It's hard to believe that Americans will stand idly by and let a Socialist wave wash over America. There is not doubt we have problems in our country but Socialism is not the remedy. For those that doubt that Mr. Obama has a Socialist agenda, all you need to do is listen to his exchange with "Joe the Plumber".
Mr. Obama told Joe, "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Spreading the wealth around will not move our economy forward, nor will it strengthen the soft real estate market.
What Mr. Obama proposes is akin to taking money out of one pocket to put it in another pocket. That's a zero sum game and doesn't result in more money. Oh it might help someone make a credit card payment, but it certainly isn't a long term solution to the problem of creating good paying jobs for American families. He proposes a band aid, not a solution.
We don't need to spread the wealth, we need to create and spread opportunity. By creating a climate where American business can flourish right here in the United States we can create opportunity which we can spread around.
There is no denying we all want change, but Socialism is not the answer. Socialism does not make countries stronger, it makes them weaker. If you doubt that, go check out Cuba.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Our Problem is a Demand, Not a Supply Problem
There has been a lot of discussion lately about what it will take to firm up the real estate market and put a bottom under the prices. Most of the discussion has been centered on the supply side of the market, with the talk centered on how to help people who are behind on their mortgages stay in their homes so those homes don't add to the supply in the market.
No doubt such an approach would take some homes off the market and prevent others from going on the market. However, foreclosed properties and those in pre-forclosure make up a relatively small precentage of all the homes currently for sale.
We do have too many homes for sale relative to the demand, but the fact remains that the number of single family homes listed for sale in Momouth County this year is about 10% less than last year for the same time period. In spite of this, the inventory levels are higher than last year.
Why is this the case? The number of homes being bought is declining at an even faster rate. Although the number of new listings has declined, the number of new sales has declined even more, resulting in an even greater oversupply in 2008.
What can we do to firm up the market? One is to let the market cycle run it's course. Ultimately prices will decline enough that "experts" who have the ability to influence large numbers of people will send out a "buy" signal which will bring people into the market. That approach will take care of things but will probably take a lot longer than most people wouldl like.
The other is to try to interrupt the normal business cycle. Helping people stay in their homes is an attempt to do that. So far, the results have been minimal. A better approach would be to stimulate demand. Right now, people are hesitant to purchase real estate because they see more risk than return. To stimulate demand, we would have to change that equation by creating an upside to purchasing where people don't currently see one.
How might that be done? The only thing that government can to stimulate demand is through incentives. What might they be? The only thing I can come up with are tax incentives for purchasing real estate. If the tax incentives were great enough, people would see enough upside to purchasing that the risk would be worth it. With sufficient incentives, demand would go up and the excess inventory would soon dry up and prices would find a floor. That is what everyone is says we need.
No doubt such an approach would take some homes off the market and prevent others from going on the market. However, foreclosed properties and those in pre-forclosure make up a relatively small precentage of all the homes currently for sale.
We do have too many homes for sale relative to the demand, but the fact remains that the number of single family homes listed for sale in Momouth County this year is about 10% less than last year for the same time period. In spite of this, the inventory levels are higher than last year.
Why is this the case? The number of homes being bought is declining at an even faster rate. Although the number of new listings has declined, the number of new sales has declined even more, resulting in an even greater oversupply in 2008.
What can we do to firm up the market? One is to let the market cycle run it's course. Ultimately prices will decline enough that "experts" who have the ability to influence large numbers of people will send out a "buy" signal which will bring people into the market. That approach will take care of things but will probably take a lot longer than most people wouldl like.
The other is to try to interrupt the normal business cycle. Helping people stay in their homes is an attempt to do that. So far, the results have been minimal. A better approach would be to stimulate demand. Right now, people are hesitant to purchase real estate because they see more risk than return. To stimulate demand, we would have to change that equation by creating an upside to purchasing where people don't currently see one.
