LWR Commercial Real Estate
Area Information
Young Realtors Luncheon Tomorrow
Nov 19th
Sarasota Young Realtors
November Luncheon Meeting
| Peter Katz,
Director of Smart Growth/Urban Planning Sarasota County, will be the speaker at the upcoming November 20th Luncheon meeting being presented by the Sarasota Young Realtors. Mr. Katz was appointed to his current position with Sarasota county last February, to focus on working with the community to implement smart growth principles in development and redevelopment within the county’s urban service area. As a strategic consultant to government, public agencies and private-sector clients, Peter Katz has played a key role in shaping and implementing a range of nationally significant community design and development projects. Don’t miss this rare opportunity to see Mr. Katz in person. |
| Friday, November 20, 2009 Lunch & Networking at noon Program begins at 12:30 Cost $5.00 This luncheon meeting is marketed to professionals under the age of 40. ***Advance registration is required. Please click HERE to sign up online. SYR would like to thank their luncheon sponsor: Williams Parker Harrison Dietz & Getzen |
Sarasota Memorial To Help Fund Doctors Offices
Nov 17th
The hospital is finding what many landlords already know, that they need to be able to spend tenant improvement dollars to get tenants!
About $200,000 of the added cost comes from doctors asking the hospital to build out certain units, instead of doing it themselves after signing a lease. That money will be recouped by the hospital through the cost of leasing.
Development Land Use Attorney Joins Berlin Law Group
Nov 17th
Evan Berlin and Brenda Patten
One of Sarasota’s most prominent development attorneys has formed a new firm with a veteran real estate lawyer to create a “one-stop shop” for land-use services.
The Berlin Patten law firm, a venture between developer representative Brenda L. Patten and real estate lawyer Evan N. Berlin, formed last month.
The new firm, based in the Sarasota City Center office tower at 1819 Main St., has five attorneys and 14 total employees.
More Sarasota Bank Closings
Nov 16th
Orion Bank Closed
In Florida, officials closed Orion Bank, Naples, Florida, and entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with IBERIABANK, Lafayette, Louisiana, to assume all of the deposits of Orion Bank. As of October 31, 2009, Orion Bank had total assets of $2.7 billion and total deposits of approximately $2.1 billion. The FDIC accepted a 1.5 percent discount from IBERIABANK on the deposits of the failed bank.
The FDIC and IBERIABANK entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $1.9 billion of Orion Bank’s assets. IBERIABANK will share in the losses on the asset pools covered under the loss-share agreement.
IBERIABANK also agreed to purchase the assets of Century Bank, Federal Savings Bank, Sarasota, Florida, after it was closed Friday. As of October 31, 2009, Century Bank, FSB had total assets of $728 million and total deposits of approximately $631 million.
The FDIC accepted a 1.5 percent discount on the deposits of the failed bank from IBERIABANK. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, IBERIABANK agreed to purchase $706 million of the failed bank’s assets. The FDIC retained the remaining assets for later disposition.
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) for this week’s bank closing will be approximately $986 million.
Florida Amendment 4: Case Study in Disaster
Sep 11th
St. Pete Beach proves that Amendment 4 will cost jobs and hurt taxpayers
It is clear that they are now embarassed by the story of St. Pete Beach (Editorial: Florida must defeat “Hometown Democracy” or suffer the fate of St. Pete Beach). The chaos that has unfolded in St. Pete Beach (after this small Florida town adopted a local version of Amendment 4) is proof positive that their proposal is costly, chaotic and ultimately, unworkable.
Not surprisingly, Amendment 4 supporters have chosen to distance themselves from the serious problems in St. Pete Beach, rather than attempt to defend their idea. At the end of the day, they may not like the unflattering St. Pete Beach comparison. However, facts are stubborn things and – as many in the media have pointed out – these comparisons are valid:
The Tampa Tribune Editorial (May 28, 2008) – “Voting on Everything dispirits tourist business in a tourist town”: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/28/na-voting-on-everything-dispirits-tourist-business/
The Orlando Sentinel (June 25, 2009) – “Hometown Democracy: Eve of Destruction?”: http://www.florida2010.org/media2.php?id=126&t=2
The St. Petersburg Times Editorial (June 28, 2009) – “A formula for gridlock”: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1013823.ece
This importantissue deserves nothing less than a rigorous debate. To see our point-by-point response to recent Amendment 4 claims, please read below.
Thank you,
Ryan
Ryan Houck
Executive Director
Floridians for Smarter Growth
1) Amendment 4 will leave Florida in a permanent recession.
