Signals Improving for both Home Builders and Remodelers
Mar 19 2012, 12:31PM
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) held steady in March, consolidating five straight months of gains for this measure of how home builders view the health of their industry. The index is at 28, the highest level since June 2007.
The HMI is derived from a survey conducted among NAHB members each month. Home builders are asked for their perceptions of the current market for new homes, rating the market as "good," "fair," or "poor," and asked to rate their expectations over the next six months on the same scale. NAHB also asks them to assess the traffic of prospective buyers as "high to very high," "average," or "low to very low." The three measures are reported individually and aggregated into the HMI. Any number over 50 indicates that more builders view conditions as good than as poor.
The component gauging current sales conditions was down one point from February to 29, the component gauging traffic of prospective buyers was unchanged at 22, but expectations for the next six months increased two points to 36.
On a regional basis the HMI was at 25 in the Northeast, five points higher than in February. It gained two points in both the Midwest and South to 32 and 27 respectively but, after jumping 22 points in February the Western region score fell 10 points in March.
"Builder confidence is now twice as strong as it was six months ago, and the West was the only region to experience a decline this month following an unusual spike in February," observed NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. "That said, many of our members continue to cite obstacles on the road to recovery, including persistently tight builder and buyer credit and the ongoing inventory of distressed properties in some markets."
Builders involved in remodeling got a little good news on Monday as well. BuildFax reported that building permits for remodeling rose in January to a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 2,998,000. This was an increase of 13 percent over the December number of 2,653,000, and 11 percent higher than in January, 2011.
Estimates of permits rose in three of the regions. Only in the Northeast was the number down, declining 7 percent to 430,000 which was still 12 percent higher than one year earlier. Remodeling in the South rose 17 percent from December and 6 percent from a year earlier to 1,122,000 permits and the Midwest increased 9 percent and 14 percent respectively to 595,000. Permitting in the West rose 10 percent month-over-month and 14 percent from January 2011 to 595,000.
"Residential remodeling this winter is as strong as it has been in more than five years. We expect residential remodeling to continue to grow throughout 2012," said Joe Emison, Vice President of Research and Development at BuildFax.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Happy St. Paddy's Day and a few Limericks for You
A realtor at North Douglas in Drain
Had a client who was really a pain
Her mind was all changed
As the client defanged
The commission somewhat of a gain
In Eugene a realtor claimed
Supposedly had very little of fame
But his listings disproved it
His sales graph removed it,
Any doubt, his income the opposite of shame
A mortgage broker a wonderful fellow
Aerie Mortgage the key to the bellows
For the mortgages he fanned
Came aright as all planned
Afterwards his realtors quite happy and mellow.
Had a client who was really a pain
Her mind was all changed
As the client defanged
The commission somewhat of a gain
In Eugene a realtor claimed
Supposedly had very little of fame
But his listings disproved it
His sales graph removed it,
Any doubt, his income the opposite of shame
A mortgage broker a wonderful fellow
Aerie Mortgage the key to the bellows
For the mortgages he fanned
Came aright as all planned
Afterwards his realtors quite happy and mellow.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Property Rights? Are you kidding me?
One Couple’s Fight With the EPA & What it Could Mean for Property Rights
Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they couldn’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetland that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
Naturally, the Sacketts decided to challenge the EPA and their fight has brought them all the way to the Supreme Court. Should they be successful in their crusade against the federal agency, they would set a groundbreaking precedent.
“The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States,” reason.tv reports.
But let’s revisit how the Sacketts got caught up in this mess in the first place.
See Reason‘s presentation on the Sackett’s story (via reason.tv):
“I remember coming home, told my mom and dad that I was going to move to Priest Lake, and they just said, ‘Oh, no you’re not.’ And I said, ‘Oh yeah. Yeah I am,’” Sackett told Reason.
Sackett and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build their home.
“After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold,” Reason notes.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for the appropriate permits, and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case.
“The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately,” Reason reports, “The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.”
Wait. What?
Yep, according to the Wetlands Inventory, the Sackett’s property wasn’t on existing wetlands. So how did the EPA respond to this?
“The EPA responded [by issuing] what’s known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day,” Reason reports.
“You go to bed with that on your mind every night,” said Mike Sackett, who owns a contracting company. “It’s been painful personally. It’s been painful on our business.”The Sacketts tried to settle the dispute in court but lost based on the EPA’s claim that a “compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines,” which, by the way, were getting bigger with each day.
“The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up.”
Despite losing to the EPA in lower courts, Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation took the case to the Supreme Court, The Blaze reported back in January. Some readers might remember that Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito accused the EPA of acting with an “outrageous” “high-handedness,” and blasted the entire ordeal by saying “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
“I was surprised by some of the questions that came from the justices,” said Mike Sackett. “They were questions that we would’ve asked.”
Should the Sacketts win, what would this mean?
“If the Sacketts do win in the Supreme Court, they will then have the opportunity to actually challenge the EPA’s compliance order in the lower courts,” Reason explains. “Just having the opportunity to challenge that, says Schiff, would be a major victory for property rights and for due process of law.”
Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they couldn’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetland that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
Naturally, the Sacketts decided to challenge the EPA and their fight has brought them all the way to the Supreme Court. Should they be successful in their crusade against the federal agency, they would set a groundbreaking precedent.
“The decision in the Supreme Court case Sackett v. EPA, due later this spring, could very well affect the meaning of property rights and due process in the United States,” reason.tv reports.
But let’s revisit how the Sacketts got caught up in this mess in the first place.
See Reason‘s presentation on the Sackett’s story (via reason.tv):
“I remember coming home, told my mom and dad that I was going to move to Priest Lake, and they just said, ‘Oh, no you’re not.’ And I said, ‘Oh yeah. Yeah I am,’” Sackett told Reason.
Sackett and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build their home.
“After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold,” Reason notes.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for the appropriate permits, and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case.
“The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately,” Reason reports, “The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot… was not on an existing wetland.”
Wait. What?
Yep, according to the Wetlands Inventory, the Sackett’s property wasn’t on existing wetlands. So how did the EPA respond to this?
“The EPA responded [by issuing] what’s known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day,” Reason reports.
“You go to bed with that on your mind every night,” said Mike Sackett, who owns a contracting company. “It’s been painful personally. It’s been painful on our business.”The Sacketts tried to settle the dispute in court but lost based on the EPA’s claim that a “compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines,” which, by the way, were getting bigger with each day.
“The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order,” said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up.”
Despite losing to the EPA in lower courts, Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation took the case to the Supreme Court, The Blaze reported back in January. Some readers might remember that Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito accused the EPA of acting with an “outrageous” “high-handedness,” and blasted the entire ordeal by saying “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
“I was surprised by some of the questions that came from the justices,” said Mike Sackett. “They were questions that we would’ve asked.”
Should the Sacketts win, what would this mean?
“If the Sacketts do win in the Supreme Court, they will then have the opportunity to actually challenge the EPA’s compliance order in the lower courts,” Reason explains. “Just having the opportunity to challenge that, says Schiff, would be a major victory for property rights and for due process of law.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)