Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (82266)	7/27/2007 8:06:39 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

<<Around here you'd pay $1M+ for a house that might get 2500 in rent I keep telling people that on this thread but they don't believe me.>> I sorta believe you, but around here it might be $3500 in rent, not $2500. A house in my neighborhood which has been a long-term, decades-long rental was finally put up for sale. It hasn't sold. It probably has a lot of what we in real estate call "negatives" in terms of condition and updating, after being a rental from an absentee owner for many years. I took a spin by that house this a.m. on my way home and notice it has a For Rent sign up again, as well as the For Sale sign. All houses around it on the cul-de-sac have sold for a million or more in the past couple years, including an almost identical one very recently, two doors away, which didn't have all those "rental" negatives which tend to build up over the years of neglect by the absentee owner. I don't think it could rent for more than $3,500, or much less either. It's a 5-bedroom colonial a few stoplights from DC. If brought up to snuff, it would easily sell for a million, just like its clones have done.