We write frequently about the difficult task retailers face in complying with the myriad state and local tax regimes in this country. State and local tax rules are ever changing, both through legislative and regulatory efforts and also through actions of administrative bodies and even the courts. For your average retailer, keeping abreast of every change can be near impossible.
For instance, last November, Cook County, Illinois approved a use tax ordinance that went into effect April 1, 2013, and imposed tax on non-titled personal property purchased outside the county for use within the county. The Cook County use tax rate was set at 1.25%, while the County’s sales tax rate on similar purchases made inside the county was only 0.75%. The language used in adopting the use tax plainly stated the County’s purpose in adopting the new tax: “WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Cook County to take steps that will level the playing field among business interests, close tax loopholes, and incentivize the purchase of non-titled personal property within the County for use within Cook County.”
A lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance quickly followed. The suit was based both on the ordinance’s obvious unconstitutionality (imposing a different, higher tax rate on items purchased outside the county than the tax rate imposed on purchases made within the county plainly violates the Commerce Clause) and also on the State Constitution’s prohibition on ad valorem personal property taxes. The lawsuit also asserted that the tax base for the use tax improperly differed from that of the sales tax: the use tax was imposed on the value of goods purchased, while the sales tax was imposed on the purchase price.
While the suit was pending in court, the County revised the ordinance in June 2013, lowering the use tax rate to 0.75% and providing credit for tax paid in another jurisdiction. Then, earlier this week, on July 24, Judge Robert Lopez Cepero of the Cook County Circuit Court preliminarily enjoined the County from enforcing the use tax, finding that it likely violates both the Illinois and federal Constitutions. (Note that Judge Lopez Cepero previously presided over the lawsuit brought by the Performance Marketing Association challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois “click through” affiliate nexus law. Judge Lopez Cepero issued an order in May 2012 invalidating that statute. The “click through” affiliate nexus ruling is now on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. Brann & Isaacson represents the plaintiff PMA in that case.
Vendors selling into Cook County are, therefore, no longer subject to a higher tax rate than their competitors within the county. Cook County has indicated its intent to ask Judge Lopez Cepero to reconsider his decision, so we will continue to monitor developments in the case.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Sneaky Credit Card Charges
Credit card delinquencies have gone way down to the levels of the 1990s. Some younger consumers have forgone credit cards entirely (perhaps due to their already high levels of student loan debt). For those using credit cards, though, the landscape remains buyer beware. "Grey" charges of about $14.3 billion are attached to credit card statements for subscriptions and memberships with renewal charges. A whopping 35% of credit card statements get hit with these annually.
So, whether debit or credit card, make sure that you review the statement for these charges. With the Iphone and other Apple products having such popularity, there are plenty of subscriptions through Apple that are auto renew and tied to a card. The Wall Street Journal today ran a piece about the difficulty that consumers encounter when trying to cancel renewable services (in that case, a security system). In that case, the consumer was allegedly misled into signing a contract extension. Sounds like a good case for a claim of fraud in the inducement perpaps? Misrepresentation by the security tech?
In the end, consumer vigilance is still the best tool. Be proactive with your statements. And, it is really easy to give your card number to less than scrupulous providers. In the Internet world, it is easy to click on the terms and conditions (WSJ, Those Wordy Contracts). But in many cases, consumers can prevent these debacles from ready what they sign and being careful about giving out their card numbers.
If there are charges that should not be there, it takes time to do battle on these, but contact the credit card company.
- JSM
So, whether debit or credit card, make sure that you review the statement for these charges. With the Iphone and other Apple products having such popularity, there are plenty of subscriptions through Apple that are auto renew and tied to a card. The Wall Street Journal today ran a piece about the difficulty that consumers encounter when trying to cancel renewable services (in that case, a security system). In that case, the consumer was allegedly misled into signing a contract extension. Sounds like a good case for a claim of fraud in the inducement perpaps? Misrepresentation by the security tech?
In the end, consumer vigilance is still the best tool. Be proactive with your statements. And, it is really easy to give your card number to less than scrupulous providers. In the Internet world, it is easy to click on the terms and conditions (WSJ, Those Wordy Contracts). But in many cases, consumers can prevent these debacles from ready what they sign and being careful about giving out their card numbers.
If there are charges that should not be there, it takes time to do battle on these, but contact the credit card company.
- JSM
Friday, July 19, 2013
Report, Recall, or Both: Do You Know Your Obligations Under the Consumer Product Safety Act?
Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of consumer products have a legal obligation to report hazardous or dangerous products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). Failing to do so may result not only in large civil penalties, but also criminal prosecution. But, there are many common myths and misconceptions about this reporting requirement and how it relates to the separate question of whether a product recall ought to be commenced. Here are just a few:
Myth One: “I only need to report to the CPSC if someone is injured by a product I sell.”