How might that be done? The only thing that government can to stimulate demand is through incentives. What might they be? The only thing I can come up with are tax incentives for purchasing real estate. If the tax incentives were great enough, people would see enough upside to purchasing that the risk would be worth it. With sufficient incentives, demand would go up and the excess inventory would soon dry up and prices would find a floor. That is what everyone is says we need.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Will The Government Bailout Help the Real Estate Market?
After all the hoopla of last week, the government passed a record Wall Street bailout package with the hope of easing the credit crisis. Now the question that is being asked is "Will the government bailout help the real estate market?"
From what I know of it, I can't figure out how it will. Much of the talk of the bailout seemed to center on unlocking the credit markets which experts had said were "frozen". That all seems odd, because mortgage financing wasn't frozen. During the entire crisis, there was abundant mortgage money available to qualified buyers. In the current financing climate, a qualified buyer is one who has money for a 10 to 20% downpayment (depending how how they plan to use the property), a good credit profile and can verify both employment and income. Since mortgage money wasn't frozen, I don't see how the bailout can help us there.
Another theme that was voiced was the need to help people who are behind on their mortgages so that they can stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. I guess the idea there is that with fewer foreclosures on the market the oversupply of housing will be less. In our area, there are foreclosed homes on the market but they represent a very small percentage of the total inventory. There are homes on the market where owners are behind on their mortgages and face foreclosure, but those too are a relatively small percentage of the homes currently for sale. To what extent the bailout will help these people I don't know. But even if it does, it will impact a small percentage of the total inventory.
So when it is all said and done, it's hard to see where the bailout will help firm up the real estate maket in any meaninful way. It looks like we can expect prices to decline further which means we will have more of the problem that led to the bailout in the first place. Does that mean we can look forward to another bailout? Only time will tell.
From what I know of it, I can't figure out how it will. Much of the talk of the bailout seemed to center on unlocking the credit markets which experts had said were "frozen". That all seems odd, because mortgage financing wasn't frozen. During the entire crisis, there was abundant mortgage money available to qualified buyers. In the current financing climate, a qualified buyer is one who has money for a 10 to 20% downpayment (depending how how they plan to use the property), a good credit profile and can verify both employment and income. Since mortgage money wasn't frozen, I don't see how the bailout can help us there.
Another theme that was voiced was the need to help people who are behind on their mortgages so that they can stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. I guess the idea there is that with fewer foreclosures on the market the oversupply of housing will be less. In our area, there are foreclosed homes on the market but they represent a very small percentage of the total inventory. There are homes on the market where owners are behind on their mortgages and face foreclosure, but those too are a relatively small percentage of the homes currently for sale. To what extent the bailout will help these people I don't know. But even if it does, it will impact a small percentage of the total inventory.
So when it is all said and done, it's hard to see where the bailout will help firm up the real estate maket in any meaninful way. It looks like we can expect prices to decline further which means we will have more of the problem that led to the bailout in the first place. Does that mean we can look forward to another bailout? Only time will tell.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Turmoil on Wall Street Allows Obama To Get the Upper Hand
The recent turmoil has clearly blunted the momentum that John McCain developed from his selection of Sarah Palin and the Republican Convention. He had a nice run where he had Obama on the defensive and the polls were all going in his direction. He had the high ground and was shooting downhill.
That has all changed. McCain stumbled when the s**t hit the fan on Wall Street and Obama gained the advantage. Now the polls are all going his way. Is all lost for McCain.
Hardly. Despite the reversal in the polls, people are still uneasy about Obama and that makes him vulnerable. Poll after poll shows that people want a change in direction but are uneasy about Obama as the man to lead the way. McCain can get back on top by exploiting that fundamental weakness in his candicacy.
Obama has taken to mocking, belittling and otherwise demeaning his opponent. McCain can turn that around by hammering home the point that this behavior clearly demonstrates Mr. Obama's immaturity and lack of leadership in this troubling and challenging time.
