Montclair Property Market Shows Improvement
But the median sales price has fallen over the past year.
Only a month ago, Montclair Patch reported an uptick in the Montclair property market.
And, according to real estate agents, that momentum has showed no sign of slowing down.
Richard Stanton of Stanton Realtors said that the need for more inventory is one shared by many Montclair agents these days.
"Who would have thought it a year or two ago?" he asked.
On July 31, there were 182 homes on the market compared with 268 the same time last year. In July alone, at least 39 houses went under contract. The average number of days a property stayed on the market fell from 69 to 57 over the past year.
On the other hand, the median sales price was only $560,000 in July, down from $656,000 in July 2011, according to the Garden State MLS.
"We've been pricing a fair number of houses so look for some interesting listings in September," Stanton said.
Adriana OToole, a broker at RE/MAX Village Square, recently said that she, too, was short on listings.
"If a house is in great shape ... neat, clean, and attractive to the buyers, it has a good chance of getting sold," she said. "Kitchens and baths are still the important parts. Either the price has to reflect this or the seller has to reconsider the price.
"I think August will be busy," she added.
But not every Montclair house is selling in a hurry—and some agents have been forced to dramatically reduce prices.
In February, Montclair Patch featured the 13,000-square-foot home at 88 South Mountain Avenue—a stunner priced at the time at $1,725,000. The pricetag on this house has now been reduced to $1,300,000. The home has 14 bedrooms and eight full baths.
What do you think of the property market in Montclair? Is it getting better? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Cary Africk
6:19 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Let me get this straight:
The average price of a house goes down by over 20%, and a higher priced house goes down by $400,000 and that's GOOD news?
Gee, I'll bet if we started giving them away for free the numbers would really go through the roof!
How is dramatic reductions in the price of your home a good thing? The price of your house goes down, your taxes go up and things are terrific?
Jason DeSalvo
6:31 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
One major problem that we have in this town for existing Homeowner's is that in this economy buyers look for overall affordability (mortgage payment, taxes, maintenance costs, etc). Given our real estate tax rates, in order to remain competitive to buyers market forces will likely cause our property values to continue to decline. Yes, people are willing to pay a bit of a "Montclair Premium" to live here, but not likely so much that they will tolerate a monthly spend that is significantly higher than what they could get a similar piece of bricks and mortar elsewhere for.
For many of us, the portion of our monthly budget that goes to real estate taxes is larger (in some cases significantly so) than our mortgage payment. Imagine what is going to happen to our town from an affordability / property value standpoint when interest rates go back up? Who is realistically going to be able to live here?
Shelley Emling
6:49 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
You are right Cary. Have tweaked the article.
chris
9:56 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The bottom line is we have to get the run away property taxes under control or Montclair will NOT be an attractive community for newcomers. Literally this new council needs to have NO increase in property tax for five to ten years to get this under control. I am not sure they can do it, but that's absolutely what should happen. THEN we would see a real resurgence -- good headlines, excitement about coming to a town that not only has diversity, culture, beauty, proximity to the city, good schools but ALSO a local government that is responsive, responsible and proactive in solving our fiscal fiasco. The reason no one is touching these gigantic homes is because who in their right mind wants to be stuck holding a 50-75,000 dollar (if not more) fee just to live in their home every year??? It's insane how much we are forced to pay and the fact that they came in at 3.25% in this reassessment adds insult to injury when everyone was under the impression it would be closer to 3%
Jason DeSalvo
5:31 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I am with you. However, I would go so far as to say that our leaders should be actively shooting for some level of DECREASE in taxes each year if they really want to help get things back on track. The reality is that a town's budget simply cannot expand at a rate that exceeds the average annual increase in the incomes of those living there. Anything more becomes totally unsustainable. And, last I checked, the many of us are actually earning less than we were five years ago so the squeeze from lower incomes and higher taxes hits doubly hard...
tryintosurvive
10:11 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Agree with that.
It is now apparent that Montclair home values have gone down about 20% in the last year or so. I actually had a home appraisal done a year apart and that is what the numbers ended up for my home. I do believe that a major factor has been our runaway taxes and the poor township leadership for 4+ years.
I wonder if any of the real estate folks can comment on whether 20% has been the same decrease that other towns have seen.
montclairgurl
10:21 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Cary and Chris are right. Declining prices are not good. And what the past council just did with the tax valuation is going to hurt our housing market. The valuations are low but the tax rate is high. So we now compare to places like Irvington and Newark rather than Short Hills. For anyone who thinks this doesn't matter, just look at online discussions, such as the ones on City-Data. People contemplating a move from Brooklyn DO look at the rate and wonder if it's worth it to live here.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-jersey/189794-montclair-property-taxes-some-questions.html#b
CC Minton
1:09 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
88 South Mountain is absolutely fabulous . . . . . . a real GEM!
John Lee
7:38 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
It's a home buyers market! Woo hoo!
Ron Mullen
1:24 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
They can start reducing taxes by cancelling the $385,000 landscape project at Watchung School. The Bullock school's debt is drowning us and someone approved this waste of money.
The $350,000 for the library was also slipped under the door how about cancelling that until the economy improves.
Jason DeSalvo
6:46 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012
With due respect, I would argue that the problem has nothing to do with the individual spending projects per se, but instead has everything to do with a lack of thoughtful, focused budgeting. Our budgeting methodology in this town is completely backwards. Everyone looks only at the cost side of the equation (i.e. what we'd like to spend). In our own households when we budget we first look at the revenue side of the equation -- how much money we make dictates what we have to spend, at least if we are fiscally sane.
