Sorry Readers: Homebuyer Credit Not Retroactive

Update: Just heard from White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The start date for the new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners will take effect as soon as Obama signs the bill into law tomorrow (Nov. 6). Sorry for the confusion. And thanks to “Dean” whose comment alerted me to my error. (In case you’re curious, this is the actual text of the bill. The credit extension was attached to a larger bill to extend unemployment benefits).

My last post was flooded with comments from readers asking whether the expanded credit will apply to them even though they closed on a home purchase earlier this year (or last year or the year before…). The answer: “No.”

It might seem unfair. But the new credit will take effect only after President Obama signs the measure into law tomorrow. Buyers will have until April 30 to sign purchase contracts and must close on the house by the end of June.

Under the new $10.8 billion plan, first-time buyers would continue to get $8,000 for buying a home. But existing homeowners will now be able to claim $6,500 credit for selling their current home and buying a new one, as long as they resided in the home they’re selling for at least five of the past eight years.

Income limits will also expand to $125,000 a year for individuals, and $225,000 a year for married couples. Sounds like a good deal right? Not judging from the flood of comments we’ve gotten from existing buyers who bought during the past several months. They feel gypped.

A commenter identifying himself as “Jim” said he bought a home during the Great Recession and was miffed that he didn’t get a tax credit because he wasn’t a first-time buyer. Now he’s angry.

“If they are handing out free money, give it to those who actually risked their capital,” he wrote a couple hours ago. “I am against this credit altogether … The government deciding who gets money and who doesn’t is TYRANNICAL.”

I sympathize with the comments. My parents only sold their Westchester County, N.Y. home of 30 years only a week ago and bought a much-less-expensive house one 15 miles away. They certainly would have qualified for the $6,500 credit and I’m afraid to break the news to them.

But the point of the credit is to stimulate home sales, not to hand out spending money (Though it will indeed stimulate some consumer spending). As I mentioned in my last post, it could be even less effective and efficient than the previous credit. If that’s the case, it’s best to put some limits on cost. Congressional analysts estimate that the six-month extension and expansion of the credit will cost taxpayers $10.8 billion. Can you imagine the price tag if it was made retroactive to the beginning of 2008?

View the original article here

Outdoors Week: Incredibly Sad, Sorry Outdoors Spaces Advertised on Craigslist

× Like us and you'll find top breaking news in your Facebook newsfeed. Sign up for our daily email newsletter and get top stories and breaking news delivered to your inbox. Friday, June 24, 2011, by Sarah Firshein

People use Craigslist for all sorts of things, from exploiting the Rapture to selling off pathetic-looking mattresses that are endowed with sexual preferences. Much like Craigslist personal ads, its housing and real estate pages are rife with people lying through their teeth. (They are also rife with Photoshopping adventures, which is why all the photos shown on this post are reproduced exactly as they appear in their Craigslist ads. Authenticity, people!) Take this NYC apartment (above), which seeks a roommate pay $1,650 for a room with an attached "800 square foot private outdoor roofdeck!!!!!!!" We'll give the post author due credit for possessing outdoor space anywhere in downtown Manhattan, but to describe that slab of asphalt with the words "Yes, it is private and amazing"? We thinketh not, friend!

? Keeping things in NYC for a second, here's a plea for a "chill" third roommate in an East Village duplex penthouse. Truth be told, $1,500 is not an astronomical sum to pay for such accommodations in Manhattan—and that roof deck does look pretty sweet—but "2 mid 20's girls. We are friends and hang out often" and "One works and the other is an entrepreneur so works from home half the time" are two must-heed warning signs. Never mind the use of the word "chill" to describe a human temperament.

? A housing share in the Philly suburb of Conshohocken boasts a
"[n]ice back yard with gardening space able to be shared," but one would never know it from these photos. There is, however, a cluster of tulips. a rusty-looking hose reel, and some rakes—always a plus when you're asked to drop $600 a month to share a space with "2 nice, well trained dogs & 2 indoor/outdoor cats."