He can also demonstrate, once again, Mr. Obama's poor judgment by highlighted the ecomonic advisers he has on his team. Two of his most trusted ecomonic advisers are former heads of Fannie Mae and were responsible for the policies at Fannie Mae that led it's collapse. Since Mr. Obama's resume has nothing on it that could be call an accomplishment, judgement is all he has. Time and time again, Mr. Obama gives us proof, through his associations and policy positions that his judgment is seriously flawed and makes him a dangerous person to put in the White House.
No doubt McCain finds himself shooting uphill, but the situation is reversable. He needs to keep hammering home that point that most Americans already know and makes them very uneasy. Mr. Obama lacks the judgment, experience and the policies to make him the person to lead us at this time.
That has all changed. McCain stumbled when the s**t hit the fan on Wall Street and Obama gained the advantage. Now the polls are all going his way. Is all lost for McCain.
Hardly. Despite the reversal in the polls, people are still uneasy about Obama and that makes him vulnerable. Poll after poll shows that people want a change in direction but are uneasy about Obama as the man to lead the way. McCain can get back on top by exploiting that fundamental weakness in his candicacy.
Obama has taken to mocking, belittling and otherwise demeaning his opponent. McCain can turn that around by hammering home the point that this behavior clearly demonstrates Mr. Obama's immaturity and lack of leadership in this troubling and challenging time.
He can also demonstrate, once again, Mr. Obama's poor judgment by highlighted the ecomonic advisers he has on his team. Two of his most trusted ecomonic advisers are former heads of Fannie Mae and were responsible for the policies at Fannie Mae that led it's collapse. Since Mr. Obama's resume has nothing on it that could be call an accomplishment, judgement is all he has. Time and time again, Mr. Obama gives us proof, through his associations and policy positions that his judgment is seriously flawed and makes him a dangerous person to put in the White House.
No doubt McCain finds himself shooting uphill, but the situation is reversable. He needs to keep hammering home that point that most Americans already know and makes them very uneasy. Mr. Obama lacks the judgment, experience and the policies to make him the person to lead us at this time.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Reflections on the Sarah Palin Interview
Although this is a real estate blog, I must admit the election that lies ahead has captured my imagination. First off, let me make it clear that I am excited by the selection of Sarah Palin by John McCain, a selection that has made me a strong supporter of that ticket.
That said, I would judge Sarah Palin's performance, especially when dealing with the area of foreign affairs as OK. She didn't blow herself up and she didn't hit it out of the park. I suspect that those people who supported her going in still support her, those that thought her unqualified still hold that view and the undecided are still undecided.
I do think she made a mistake when answering questions in the area of foreign policy. She struck me as wanting to answer all the questions, when there were times she would have been better off questioning the validity of some questions or the premise of the question. It appeared to me that she was trying to demonstrate a complete understanding in an area that it is impossible for her to have a complete understanding, and that was a mistake. To even attempt to answer what she would do in a hypothetical situation created by Charlie Gibson is a no win situation.
She would have been far better off, in my opinion, to state the obvious. As a governor she has no responsibility for foreign policy, so it is completely unrealistic for any reasonable person to expect her to be fully versed in that area, especially after being thrust into the campaign just two weeks ago. She should state that she is confident, should she need to assume the Presidency, that with the outstanding team John McCain will have assembled that she will have the judgement to conduct a foreign policy that will protect American interests abroad.
At times the tone Charlie Gibson's questioning was almost as if she was the one running for President and she would be making decisions on day one. That I think was unfair, but her mistate was to answer the question with that as the premise. She would have been far better off pointing out that she is running for Vice President and should she find herself in the Presidency she would have the benefit of the John McCain team in place to supply her with the information and options that would enable her to make decisions that would protect the interests of the American people.