Our argument: Designed to bring economic growth to a halt, Amendment 4 will solidify the loss of nearly 500,000 Florida jobs. Due to the expense, red-tape and uncertainty imposed by Amendment 4, new businesses will find it virtually impossible to move to Florida. Existing businesses will find it nearly impossible to grow and Florida’s working families will suffer the most.
They say: “This canned message is from the same people who crashed our economy with overbuilding. In fact, comprehensive plans already have lots of growth built in to them–enough housing is already factored into the plans for over 100 million people. These plans are designed to allow for growth and protect our communities from unplanned growth. Why can’t we follow our plans?”
Our response: Lesley Blackner (the founder and co-author of Amendment 4) says that her amendment will delay projects until the next regularly scheduled election. That means holding up not only “big developments” but also countless new schools, hospitals, fire stations, community centers and public parks until the next election cycle–as long as two years! Not only will Amendment 4 hold up common sense progress in our communities, it will also drive away businesses that want to bring jobs to Florida.
Put yourself in the position of a biotech company trying to bring 300 high-paying jobs to our state. By Ms. Blackner’s own logic, Amendment 4 would force you to wait as long as two years before your project comes up for a vote. Moreover, you will need to wage an expensive and unpredictable political campaign before breaking ground. On top of that, you will still need to navigate Florida’s existing land-use approval process, which usually takes between 12 and 24 months. Altogether, it may take years before you could “turn dirt” in Florida.
In the meantime, states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona are inviting you to break ground next week. The result: Florida will shed existing jobs while simultaneously chasing away new ones.
While a handful of major corporations may choose to suffer the long delays and finance the high-priced media campaigns needed to do business under Amendment 4, countless small businesses will fail.
In a time of deep recession, do we really want to tell large and small businesses alike that they must wait years before growing, building or hiring?
Amendment 4 will do more than cost construction jobs. It will lead to a hemorrhaging of jobs in healthcare, tourism, manufacturing, biotechnology, and numerous other fields.
Amendment 4 supporters are also promoting the absurd notion that comprehensive plans should be updated seldom–if at all. However, these plans were written in the 1980s without the benefit of a crystal ball. They are working documents designed to change over time. In fact, state law requires that local governments review and update their plans every fives years. There are also built-in periods for cities and counties to change their plans twice a year.
It’s common sense. As citizens, planners and elected officials learned more about managing growth, updating these plans was the only reasonable thing to do. Failing to change our comprehensive plans would have led to unprecedented levels of sprawl. That’s why reasonable environmental groups–like 1000 Friends of Florida–have opposed Amendment 4. They know that it will create uncoordinated, piecemeal planning that leads to more sprawl, not less.
2) Amendment 4 has already failed miserably in one small, Florida town.
Our argument: In 2006, the small Pinellas county town of St. Pete Beach adopted a local version of Amendment 4. The result has been economic collapse, an impossible growth-management process, and endless litigation at taxpayer expense. When St. Pete Beach voters approved four pro-growth changes to their comprehensive plan, Amendment 4 lawyers sued to overturn the election. More than a year after voting to change their comprehensive plan, the people of St. Pete Beach are still defending their vote in court. St. Pete Beach is a town of only 10,000 voters and Amendment 4 has already cost its taxpayers over half-a-million dollars in legal fees. Imagine the extraordinary costs and litigation that would result if Amendment 4 is taken statewide.
They say: “The lawsuits are flying because the Hometown Democracy process was not followed. Under Hometown Democracy, there will be a referendum only after the growth plan change is reviewed and voted on by the county commission. In St. Pete Beach developers held the referendum before the proposed plan change went through review and public hearing. That violates state law, which requires that no land use change can be made without following the public hearing process.”
Our response: That’s not how an Administrative Law Judge with the Department of Community Affairs sees it. Amendment 4 supporters say that they are trying to overturn the election because their process was not followed. But a judge and a state agency have already said that the law was followed. In response, Amendment 4 lawyers did what they do best: They filed another lawsuit.
More importantly, are we really to believe that Amendment 4 supporters spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because they object to a minor, procedural technicality?
It is clear that they never wanted to “give the voters a say” at all. Instead, they just want to stop growth, regardless of what the voters say. When they lost at the ballot box, they decided to take the people to court.
The failed Amendment 4 process has invited endless litigation and halted commonsense progress in this small, Pinellas County town. Here are the facts:
1) St. Pete Beach adopted a local version of Amendment 4 in 2006.
