush, natural property is conveniently close to UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara City College, excellent public and private schools, Glen Annie and Sandpiper Golf Clubs, premiere vineyards, and pristine beaches. The address is 345 Kellogg Way, Goleta, 93117. For more information, visit www.willowcreekgoleta.com or call (805) 284-6699.

# # #

Goleta Initiates General Plan Amendments

Based on a proposal for 300 apartments near CostCo, the Goleta Council approved two general plan amendments to make way for a mixed use project between Glenn Annie and Santa Felicia Drive. The vote, 4-1, marked the first vote for the new council and showed they are serious about increasing housing along the Hollister Corridor where shopping and transporation would be easiest. New Council Members Ed Easton voted for the amendment and Margaret Connell against citing concerns about the increase in height limits allowed for the project. For the whole story, see The Daily Sound.

The Owning v. Renting Debate a Year Later

A long-time reader reminded me the other day that it was just about a year ago that we had two posts and over 200 comments on the issue of owning versus renting.

my memory keeps remembering and reviewing those conversations on your blog where all those Santa Barbara real estate maniacs kept on pushing the wisdom of buying all those houses and leveraging money for the obvious utopia that would follow...Do you ever think about that? I wonder what they would say now?

I was reading how people in Riverside are abandoning their homes and clean up crews are finding expensive items and even left-behind passports and birth certificates in the aftermath. My, things have changed....

No, I don't think that will happen here...but if the renter advocates had been saving their money and getting out of debt, aren't they in a great position to buy today? Prices in Santa Barbara have been down by upwards of 35%, no? When homes can be $100,000 less than they were in December of 2007 -- why not buy?

Housing v. Renting Again!

Both synopses from the last post were very good and I will use both here even though it will make this a long post.

Part of the comment (unfortunately the links didn't stick) which our first anonymous at 9:04 AM said was:

There is also the advantage of *leverage*. If you make a downpayment of $100,000 and buy a $1,000,000 home, and if that home appreciates by 10% in one year, it looks like you've now got $200,000 where you used to have $100,000. It feels like you've doubled your money!

You made some mortgage payments, insurance payments, tax payments, not to mention some points and fees in addition to the first $100,000, however, which pro-home ownership folks tend to overlook.

A group of contrarians tried to take all those nuisance expenses into account, and the end up questioning the financial wisdom of home ownership. They've written about it at MSN, at get rich slowly, the Wall Street Journal, the Motley Fool, and and the housing crash blog.

They point out that you don't pay yourself when you buy a house, you pay a huge amount of mortgage interest to the bank, you pay the prior owner, you pay taxes, you pay insurance and maintenance and upkeep. And if you sell, you pay a whopping great commission - 5 to 7% on the full price of the house - to a real estate agent.

Usually you end up paying three times the value of the house over 30 years!

Whether or not you come out ahead depends on how fast the prices of houses rise, and what you might do with the money you saved by renting. Nationally over the 100 years from 1895-1995 homes did not appreciate at all relative to inflation. But Santa Barbara is different, and an unresolved question is... does Santa Barbara real estate rise at about 7% per year, or 10% per year?

real estate guru doing his or her best to be objective enumerated a few things -- all of which could be discussed more.

1. One conclusion can be drawn from all this it's that buying a house or renting and saving 10% each payday and investing it in the stock market both come out about the same and both make one financially secure after 30 years. And that BOTH buying a house or renting, saving, and investing in the stock market are the best investment that one can ever make in their life.

2. We all learned that the average person does not have the discipline or will power to save much more than 1% of their income and so buying a house is a forced way of saving and investing.

3. We have all learned about the power of leverage and it's existence in the investment of buying a house.

4. We learned that the monthly payments of a buyer are not a part of the investment but are allocated as his cost of providing shelter and are an expense equal to rent over 30 years.

5. we learned that rent increases 5% compound each year and that both stock investments and a house investment appreciate an average.
between 7% and 10% a year

6. We learned that neither buying a house or a stock investment is a sure thing and that both have risks.

7. We learned that both have bubbles and corrections but that history always repeats itself and so both the stock and the house go right back to appreciating mode after the correction is over.

8. We learned the the bottom of this housing correction may be an opportunity of a lifetime for anyone who wants to buy a house and that the prices of houses will never be lower over the next 100 years than they will be at this coming bottom.

9. We learned that the coming housing bottom is going not going to occur for at least one year and most likely will occur somewhere between 1 and 3 years from now.

10. We have all learned about the wonderful power of leaving an investment in for a very long time like 30 years.

11.We all learned about the rule of 72. ( one can find out how many years it takes for something to double by dividing the number 72 by the annual rate of compound growth. ( compound growth is where one leaves the annual increase in to grow the following year along with the principal.)

12. We learned that there is much more to life than money. and that money alone will not make you happy. But it is sure nice to have.

13. We learned how buying a house can provide for retirement by providing a paid for house with no monthly payments. and can provide a nice estate to leave your kids, or a way to refinance and help your kids buy their own house.