As for the hypothetical questions, like those regarding Israel and Russia, she should have answered in only the broadest terms. She should have pointed out that she can't possibly say what she would do without all the facts at her disposal. At this point, it is not possible for her to have all the facts, none of the four candidates do. The only person who does is the sitting President. In my opinion, it would have been better to question the validity of the question or simply state it is unwise to answer hypothetical answers with specifics because they are only that, not actual circumstances.
I think her interest would have been better served to state what we all know, that she does not have all the facts in areas of foreign policy or understand all the nuances of our current foreign policy because, as Governor of Alaska, that is not part of her job description. She should state that she is confident that will a quality team around her and good information on which to make decisions she has the head and backbone to make decisions that will protect the interests of the United States.
No doubt she will practice more and perform better in the next interview. The Democrats are still confronted with the same problem. If they and their minnions in the press are unable to destroy her, John McCain will be the next President
That said, I would judge Sarah Palin's performance, especially when dealing with the area of foreign affairs as OK. She didn't blow herself up and she didn't hit it out of the park. I suspect that those people who supported her going in still support her, those that thought her unqualified still hold that view and the undecided are still undecided.
I do think she made a mistake when answering questions in the area of foreign policy. She struck me as wanting to answer all the questions, when there were times she would have been better off questioning the validity of some questions or the premise of the question. It appeared to me that she was trying to demonstrate a complete understanding in an area that it is impossible for her to have a complete understanding, and that was a mistake. To even attempt to answer what she would do in a hypothetical situation created by Charlie Gibson is a no win situation.
She would have been far better off, in my opinion, to state the obvious. As a governor she has no responsibility for foreign policy, so it is completely unrealistic for any reasonable person to expect her to be fully versed in that area, especially after being thrust into the campaign just two weeks ago. She should state that she is confident, should she need to assume the Presidency, that with the outstanding team John McCain will have assembled that she will have the judgement to conduct a foreign policy that will protect American interests abroad.
At times the tone Charlie Gibson's questioning was almost as if she was the one running for President and she would be making decisions on day one. That I think was unfair, but her mistate was to answer the question with that as the premise. She would have been far better off pointing out that she is running for Vice President and should she find herself in the Presidency she would have the benefit of the John McCain team in place to supply her with the information and options that would enable her to make decisions that would protect the interests of the American people.
As for the hypothetical questions, like those regarding Israel and Russia, she should have answered in only the broadest terms. She should have pointed out that she can't possibly say what she would do without all the facts at her disposal. At this point, it is not possible for her to have all the facts, none of the four candidates do. The only person who does is the sitting President. In my opinion, it would have been better to question the validity of the question or simply state it is unwise to answer hypothetical answers with specifics because they are only that, not actual circumstances.
I think her interest would have been better served to state what we all know, that she does not have all the facts in areas of foreign policy or understand all the nuances of our current foreign policy because, as Governor of Alaska, that is not part of her job description. She should state that she is confident that will a quality team around her and good information on which to make decisions she has the head and backbone to make decisions that will protect the interests of the United States.
No doubt she will practice more and perform better in the next interview. The Democrats are still confronted with the same problem. If they and their minnions in the press are unable to destroy her, John McCain will be the next President
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It's Not Just Change Americans Want, It's Reform!
Although this is a real estate blog dealing with my local market, I can't help but make some observations about the upcoming election and how the selection of Sarah Palin has completely transformed the campaign. What was shaping up as another humdrum campaign, has overnight been turned into the most exciting in recent history.
For almost two years now we have heard the Democrats call for "change, change and more change" in an effort to tap the growing discontent Americans are feeling toward the government. This is a discontent we all feel. There is no doubt our government does not represent the interests of Main Street. We all want things to change and that is a desire that runs deep.
Despite this desire, Americans have been reluctant to buy into the change that the Democrats have proposed. When you cut through the lofty oratory, the bottom line is that they are proposing higher taxes on our society, more government spending and bigger deficits. These are not new ideas. We have tried them before, remember Jimmy Carter, and then finally discarded them when Bill Clinton became President and the Republicans took control of Congress. Deep down inside most Americans know that bigger government is not the best way to solve the problems that confront us.