2) Two years later, the voters approved four new comprehensive plan changes at the ballot box.
3) Within 24 hours of the election, Amendment 4 supporters filed a lawsuit to overturn the results.
4) Taxpayers have now funded more than half-a-million dollars in lawsuits related to the Amendment 4 “process” in St. Pete Beach.
5) Ross Burnaman, the same lawyer who co-authored Amendment 4, has been directly involved in these lawsuits.
6) None of this would have happened without Amendment 4.
To get the full story on St. Pete Beach, take a look at this Editorial from their local town paper: http://www.florida2010.org/media2.php?id=98&t=2
3) Amendment 4 will turn our planning process into a political process, boosting the influence of special interest groups and side-lining ordinary citizens.
Our argument: Amendment 4 advocates do not want to empower voters; they want to stop growth at any cost. Under their proposal, special interests on both sides of the development debate will gain influence at the expense of ordinary citizens. Rather than being compelled to compromise, interest groups will be encouraged to draft the most extreme proposals and hire political consultants to sell them. Under Amendment 4, sound bites will have more influence than sound planning.
They say: “1) there is lots of growth already built in to comprehensive plans. So even if plans don’t get changed much there will still be plenty of construction. 2) Developers are they key special interest in Florida. They are the ones who stand to make the money. You can’t say the same of residents who just want to protect their community and quality of life. 3) No compromise campaigns? The entire process will stay the same and the referendum will only come at the very end. There’s plenty of room for “compromise.” 4) When we allow promiscuous developer-driven plan changes, the plans simply don’t mean anything and can’t protect the community from over-development.”
Our response:
1) Amendment 4 supporters are suggesting that it would be OK if comprehensive plans were never updated. This notion is absurd. That’s like saying, “Your 1980s-era computer should never be updated or replaced.” Ultimately, failing to change the comprehensive plan when necessary leads to sprawl. Amendment 4 will make many minor but necessary plan changes nearly impossible to plan, resulting in more traffic and overcrowding. That is why respected growth management and planning groups oppose Amendment 4.
2) Amendment 4 will not give power to residents who want to protect their quality of life. On the contrary, residents who are most impacted by plan changes are also the least empowered by Amendment 4. Under this amendment, residents living an hour from your home will be voting on whether or not to put gas stations, hospitals, schools, fire stations, or parks in your backyard. Ultimately, your voice–and the voice of your neighbors–will be drowned out in the noise of high-priced, countywide media campaigns.
3) Changing the end of the process changes the beginning. If every step in the process builds up to a high-priced media campaign then the incentive for compromise disappears completely. Amendment 4 says to interest groups on both sides of the development debate: Don’t bother trying to build consensus. Don’t worry about consulting communities affected by growth; just hire a political consultant to sell your position to voters on the other side of town. The result: Well-funded special interests on both sides of the development debate gain influence over a process that is governed by 30-second sound-bites. In such a process, the citizens most affected by local plan changes will be out-shouted in countywide media campaigns.
4) Amendment 4 won’t just force us to vote on “big developments” or “major plan changes.” Take a look at the language of the amendment! It leads to a vote on every minor and technical plan change. It triggers referenda on the thousands of housekeeping changes that come from local governments, not developers. There are no exceptions for schools, hospitals, public parks or fire stations. Under Amendment 4, key projects like roads, schools and police stations would be nearly impossible to plan and might be delayed for years.
4) Amendment 4 will lead to extraordinary costs, disruption and disorder at the ballot box.
Our argument: Under Amendment 4, the taxpayers will be forced to fund expensive elections for every technical change to their local comprehensive plan. It would not be uncommon for voters to face 200 or 300 minor land use issues on a single ballot. If Amendment 4 had been law in 2006, the residents of Carrabelle–a small Franklin County town–would have voted 617 times!
They say: “In Carrabelle the city council voted on one ordinance to overhaul the city comprehensive plan. Hometown Democracy referenda will track commission votes. So if your commission approves five ordinances approving growth plan changes, there will be five referenda. If our politicians respect our plans, which have lots of growth built in already, we won’t need to vote very often.
Our response: The lawyers behind Amendment 4 know that this is not true. Florida has very strict single-subject rules. Over and over again, the courts have said that multiple issues cannot be rolled into a single ballot question. They must be voted on separately.
It’s just common sense. Comprehensive Plans are hundreds and sometimes thousands of pages in length. Amendment 4 supporters are trying to tell you that these plans can be accurately condensed into a single 75-word ballot summary! This doesn’t pass the commonsense test and it certainly doesn’t pass the legal test.
