7 ms·

I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (cond

I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus, the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station). So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first. It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty. * Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far) * Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort? * And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.) When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back. I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.

davidw 7y ago
As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.
sologoub 7y ago
Sorry to hear about your situation and impacts! Definitely sounds like a lot of stress! Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale. It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.
- ergothus 7y ago
  It's a split. There's the eminent domain question from the city - they need space for the road, which would eat my front yard and put traffic a few feet from the front door. There are various kinds of eminent domain (some other comments have discussed the more speculative kind), but this is the more straightfoward "take your land, give you something of theoretical equal value, and use your land for city improvement". The uncertainty there comes in: - If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle, but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it. - If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking "relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more uncertain (where, when, etc) Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell, particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the _possible_ eminent domain would impact it. And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another year or two to go.
nine_k 7y ago
As a comparison, an acquaintance of mine lives in Moscow, Russia, and their old apartment building is going to be demolished as a part of a large development program. They are offered two options. One is getting an apartment somewhere on the outskirts of the (vast) city, but the size and number of rooms will be the same or better as in the old apartment. The other is getting an apartment nearby in a newly built house, but likely smaller, with an option to upgrade it to a better apartment by paying the difference at a discount rate. While this is not ideally fair, I like that a choice is offered.
- esotericn 7y ago
  This sounds a bit like the sort of nonsense that goes on in London. It makes no sense to me. You're basically giving up an 80sqm flat in a small building for a 50sqm flat in a large building. The former is way, way more valuable in most cases.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    In Moscow I'd suspect you give up a 80sqm flat in a shitty soviet era building for a 50sqm flat in a modern building.
austhrow743 7y ago
Are there not people you can sell to who like the risk/uncertainty of the situation? Development speculators?
- ergothus 7y ago
  Great question - how would one find those? I can't look for anything without getting spammed by the buy-your-house-cheap not-quite-scammers, but anything else is pretty light. That said, I suspect they'd pay less than we'd need to get anything comparable. The Seattle market has been insane for years, and I got extremely luck when I bought right after the crash.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    I assume talk to a realtor, but I'm not sure. Maybe a big national one would have people on staff who specialise in this scenario and have the appropriate rolodex? I just try to operate on the philosophy that if I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already have it then I should probably sell it. Sounds like this house fits that for you in that you probably wouldn't buy a house with government development looming over it. If you're not able to get much now its because you wont get much later anyway.

davidw 7y ago

As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.

sologoub 7y ago

Sorry to hear about your situation and impacts! Definitely sounds like a lot of stress! Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale. It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.

ergothus 7y ago
It's a split. There's the eminent domain question from the city - they need space for the road, which would eat my front yard and put traffic a few feet from the front door. There are various kinds of eminent domain (some other comments have discussed the more speculative kind), but this is the more straightfoward "take your land, give you something of theoretical equal value, and use your land for city improvement". The uncertainty there comes in: - If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle, but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it. - If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking "relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more uncertain (where, when, etc) Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell, particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the _possible_ eminent domain would impact it. And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another year or two to go.

nine_k 7y ago

As a comparison, an acquaintance of mine lives in Moscow, Russia, and their old apartment building is going to be demolished as a part of a large development program. They are offered two options. One is getting an apartment somewhere on the outskirts of the (vast) city, but the size and number of rooms will be the same or better as in the old apartment. The other is getting an apartment nearby in a newly built house, but likely smaller, with an option to upgrade it to a better apartment by paying the difference at a discount rate. While this is not ideally fair, I like that a choice is offered.

esotericn 7y ago
This sounds a bit like the sort of nonsense that goes on in London. It makes no sense to me. You're basically giving up an 80sqm flat in a small building for a 50sqm flat in a large building. The former is way, way more valuable in most cases.
- adrianN 7y ago
  In Moscow I'd suspect you give up a 80sqm flat in a shitty soviet era building for a 50sqm flat in a modern building.

austhrow743 7y ago

Are there not people you can sell to who like the risk/uncertainty of the situation? Development speculators?

ergothus 7y ago
Great question - how would one find those? I can't look for anything without getting spammed by the buy-your-house-cheap not-quite-scammers, but anything else is pretty light. That said, I suspect they'd pay less than we'd need to get anything comparable. The Seattle market has been insane for years, and I got extremely luck when I bought right after the crash.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  I assume talk to a realtor, but I'm not sure. Maybe a big national one would have people on staff who specialise in this scenario and have the appropriate rolodex? I just try to operate on the philosophy that if I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already have it then I should probably sell it. Sounds like this house fits that for you in that you probably wouldn't buy a house with government development looming over it. If you're not able to get much now its because you wont get much later anyway.