The Democrats selected Barack Obama as their messenger and have tried to package him as a transformational political figure. But there is a problem with the choice. Mr. Obama's story is one that many, if not most Americans do not relate to. There is no doubt he is a very talented man who loves his country, but there is still something about him that does not resonate with enough Americans. Maybe it's his personal story, maybe it's professorial tone, perhaps it's his questionable past associations or perhaps it's his frighteningly thin resume. Whatever it is, he hasn't been able to seal the deal.
In the other camp we have John McCain and there are things to like about him. His personal story is compelling. Have we ever had a presidential candidate that knows from personal experience what torture is all about? He does have a reputation for attempting reform, often costing him support within his party. But he has his limitations as well. His age is a problem and he does seem to have a hard time relating to the day to day struggles of Main Street, America. Throw in the fact that his passion is foreign policy and, by his own admission, thoughts of the economic woes of Americans do not capture his imagination, and you have another candidate with a lot to like but one that also leaves to many people unenthusiastic.
It was shaping up as trench warfare campaign, which each side throwing bombs across enemy lines with the hopes of picking up a vote here and there. Then something remarkable happened. Some how, some way, John McCain came up with Sarah Palin as his running mate and the whole campaign has been turned upside down. How he did it really doesn't matter. Almost instantly, a new energy swept across the country, some for her, some against her, but all stood up and took notice.
How could a 44 year old woman, a first term governor from the hinterlands of America transform the campaign and make this election one of the most exciting in modern American history? I believe it is because she taps into and represents what Americans have desperately been searching for. The Democrats were correct in that we are seeking change, but it is more than that. We are seeking reform and she represents reform. Has there ever been a leader that successfully took on his/her own party before throwing stones across the isle? Has there ever been a leader that successfully took on the interests of the powerful in such a way where there was something in the solution for both the powerful and the people as she did with her tackling of Big Oil in Alaska? Has there ever been a leader who, when confronted with a budgetary surplus, decided to return the money to the people rather than figure out ways to spend it? Has there been a leader with a better record of reaching across the isle to effect change that will benefit all of her constituents, as she did when reaching across to Democrats to get the long stalled natural gas pipeline approved? There is something in her thinking that resonates with Americans. She understands that government can't solve all our problems. She understands that governments needs to be fiscally responsible, just as households need to be. Her theme of putting government back on the side of the people is one that gets people excited.
Not only does she have the message Americans have been hungering for, she is the perfect messenger to fit the message. There is something in her personal story that almost every American can relate to. Whatever your background or your beliefs, there is something in Sarah Palin that we can all relate to. He life story is the quintessenial American story.
John McCain, unwittingly or not, has unleashed a force that will be hard to stop. There is talk that this is just a bounce or wave and will dissipate. Something tells me that this is not a wave or a bounce, but there is a tide building that will sweep over America. The Democrats have no choice but to try to destroy her. If they can't, they will lose the election, it's that simple. Something tells me they won't succeed. Something tells me that before this is over, John McCain will be swept into office. Not because the voters wanted John McCain, but because they want Sarah Palin.
In the past I have voted both Democratic and Republican, but usually made my choice based on who I didn't want as opposed to who I did want. I can't remember that last time I was enthusiastic about a candidte. This year I was going to vote for John McCain, not so much because I was excited about him, but because I was convinced that Barach Obama does not have the right answers to our problems. Now I am voting for McCain, again not so much because I am excited about him, but because I am excited about Sarah Palin, what she represents and the belief that she is tranformational leader that the Democrats thought they had in Barack Obama.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the slogan "Morning in America". The sun is rising on America again, in the form of Sarah Palin. What an exciting time to be alive in America!