The reality is that every comprehensive plan change–no matter how small or technical–would require a separate ballot question. As a result, voters would face hundreds and potentially even thousands of technical land use issues on a single ballot.
5) Amendment 4 is opposed by a broad and diverse coalition.
Our argument: Over 135 organizations are opposing Amendment 4 for a variety of reasons. These organizations include: the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida American Planning Association, the Florida League of Cities, the Florida State Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Florida Health Care Association.
They say: “A who’s who of the corporate construction industry is funding Floridians for Smarter Growth: The National Association of Home Builders, the Florida Association of Realtors, and Waste Management to name but three.”
Our response: It’s no surprise that Florida’s business community opposes an amendment that would permanently harm Florida’s economy. However, they are not alone. Amendment 4 is so extreme that it has earned the opposition of mainstream planning, growth management, environmental, government, labor, health care, agricultural and property rights groups, too.
These groups oppose Amendment 4 for many reasons. Some fear that it will lead to increased sprawl. Others note that it will cost many Floridians their personal property rights. Still more are concerned that it will keep Florida in a permanent recession. Regardless of the reason, these groups all oppose Amendment 4 because it’s a bad idea for Florida.
While these organizations represent literally millions of Florida jobs, Amendment 4 is backed by a tiny group of wealthy extremists. Lesley Blackner, a special interest lawyer has contributed nearly $1 million of her personal fortune to pay for the signatures to get this idea on the ballot. Ms. Blackner is joined by Joyce Tarnow of Floridians for a Sustainable Population and Joe Redner, owner of the Mons Venus strip clubs in Tampa.
Mr. Redner has frequently been engaged in legal battles with the Tampa City Council, which has tried to place restrictions on his nude clubs for 25 years. His is one of many notorious businesses that would benefit from Amendment 4’s “Vote on Everything” requirements. If they succeed in changing the constitution, strip clubs and pornography outlets would have an easier time beating back citizen-supported land use changes to restrict their activities.
South Florida’s Joyce Tarnow has also given a lot of money to promote Amendment 4. She supports the amendment because “hopefully, [it] will lead to people all over this country demanding from our Congress a population policy that reduces population pressure.”
To pursue this agenda, Ms. Tarnow founded and leads Floridians for a Sustainable Population, a fringe population control group. A close reading of the group’s Web site reveals more of their agenda: they call for limiting families to two children; cutting benefits for newborns; higher taxes on families; severe restrictions on legal immigration; and more.
In fact, more than half of Amendment 4’s funding comes from people closely associated with Floridians for a Sustainable Population – including Hometown’s Lesley Blackner, who is a senior member of the population control group’s advisory board.
These groups and individuals have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to write Amendment 4 into Florida’s constitution. It insults commonsense to call these interests anything other than “special.”
For more information go to: http://Florida2010.org
Both Sides of the Commercial Real Estate Bubble
Sep 8th
One of the biggest media debates recently has been about the extent of the problems in the commercial real estate sector. Some financial experts have argued commercial real estate might be the next bubble to burst, resulting in a mass number of foreclosures on malls, shopping centers, office buildings and hotels. Others feel the threat of commercial foreclosures, though serious, might be overblown. Today, we’ve seen some new input on this debate.
- Reuters ran a story predicting it will take an entire generation before we see another real estate boom like the one the industry experienced in 2006 and 2007.
- At the same time, Net Lease Insider argues fears about commercial real estate are unfounded. The assets still have inherent value. It just falls short of the ridiculous projections inherent in the loans underwritten during the boom.
- The New York Times also has some reassuring news. Retailers’ same-store sales might soonimprove. But not because consumers will suddently start shopping more. The 2009 sales statistics will likely improve because we’ll be comparing them to one of the worst years on record.
- In the meantime, The Boston Globe reports another chain has filed for bankruptcy protection.
- And Laberscar discusses the problem of how to deal with empty department store space.
- On a somewhat related note, the Big Fat Marketing Blog warns some stores might look like ghost towns this fall. But not because the retailers have moved out. Rather, because they’ve been so conservative with their merchandise orders for the rest of the year, there might not be enough products to fill the available space.
- Retailers continue to open stores at the Gateway Center in the Bronx, however. We did a walk-through of the property and posted an interview with president of Related Retail, the project’s developer, last month.