So, if we were to approach things in a rational way we might do something like the following here in town:
1. Identify our total revenue.
2. Project forward the average earnings growth of the income of our citizens each year as the start of the budgeting process. Forget about broad based measurements like the inflation rate, income growth for the country as a whole, etc. What matters in Montclair is what is happening to our residents. Are our incomes growing, declining, flat, etc. When it is all said and done, the only thing that can drive a sustainable municipal budget is the spending power of our citizens.
3. Adjust our "total revenue" by the changes identified in number two above.
To be continued....
Montclair Public
11:01 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
"So we now compare to places like Irvington and Newark rather than Short Hills."
If you are trying to make a rational argument, it's a good idea to spare us out and out fiction.
Jason DeSalvo
7:03 am on Saturday, August 18, 2012
continued...
4. Reduce the total available for spending by the amount that we want to reduce property taxes. Admittedly I am making a giant leap of faith here -- that is that everyone uniformly agrees that property taxes are slowly but surely killing everything that all of us hold dear about Montclair. If the increases continue, our property values will continue to tumble and anyone sane will eventually leave.
5. Reduce the total available for spending by all contractually obligated fixed payments like debt service, pension payments, contractually mandated increases in salaries and costs, etc.
6. The number you are left with is what we have available to spend. Nothing more, nothing less if we want to have a sustainable Montclair.
Then the real policy discussions about what our priorities are can happen based on real knowledge of what is available to spend, NOT what we'd like to spend.
Finally, I believe that this kind of process might also lead to some very difficult (but necessary) discussions. Assuming that the money left available to fund current needs/desires is not "enough," the only choices that can be made (if we are unwilling to increase debt) is to tackle head on the fixed costs that have been agreed to in the past that might no longer be able to be funded. No matter what the outcome of these discussions end up being, at least if we start with "real" revenue numbers and a commitment to reduce debt, we will be charting a course towards sustainability.
tryintosurvive
9:57 am on Saturday, August 18, 2012
Jason, you raise some good points and I agree with most of them. However there is a basic issue that the majority of people in Montclair do not accept. While almost everyone agrees that Montclair taxes are too high, the solutions to this are debated.
Your statement "Reduce the total available for spending by all contractually obligated fixed payments like debt service, pension payments, contractually mandated increases in salaries and costs, etc." sounds good in theory. However, none of the people affected would agree if it affects THEIR salary or pension. This includes hundereds of school employees and town employees (police, fire, parks, sanitation,etc) and this is where the bulk of the town's costs are. Most of the union contracts have mandated increases in them. There is hope for the school as the teachers contract is up and the BOE seems to doing the right things to fix some of this in the future (hiring a negotiator, hiring a new superintendant, etc). But it will take years to reap any significant cost benefits.
The township employee costs are another matter. The town council that was voted in 2 months ago believes that the way to reduce costs is not through reducing employees or their benefits, but by selling our services to other towns. Some of us think this is unrealistic.
Jason DeSalvo
10:32 am on Saturday, August 18, 2012
I really do believe that our problem is that we do not benchmark based on what is going on to the citizens of our town. It is all about coming to a reasonable and sustainable common ground. One that is fair for everyone. Taking the long view is something that our political process needs to work harder on embracing.
By way of example (and in no way using real numbers as I do not have them available to me), if over the past five years the average earnings of our citizens was flat and yet the average spending of our township went up by 5% annually, there is a major sustainability problem.
It will be nearly impossible for any council, no matter how well intentioned, to convince a citizenry that has faced reduced earnings, increased joblessness, reductions in benefits, increases in the share of benefits that they must pay for, etc., that it must continue to see its taxes increase to fund contractual budget obligations even if they are for quality, hardworking town employees. It just cannot be sustained and must change. The question is, do we have the sense to approach these issues in a well thought-out, caring and even-handed manner or do we just blindly react? Or worse, do nothing...
tryintosurvive
5:27 pm on Saturday, August 18, 2012
The new town council may understand this and do something about it. The council that was in office for the past 4 years did not. They ignored all committees or townspeople that tried to help get Montclair to fiscal sustainaility.
It went something like this. They were elected with a progressive agenda and little thought or concern about finances. Things were great then, real estate was booming and the economy had not yet fallen off a cliff. Soon after they took office the bottom fell out of the market, real estate tanked and unemployment skyrocketed. As town revenues fell they were unprepared to take the necessary actions.
They were hampered by generous union contracts and employee benefits. The council argued a lot with a few of them realizing the gravity of the situation and others not recognizing that it was important.
In the end the mayor and the ones who ignored the fiscal problems won out and pushed through a few progressive items (bike lanes, tree ordinance, affordable housing on Wildwood) but all in all the council was a disaster financially for Montclair.
We all hope and expect that the new council will do better.
Jason DeSalvo
5:55 pm on Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sadly far too many people these days get seduced by the convenience of labels like "progressive" or "conservative" and end up lining up ideologically "for" or "against" things rather than dissecting complex policy matters with the deep thinking and nuance that they deserve. We have spent years and years collectively getting ourselves into this mess and any good solutions will need to be part of a larger dialog that has the understanding and support of a wider plurality of our Town than traditional labels will allow for. Progressives and Conservatives are going to need to check their labels at the door and work together...