Anonymous
Post 02/09/2015 15:36     Subject: Re:The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
I'm not finding much in Forest Glen either.

Maybe we should start a new under 600k thread updated with more recent listings and information, because we're already priced out of the neighborhoods suggested in this thread.
Anonymous
Post 02/09/2015 12:52     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:Reading through this thread as someone who has a budget of under 600k (closer to 550k), it seems as though many of us who are buying this year have already been priced out of certain markets, like 20910. Frustrating, but I'm going to keep soldiering on. It's looking like Petworth and the Forest Glen areas of Silver Spring might be good for some of us.


Sadly, even in those 2 neighborhoods you are hard pressed to find anything NICE for that price. We are also looking in Forest Glen but there are so few listings right now.
Anonymous
Post 02/09/2015 11:36     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Reading through this thread as someone who has a budget of under 600k (closer to 550k), it seems as though many of us who are buying this year have already been priced out of certain markets, like 20910. Frustrating, but I'm going to keep soldiering on. It's looking like Petworth and the Forest Glen areas of Silver Spring might be good for some of us.
Anonymous
Post 02/09/2015 10:07     Subject: Re:The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:in the same boat- first time buyer. i was the poster looking previously at the comstock townhomes at the hampshires.


I looked at those. Ended up going with one of the Dakota Crossing Townhomes though.


PP, are you still around? How are you liking living at Dakota Crossing? We're interested in a townhome there and just wanted to know a little about the neighborhood and the quality of the homes.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 21:01     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:Why do prople shy away from Rockville, Gaithersburg and Germantown-commute not so bad and some nice homes in safe areas-schools are pretty decent to. Not as chic as Bethesda or Falls Church but certainly affordable.


The commute and distance away from family and friends in DC, for us. But that goes for Falls Church, tpp.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 18:39     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
People
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 18:39     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Why do prople shy away from Rockville, Gaithersburg and Germantown-commute not so bad and some nice homes in safe areas-schools are pretty decent to. Not as chic as Bethesda or Falls Church but certainly affordable.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 16:25     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Here's a link to the previously mentioned house:

http://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/426-Mississippi-Ave-20910/home/10972094

It photographs really nicely; I like the interior colors shown. Thanks to the OP for starting this thread. My budget is even less than $600K (I may just rent forever, who knows) but its nice to have a place to talk about houses that are not completely out of consideration.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 14:01     Subject: Re:The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
And to get back on topic, here's another great house just listed:

426 Mississippi Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Sorry cant get the link with my phone.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 13:38     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If you bought in 2005/2006, then in some places, prices have not recovered. But that was a once in a century event. If you bought in literally any 2 year period in the past 50 years and kept it for 9 years, you made money. Not to mention that if you bought in 2005, you probably made a bundle by selling your previous house. There is no dispute that longterm homeownership creates wealth.


Selling ideas like above is what contributed to the housing bubble. Mortgage lenders ran out of prime borrowers, so they inflated "you can't lose with housing!" dreams and sold mortgages that they knew would go bad, and bundlers sold them off to the investors who were hoodwinked by credit rating agencies.

Housing can and will go down. And very few people stay in the house for 50yrs. Old people think everything will and should stay the same.



You are an idiot ideas didn't contribute to the bubble, it was bad loan practices, god someone needs to slap the stupid off your face.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 13:37     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
If you bought in 2005/2006, then in some places, prices have not recovered. But that was a once in a century event. If you bought in literally any 2 year period in the past 50 years and kept it for 9 years, you made money. Not to mention that if you bought in 2005, you probably made a bundle by selling your previous house. There is no dispute that longterm homeownership creates wealth.


Selling ideas like above is what contributed to the housing bubble. Mortgage lenders ran out of prime borrowers, so they inflated "you can't lose with housing!" dreams and sold mortgages that they knew would go bad, and bundlers sold them off to the investors who were hoodwinked by credit rating agencies.

Housing can and will go down. And very few people stay in the house for 50yrs. Old people think everything will and should stay the same.



You are an idiot ideas didn't contribute to the bubble, it was bad loan practices, god someone needs to slap the stupid off your face.
Anonymous
Post 05/31/2014 09:30     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
If you bought in 2005/2006, then in some places, prices have not recovered. But that was a once in a century event. If you bought in literally any 2 year period in the past 50 years and kept it for 9 years, you made money. Not to mention that if you bought in 2005, you probably made a bundle by selling your previous house. There is no dispute that longterm homeownership creates wealth.


Selling ideas like above is what contributed to the housing bubble. Mortgage lenders ran out of prime borrowers, so they inflated "you can't lose with housing!" dreams and sold mortgages that they knew would go bad, and bundlers sold them off to the investors who were hoodwinked by credit rating agencies.