For almost two years now we have heard the Democrats call for "change, change and more change" in an effort to tap the growing discontent Americans are feeling toward the government. This is a discontent we all feel. There is no doubt our government does not represent the interests of Main Street. We all want things to change and that is a desire that runs deep.
Despite this desire, Americans have been reluctant to buy into the change that the Democrats have proposed. When you cut through the lofty oratory, the bottom line is that they are proposing higher taxes on our society, more government spending and bigger deficits. These are not new ideas. We have tried them before, remember Jimmy Carter, and then finally discarded them when Bill Clinton became President and the Republicans took control of Congress. Deep down inside most Americans know that bigger government is not the best way to solve the problems that confront us.
The Democrats selected Barack Obama as their messenger and have tried to package him as a transformational political figure. But there is a problem with the choice. Mr. Obama's story is one that many, if not most Americans do not relate to. There is no doubt he is a very talented man who loves his country, but there is still something about him that does not resonate with enough Americans. Maybe it's his personal story, maybe it's professorial tone, perhaps it's his questionable past associations or perhaps it's his frighteningly thin resume. Whatever it is, he hasn't been able to seal the deal.
In the other camp we have John McCain and there are things to like about him. His personal story is compelling. Have we ever had a presidential candidate that knows from personal experience what torture is all about? He does have a reputation for attempting reform, often costing him support within his party. But he has his limitations as well. His age is a problem and he does seem to have a hard time relating to the day to day struggles of Main Street, America. Throw in the fact that his passion is foreign policy and, by his own admission, thoughts of the economic woes of Americans do not capture his imagination, and you have another candidate with a lot to like but one that also leaves to many people unenthusiastic.
It was shaping up as trench warfare campaign, which each side throwing bombs across enemy lines with the hopes of picking up a vote here and there. Then something remarkable happened. Some how, some way, John McCain came up with Sarah Palin as his running mate and the whole campaign has been turned upside down. How he did it really doesn't matter. Almost instantly, a new energy swept across the country, some for her, some against her, but all stood up and took notice.
How could a 44 year old woman, a first term governor from the hinterlands of America transform the campaign and make this election one of the most exciting in modern American history? I believe it is because she taps into and represents what Americans have desperately been searching for. The Democrats were correct in that we are seeking change, but it is more than that. We are seeking reform and she represents reform. Has there ever been a leader that successfully took on his/her own party before throwing stones across the isle? Has there ever been a leader that successfully took on the interests of the powerful in such a way where there was something in the solution for both the powerful and the people as she did with her tackling of Big Oil in Alaska? Has there ever been a leader who, when confronted with a budgetary surplus, decided to return the money to the people rather than figure out ways to spend it? Has there been a leader with a better record of reaching across the isle to effect change that will benefit all of her constituents, as she did when reaching across to Democrats to get the long stalled natural gas pipeline approved? There is something in her thinking that resonates with Americans. She understands that government can't solve all our problems. She understands that governments needs to be fiscally responsible, just as households need to be. Her theme of putting government back on the side of the people is one that gets people excited.
Not only does she have the message Americans have been hungering for, she is the perfect messenger to fit the message. There is something in her personal story that almost every American can relate to. Whatever your background or your beliefs, there is something in Sarah Palin that we can all relate to. He life story is the quintessenial American story.
John McCain, unwittingly or not, has unleashed a force that will be hard to stop. There is talk that this is just a bounce or wave and will dissipate. Something tells me that this is not a wave or a bounce, but there is a tide building that will sweep over America. The Democrats have no choice but to try to destroy her. If they can't, they will lose the election, it's that simple. Something tells me they won't succeed. Something tells me that before this is over, John McCain will be swept into office. Not because the voters wanted John McCain, but because they want Sarah Palin.