? Truth be told, this five-bedroom, 4,500-square-foot Plantation, Fla., house asking $750 a month is not a bad deal, not at all—two living rooms and a poker rooms are included in the deal. The pool looks awesome, too—oh wait, there seems to be one of the "30 year old male working professionals" jumping in.

? Also near Miami is a 1,450 square-foot three-bedroom townhouse whose tenant is searching for someone to pay $600 a month. There are supposedly "outdoor living spaces," but all the evidence points only to the driveway and backyard parking spot.

? Out West, there's a two-bedroom, one-bath house asking USC students to pay $800 per month. *We have beautiful landscaping with Malibu lights that is very pleasant and we provide free gardening service," the ad claims. Yet all that's apparently from the the photo is an sad, sorry empty lot and a house with a sign on its head. C-O-L-L-E-G-E!

· Otherworldly Real Estate Opportunities Created By the Rapture [Curbed National]
· Is This Sad, Slumped Mess the World's First Openly Gay Sofa? [Curbed National]
· $1650 A Bedroom for rent w/ Private outdoor roofdeck (SOHO/NOLITA) (map) [Craigslist New York City]
· $1500 Looking for chill 3rd roommate! Awesome outdoor space (East Village) (map) [Craigslist New York City]
· $600 Room Furnished or Unfurnished /Houseshare (Conshohocken) [Craigslist Philadelphia]
· $750 Room in 4500 sq ft house (Plantation) [Craigslist Miami]
· $600 Flatmate wanted for 3BR 1.5BA on NE 18th Ct near Wilton Manors Drive (NE 18th Ct) (map) [Craigslist Miami]
· $800 NEW LUXURIOUS 2 BD HOUSE 5 MIN WALK TO USC AVAILABLE 8/1/2011 (Los Angeles, USC, 90007) (map) [Craigslist Los Angeles]
· All Outdoors Week posts [Curbed National]

View the original article here

Sorry Readers: Homebuyer Credit Not Retroactive

Update: Just heard from White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki. The start date for the new $6,500 credit for existing homeowners will take effect as soon as Obama signs the bill into law tomorrow (Nov. 6). Sorry for the confusion. And thanks to “Dean” whose comment alerted me to my error. (In case you’re curious, this is the actual text of the bill. The credit extension was attached to a larger bill to extend unemployment benefits).

My last post was flooded with comments from readers asking whether the expanded credit will apply to them even though they closed on a home purchase earlier this year (or last year or the year before…). The answer: “No.”

It might seem unfair. But the new credit will take effect only after President Obama signs the measure into law tomorrow. Buyers will have until April 30 to sign purchase contracts and must close on the house by the end of June.

Under the new $10.8 billion plan, first-time buyers would continue to get $8,000 for buying a home. But existing homeowners will now be able to claim $6,500 credit for selling their current home and buying a new one, as long as they resided in the home they’re selling for at least five of the past eight years.

Income limits will also expand to $125,000 a year for individuals, and $225,000 a year for married couples. Sounds like a good deal right? Not judging from the flood of comments we’ve gotten from existing buyers who bought during the past several months. They feel gypped.

A commenter identifying himself as “Jim” said he bought a home during the Great Recession and was miffed that he didn’t get a tax credit because he wasn’t a first-time buyer. Now he’s angry.

“If they are handing out free money, give it to those who actually risked their capital,” he wrote a couple hours ago. “I am against this credit altogether … The government deciding who gets money and who doesn’t is TYRANNICAL.”

I sympathize with the comments. My parents only sold their Westchester County, N.Y. home of 30 years only a week ago and bought a much-less-expensive house one 15 miles away. They certainly would have qualified for the $6,500 credit and I’m afraid to break the news to them.

But the point of the credit is to stimulate home sales, not to hand out spending money (Though it will indeed stimulate some consumer spending). As I mentioned in my last post, it could be even less effective and efficient than the previous credit. If that’s the case, it’s best to put some limits on cost. Congressional analysts estimate that the six-month extension and expansion of the credit will cost taxpayers $10.8 billion. Can you imagine the price tag if it was made retroactive to the beginning of 2008?

View the original article here