COURT DECISION SETS THE STAGE FOR BALLOT SHOWDOWN
Jun 18th
Florida Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies Fate of Extreme Ballot Measure
(ORLANDO – June 17, 2009) The Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday that clarifies the status of the most controversial ballot initiative in Florida history. The decision–which came as no surprise to most observers–upheld a lower court ruling that prevented petition-signers from revoking their signatures. That means the political action committee calling itself “Hometown Democracy”, which has collected virtually all of its petitions using paid gatherers, will not have to worry about losing any recent signatures to revocation. “We are not surprised by the court’s ruling, but we had naturally hoped for a different outcome,” said Ryan Houck, executive director for Floridians for Smarter Growth, the statewide campaign against Hometown Democracy. “While we’re disappointed with the decision, we are even more disappointed that Florida Hometown Democracy–a group that says it wants to empower voters–would seek to rescind the people’s right to reconsider their signature.”
Wednesday’s ruling only confirms a development for which opponents of the no-growth amendment having been preparing for months: After three failed attempts, it appears that the “Vote on Everything” amendment is finally headed for the 2010 ballot.
If passed, Hometown Democracy would require direct voter approval for thousands of technical land use amendments. The idea has already been attempted in St. Pete Beach, a small Pinellas county town that adopted a local version of the amendment in 2006. Since then, the town has become a battleground for competing special interests and endless litigation at taxpayer expense.
“This proposal would take an enormous toll on Florida’s economy,” said Houck. “If passed, it may leave our state in a permanent recession.”
Floridians for Smarter Growth leads the statewide opposition to the so-called “Hometown Democracy” amendment. Among 135 other groups that oppose the would-be amendment are the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 1000 Friends of Florida, the Florida American Planning Association and the Florida Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
For more information go to: http://Florida2010.org
2620 S. Tamiami / Office Building
Jun 3rd
2620 S. Tamiami, Sarasota FL
Property Overview
Highly visible signature building on US-41 in the Hospital Area is ideal for medical, law office, or financial professionals. Lots of windows for great views and abundant natural light. First floor lobby and restrooms are recently remodeled. Building exterior recenlty painted. This is a quality building well suited to users desiring an upscale image for their business.
Great signage and US-41 frontage provides exposure to average 64,000 vehicles per day
30% of local population is above age 60
High concentration of health services in the area
Top industries in this zip code by the number of employees:
- General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
- Offices of Physicians
- Home Health Care Services
- Nursing Care Facilities
- Offices of Dentists
Approx. 8,000 sq. ft. is currently available for lease at $17.00/ sq. ft. plus CAM, minimum divisible 2,800 sq. ft.
Commercial real estate loan defaults skyrocket
Mar 30th
- 5011 Ocean Blvd Siesta Key FL
As loan defaults rise, analysts say the struggling commercial real estate industry is poised to fall into the worst crisis since the last great property bust of the early 1990s.
Delinquency rates on loans for hotels, offices, retail and industrial buildings have risen sharply in recent months and are likely to soar through the end of 2010 as companies lay off workers, downsize or shut their doors.
The commercial real estate market’s fortunes are tied closely to those of the sinking economy, especially unemployment, which hit 8.1 percent in February.
“Until jobs start coming back and industry starts doing better we don’t see performance increasing” among landlords, said Christopher Stanley, an associate with research firm Reis Inc.
While the commercial real estate industry’s woes led to the recession of nearly 20 years ago, this time the industry is “the victim of the economic and financial crisis,” said Hessam Nadji, managing director at Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services in Walnut Creek, California.
Vacancies at retailers, Nadji forecasts, will shoot up to 11 percent by year-end, matching the peak of the early 1990s. Office vacancies are likely to hit 18 percent by year-end, he said, short of the 1990s-era peak of more than 20 percent.
The commercial real estate market is “at the precipice,” a report by Detusche Bank said earlier this month. So far this year, delinquency rates are up to 1.8 percent of loans in March, more than four times the year-ago level.
Faring worst were retailers, office building owners and apartment buildings. Hotels and industrial properties posted more moderate increases.
Deutsche Bank’s Richard Parkus projects delinquency rates will keep soaring to more than 3.5 percent by year-end and as high as 6 percent by late 2010. He says the industry’s woes will be “at least of a similar magnitude as those that the commercial real estate faced in the early 1990s.”
Drops in property values of 45 percent from a peak in late 2007 are possible, Parkus said, exceeding those of the early 1990s, as demand for office, retail and other commercial space plummets amid a worsening economy.