Housing can and will go down. And very few people stay in the house for 50yrs. Old people think everything will and should stay the same.
Anonymous
Post 05/30/2014 17:19     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:ADORABLE house in University Park for $435 -

http://www.homesnap.com/MD/University-Park/6505-44th-Avenue


I'm having a difficult time with the math on this one. Assuming the basic assumptions of the calculator, you blow $90k on a downpayment, and your mortgage is $1,700 a month, just principal and interest. Add $500 a month for taxes at $6,300 a year. Now monthly payment is $2,200. This doesn't even mention all the one-time costs associated with the buying process. Now you have a house where you're "concerned about the schools."

Or you could rent these for $3,000 a month and not worry about public schools ever:

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/apa/4461754191.html

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/apa/4491041554.html

Plus you still have $90k in the bank that you can invest however you want.


This is silly. Those payments are not equivalent. The rental payment is 35% higher than the mortgage payment which comes out to 10,000/year. In addition, if you are in a 25% tax bracket the tax advantage comes to approximately $6,000/year. So that is 16,000/year in difference. After 5.5 years, you have saved enough to equal that down payment, 7.5 years if you assume you invested the entire 90K at 4% interest per year and didn't touch it, and did not invest any of the savings from the cheaper payment. 8.5 years if you assume 1% per year in maintenance costs. And this does not include any potential increases in rent during that time and disregards any potential appreciation in property value.
This also does not take into account the significant value that some people attach to owning their own home.

Renting has benefits. The primary one being flexibility. Change jobs? No problem, you can move easily. If the school system changes boundaries, you can move and stay in your school.

But the benefits of ownership are significant as well. it is the single largest wealth creator in the country.


University Park has a terrific elementary - no concern whatsoever.


$10,000 a year extra to send my 3 kids to Bethesda Chevy Chase schools? Sounds worth it to me.

Have you seen the thread where people are lamenting about how much they lost on the sale of their home? The seller of this house is losing money.

For reference: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/388278.page



If it's worth it to you, fine, but that goes under the intangible things like the joy of owning a home. I was just talking numbers.
And yes there are people who have lost money. If you bought in 2005/2006, then in some places, prices have not recovered. But that was a once in a century event. If you bought in literally any 2 year period in the past 50 years and kept it for 9 years, you made money. Not to mention that if you bought in 2005, you probably made a bundle by selling your previous house. There is no dispute that longterm homeownership creates wealth.
Anonymous
Post 05/30/2014 16:18     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:ADORABLE house in University Park for $435 -

http://www.homesnap.com/MD/University-Park/6505-44th-Avenue


I'm having a difficult time with the math on this one. Assuming the basic assumptions of the calculator, you blow $90k on a downpayment, and your mortgage is $1,700 a month, just principal and interest. Add $500 a month for taxes at $6,300 a year. Now monthly payment is $2,200. This doesn't even mention all the one-time costs associated with the buying process. Now you have a house where you're "concerned about the schools."

Or you could rent these for $3,000 a month and not worry about public schools ever:

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/apa/4461754191.html

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/apa/4491041554.html

Plus you still have $90k in the bank that you can invest however you want.


This is silly. Those payments are not equivalent. The rental payment is 35% higher than the mortgage payment which comes out to 10,000/year. In addition, if you are in a 25% tax bracket the tax advantage comes to approximately $6,000/year. So that is 16,000/year in difference. After 5.5 years, you have saved enough to equal that down payment, 7.5 years if you assume you invested the entire 90K at 4% interest per year and didn't touch it, and did not invest any of the savings from the cheaper payment. 8.5 years if you assume 1% per year in maintenance costs. And this does not include any potential increases in rent during that time and disregards any potential appreciation in property value.
This also does not take into account the significant value that some people attach to owning their own home.

Renting has benefits. The primary one being flexibility. Change jobs? No problem, you can move easily. If the school system changes boundaries, you can move and stay in your school.

But the benefits of ownership are significant as well. it is the single largest wealth creator in the country.


University Park has a terrific elementary - no concern whatsoever.


$10,000 a year extra to send my 3 kids to Bethesda Chevy Chase schools? Sounds worth it to me.

Have you seen the thread where people are lamenting about how much they lost on the sale of their home? The seller of this house is losing money.

For reference: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/388278.page

Anonymous
Post 05/30/2014 16:11     Subject: The thread for the, "buying under $600,000," crowd.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I'm curious to hear opinions on this perspective...


First, $2200 a month (and I think you might get that monthly payment closer to $2000 if you have good credit or can do an ARM or both) is a lot cheaper than $3000 a month. Each year in the University Park house will save you around $10,000. Good money to put towards college savings, etc. Second, the land may well appreciate -- it has over the last 5-10 years, right? Third, I have well educated friends who live in University Park who love it, and happily send their kids to public elementary school there. So maybe buy this as your starter house with a 7 year ARM, let the land increase in value, and in 7 years move to a better school district? As long as the house doesn't lose value, that sounds pretty good, right?


Makes sense to me. The new Whole Foods is set to open right across Rt 1 from UP in 2015, so property values rising there are a decent bet.


But they are asking less for the house now ($435K) than when they bought it in 2005 ($449K)!