In the past I have voted both Democratic and Republican, but usually made my choice based on who I didn't want as opposed to who I did want. I can't remember that last time I was enthusiastic about a candidte. This year I was going to vote for John McCain, not so much because I was excited about him, but because I was convinced that Barach Obama does not have the right answers to our problems. Now I am voting for McCain, again not so much because I am excited about him, but because I am excited about Sarah Palin, what she represents and the belief that she is tranformational leader that the Democrats thought they had in Barack Obama.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the slogan "Morning in America". The sun is rising on America again, in the form of Sarah Palin. What an exciting time to be alive in America!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Condo Options in Monmouth Beach
Clients come to us and ask "What are the condo options in Monmouth Beach?" Although a town just one mile square, Monmouth Beach offers a blend that range from high rise condominiums on the beach and river to townhouses within walking distance to the beach and condo conversions, those condos that started their lives as garden complexes, which appear to owners on the lower end of the price scale.
The three high rise condominiums are the Admiralty, Shores and Channel Club. The Admiralty and Shores are located on the beach, while the Channel Club is located right by the Shrewsbury River. All three are full service condominiums and range in size from 120 apartments to over 200 apartments for the Channel Club. The views can are great and there are plenty of services, however, they don't allow dogs and seasonal rentals are not allowed.
Looking for something more affordable and still within walking distance to the beach? Try Wharfside, Breakwater Cove, Monmouth Commons or Sands Point South. Wharfside was once a garden complex and is a block from the beach and located on the Shrewsbury River. Prices start in the lower $200,000's for a one bedroom apartment. These two are pet restricted, but they do allow shorter term rentals, as long as they area at least three months.
Breakwater Cove and Monmouth Commons offer townhouse living (multiple levels in each unit) and are also a short walk to the beach. Prices for a one bedroom in Breakwater Cove start in the lower $300,000's, while prices for a townhouse in Monmouth Commons are generally in the $500,000's
That brings us to Sands Point South. Yes, there is also a Sands Point North, but we will get to that one shortly. Sands Point South offers one and two bedroom apartment style condominiums and is located on the Shrewsbury River about a quarter of a mile from the beach. Price for a one bedroom start in the upper $200,000's.
Last but not least is Sands Point North. This is a townhouse community, equally divided between one and two bedroom townhouses. Built in the 1970's, it was one of the first townhouse communities in the area. Not considered walking distance to the beach, a one bedroom here will start in the low $300,000's.
Got a question about the local real estate market? Feel free to ask. My 30 years of productive experience can help you make the right choice.
The three high rise condominiums are the Admiralty, Shores and Channel Club. The Admiralty and Shores are located on the beach, while the Channel Club is located right by the Shrewsbury River. All three are full service condominiums and range in size from 120 apartments to over 200 apartments for the Channel Club. The views can are great and there are plenty of services, however, they don't allow dogs and seasonal rentals are not allowed.
Looking for something more affordable and still within walking distance to the beach? Try Wharfside, Breakwater Cove, Monmouth Commons or Sands Point South. Wharfside was once a garden complex and is a block from the beach and located on the Shrewsbury River. Prices start in the lower $200,000's for a one bedroom apartment. These two are pet restricted, but they do allow shorter term rentals, as long as they area at least three months.
Breakwater Cove and Monmouth Commons offer townhouse living (multiple levels in each unit) and are also a short walk to the beach. Prices for a one bedroom in Breakwater Cove start in the lower $300,000's, while prices for a townhouse in Monmouth Commons are generally in the $500,000's
That brings us to Sands Point South. Yes, there is also a Sands Point North, but we will get to that one shortly. Sands Point South offers one and two bedroom apartment style condominiums and is located on the Shrewsbury River about a quarter of a mile from the beach. Price for a one bedroom start in the upper $200,000's.
Last but not least is Sands Point North. This is a townhouse community, equally divided between one and two bedroom townhouses. Built in the 1970's, it was one of the first townhouse communities in the area. Not considered walking distance to the beach, a one bedroom here will start in the low $300,000's.
Got a question about the local real estate market? Feel free to ask. My 30 years of productive experience can help you make the right choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