Adding credence to those gloomy predictions, the government said Thursday that the U.S. economy shrank at a 6.3 percent annual pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century.
Funding for commercial loans virtually shut down last year as the financial system unraveled.
There was $12.2 billion in commercial mortgage debt issued last year, the lowest figure since 1991 and down 95 percent from 2007, according to a report by Reis.
Making matters worse, about $216 billion in loans are coming due through 2012.
That is putting landlords in a squeeze.
About $11 billion of distressed commercial property is currently up for sale, compared with a lackluster $2.7 billion worth of properties that were actually sold in February, according to Real Capital Analytics.
A growing imbalance between supply and demand is likely to push down prices in the coming months, analysts say.
Similar to the residential property market, foreclosures and defaults are surging, with nearly $19 billion in commercial real estate loans in default, foreclosure or bankruptcy so far this year, according to Jessica Ruderman, a senior analyst with Real Capital.
More than 20 metropolitan areas nationwide now have at least $1 billion in troubled commercial loans, she said, up from five at the end of last year. Landlords in Las Vegas, Manhattan and Los Angeles are struggling the most.
As the industry’s troubles worsen, disputes are breaking out. The Dubai developer helping build the $8.6 billion CityCenter complex on the Las Vegas Strip said Monday it is suing struggling partner MGM Mirage over concerns about the project’s viability.
One major shopping mall owner, Chicago-based General Growth Properties Inc. has been struggling to avoid bankruptcy for months. It faces a Friday afternoon deadline to get permission from lenders to avoid penalties for late debt payments.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Pending sales rise to highest level in three years in February 2009
Mar 23rd
Commercial Real Estate for Sarasota
Pending sales in the Sarasota real estate market once again rose in February 2009, hitting 782 – the highest level since April 2006, a three year period. According to statistics from the Mid-Florida Regional MLS for members of the Sarasota Association of Realtors®, 611 single family homes and 171 condominiums were reported under contract in February, almost 100 more than the 683 pending sales reported in January 2009, and 19 percent higher than the 654 pendings reported in February 2008.
Pending sales have now exceeded the 500 level for the 14th consecutive month, and the statistic bodes well for the next two or three months, when many of these pendings will become closed sales. Pending sales reflect contracts executed by buyers and sellers. The report continues to reflect a steady, strong pattern, and indicates buyers are more active in the Sarasota market even in the face of difficult economic times.
“We are encouraged by this statistic, and the word of mouth reports indicating an uptick in showings and offers,” said 2009 SAR President Bill Geller. “Buyers are becoming even more aware of the many opportunities in the Sarasota market and are making offers and executing contracts. Local Realtors® are continuing to educate the public on our market, and this excellent chance to purchase a great home at a very attractive price, with interest rates at historic lows.”
Overall, there were 354 sales closed in February, compared to 319 in January, for a 10 percent increase. The figure was lower than February 2008, when 418 properties changed hands. The breakdown was 260 single family homes sold, and 94 condominiums sold.
The recently enacted first-time homebuyers’ tax credit of $8,000 should help spur sales to higher levels, Geller noted. Those who meet eligibility requirements and purchase a home this year prior to Dec. 1 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $8,000, and unlike the 2008 tax credit, this one does not have to be repaid. This credit, combined with historically low interest rates should help encourage more homes sales, experts agree.
“Particularly for the first time homebuyer trying to purchase in the Sarasota market, this is an amazing time to realize the dream of home ownership,” said Geller. “Affordable prices, combined with very low interest rates, plus the tax credit – you really haven’t seen a better time to buy for decades.”
The median sale price for single family homes declined to $142,000 in February 2009 from $149,950 in January 2009 – a 5.3 percent decline. The median sales price for condominiums fell to $198,000 in February 2009 from $220,000 in January 2009, for a 10 percent drop. These statistics appear to indicate the growing number of short sales and foreclosure sales in the market, which tend to impact the median sales prices more dramatically than the normal price trends.
Another important market tracker – the absorption rate of properties on the market – continues to track lower than last year at this time for both single family homes and condominiums, as inventories have declined. Absorption rate is the number of months it would take to sell the entire remaining listed inventory in a particular category, based upon the sales for that particular month.
For February 2009, the absorption rate for single family homes stood at 24.1 months, compared to 25.3 months in January 2009, and compared to 29.6 months in February 2008. For condominiums, the absorption rate was at 28.5 months, compared to 38.4 months in January 2009, and much lower than the 44.0 months reported in February 2008.
Click HERE for a PDF of the press release and two pages of statistical charts.