14. We learned how buying a house gives one the security of knowing your landlord can't evict you, and the freedom to have a dg or to paint a wall purple or even to knock it out.

15. But the most important thing we leaned is that our american free enterprise system has powerful and wonderful opportunities for ANYONE ( and i do mean anyone) to get ahead by investing and to do that one needs to SAVE. And using that savings to either invest in a house or invest in Stock market.

16. so everyone of you: Start saving a full 10% of your paycheck starting next paycheck. make a budget to live on 905 of your pay. do without some materialistic luxuries and live more frugally and invest your savings in EITHER a house or the stock market and you too are on the road to building SIGNIFICANT WEALTH.

After 99 comments, let's start again....

I am amazed at the back and forth as to what it takes to buy a house in Santa Barbara. Almost 100 comments later -- let's continue here with several questions:

1) Going away and coming back is argued as a good and bad move. Which is it?
2) Renting versus Owning Your Home is argued as a good and bad move as well. Which is it here versus elsewhere?
3) Will the national mortage collapse mean we all buy homes in Santa Maria and Oxnard but not SB because we are THE corner case of what is going on around everyone else in the country? I say those of us without homes have six months to get our act, and a down payment, together for our perceived family good. What say you?

Clearly, BlogaBarbara is not just about the state of a certain newspaper housed at De la Guerra Plaza...thanks for the conversation, advice and big picture on real estate in our hometown.

568% Increase in Foreclosures in CA

There's been so many comments on housing of late, I thought we could start a new thread based on this article from the Central Valley Business Times which points to foreclosures in California increasing 40% in one month. Some 12,300 properties represents a 568% increase over 2006.

Community Post: Mortage Collapse Hitting SB County?

I received the following email from an avid reader who put words to something I've been thinking about for a few weeks and wanted to tackle after the election. So, here's something to think about today and I've been working on something else for an couple days from now. Perhaps someone could explain the foreclosure process and what the data on this web site means? -- Sara

Community Post from an Avid Reader Below:

The mortgage lending collapse isn't just a problem for investors and bankers who suddenly find they've lost a gazillon dollars. While a handful of CEO's will be forced to slink off under their golden parachutes, thousands of real people may be losing their homes in our county.

I just found 2,963 foreclosures listed in our county on http://www.foreclosure.com/search/CA_083.html

Can this be true?

Are almost 3,000 people losing their homes? If so, we've got a bigger economic disaster brewing here than San Diego County had in terms of wild fire destruction.

What does this mean to the county? What will happen to all these working families? Are we supposed to blame them? Are they just a write off for investors?

Why isn't this news?

Community Post: Goleta Shows Us How

A community post from a dedicated reader:
===========================
Goleta CC has approved a bond issue to help fund rental housing near Old Town. 15% of the rentals will be priced for low income affordability. The bond is thought to be self financed from the economic income generated by the new tenants. 6 million towards a 45 million project to build 200 units. The county has just reassessed their position on providing subsidized homeownership that mostly benefits the landowners/developer crowd as opposed to the “American Dream” of homeownership.

Many times over the last six months, I was told that rental units were not feasible. What helped this project was a beneficial land price by the Sumida family, years ago. Maybe what it takes is some social arm twisting of the property owners that have complimentary parcels for sale and a commitment of all the local governments to pursue this approach for affordable housing. Rental units are not subject to the potential fraud (rife in the county at 30%+) of subsidized purchases. Is it time to go into some neighborhoods and start condemning substandard housing and assist in the rebuilding of affordable rental apartments?

Community Post: Housing, Not Height Is the Issue

by Lanny Ebenstein

The recent proposal to lower height maximums in El Pueblo Viejo--which should be supported--is by no means the whole picture when it comes to regulating growth and development in Santa Barbara. What should also be done is to lower height maximums in business zoning areas throughout the city, and, importantly, to reduce density.

The Santa Barbara City Council, likely to a person, would like to see thousands of more condos and other congregate residential units in business zoning areas. Is this the future that most Santa Barbarans wish to see? I don't think so.

My guess is that any serious attempt to restrain development in Santa Barbara will have to come from the people via the initiative route. The City Council is unlikely to put anything on the ballot that would restrain residential growth and development in business zoning areas--they all favor it.

Housing Series: Rental Costs

A comment yesterday said that there are plenty of one bedroom apartments for under $1,000. Are there really?

Realizing that this is half of many people's monthly income -- why is this okay? Is it because property owners assume there will be at least two people living there? Why should housing costs be 50% of income when books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad say it should be 30%. Definitely an oversimplication -- but what do you have to say about it?

Housing Series: Prop 13 Reform

We need to break this subject up a bit as there has been so much discussion.....so, PROP 13 Reform. One of our readers says he pays $11,200 versus his neighbor with a similar house who pays $2,500 in property taxes...is it good public policy to provide incentives for people to stay in one house for many years or should all property taxes be based on more current appraisals? If so, who is going to do all that work? and better yet, who is paying for it?