In truth, a reporting obligation can arise if not a single consumer has been injured. The law requires the reporting of “unreasonably hazardous or dangerous” products that pose a risk to consumers—even if the risk of harm has never been realized. The possibility of harm, alone, triggers a reporting obligation.
Myth Two: “I can avoid the need to report simply by sending a communication to my customers telling them how to avoid being injured by the product.”
Any time you believe that a customer communication is necessary in connection with a possible safety risk to customers—including by providing additional warnings or instructions—the CPSC will inevitably take the position that your should have reported the issue to them and worked with them to determine if the communication adequately addressed the perceived safety issue.
Myth Three: “I don’t manufacture the product, therefore I don’t have to worry about reporting safety concerns to the CPSC.”
The CPSC reporting obligation applies independently to all companies involved in the distribution of a consumer product—from manufacturers to final retail sellers. There are circumstances in which the retailer's reporting obligation can be satisfied by a communication to the manufacturer (with a copy to the CPSC), which is an option that all retailers should explore. But, the fact remains that a retailer can be penalized for a failure to report on a product it did not manufacture, including one sold by many other companies.
Myth Four: “Industry product safety standards are voluntary, and declining to meet them has no legal consequences in terms of reporting or recalling a product.”
Technically, industry standards are “voluntary.” However, if a company sells products that fail to meet such standards (either intentionally or because it was unaware of them), it may result in a reporting or recall obligation if it can be shown that application of the standard could have resulted in a safer product. In addition, meeting those standards can provide a solid defense to a claim that a product is unsafe.
Myth Five: “I only need to report a product as unsafe if it has a design defect.”
In reality, a product can be unsafe—and thus trigger a reporting requirement—for a number of reasons, including: (1) defective design; (2) defective manufacture; (3) lack of appropriate warnings; (4) poor instructions; and (5) a failure in any of these categories given reasonably anticipated customer misuse.
The obligation to report an unsafe or defective product to the CPSC is a tricky one. Compliance requires that companies establish internal policies and procedures for tracking safety issues from initial product design to post-sale consumer experiences, and understanding that the reporting obligation can arise even in cases where a recall is not required. Separating myth from reality can help to protect a company from a costly–and risky–CPSC investigation, penalty, or prosecution.
Myth One: “I only need to report to the CPSC if someone is injured by a product I sell.”
In truth, a reporting obligation can arise if not a single consumer has been injured. The law requires the reporting of “unreasonably hazardous or dangerous” products that pose a risk to consumers—even if the risk of harm has never been realized. The possibility of harm, alone, triggers a reporting obligation.
Myth Two: “I can avoid the need to report simply by sending a communication to my customers telling them how to avoid being injured by the product.”
Any time you believe that a customer communication is necessary in connection with a possible safety risk to customers—including by providing additional warnings or instructions—the CPSC will inevitably take the position that your should have reported the issue to them and worked with them to determine if the communication adequately addressed the perceived safety issue.
Myth Three: “I don’t manufacture the product, therefore I don’t have to worry about reporting safety concerns to the CPSC.”
The CPSC reporting obligation applies independently to all companies involved in the distribution of a consumer product—from manufacturers to final retail sellers. There are circumstances in which the retailer's reporting obligation can be satisfied by a communication to the manufacturer (with a copy to the CPSC), which is an option that all retailers should explore. But, the fact remains that a retailer can be penalized for a failure to report on a product it did not manufacture, including one sold by many other companies.
Myth Four: “Industry product safety standards are voluntary, and declining to meet them has no legal consequences in terms of reporting or recalling a product.”
Technically, industry standards are “voluntary.” However, if a company sells products that fail to meet such standards (either intentionally or because it was unaware of them), it may result in a reporting or recall obligation if it can be shown that application of the standard could have resulted in a safer product. In addition, meeting those standards can provide a solid defense to a claim that a product is unsafe.
Myth Five: “I only need to report a product as unsafe if it has a design defect.”
In reality, a product can be unsafe—and thus trigger a reporting requirement—for a number of reasons, including: (1) defective design; (2) defective manufacture; (3) lack of appropriate warnings; (4) poor instructions; and (5) a failure in any of these categories given reasonably anticipated customer misuse.
The obligation to report an unsafe or defective product to the CPSC is a tricky one. Compliance requires that companies establish internal policies and procedures for tracking safety issues from initial product design to post-sale consumer experiences, and understanding that the reporting obligation can arise even in cases where a recall is not required. Separating myth from reality can help to protect a company from a costly–and risky–CPSC investigation, penalty, or prosecution.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Trains, a Part of Life in Montreal
The horrifying train derailment, explosion and fire in downtown Lac-Mégantic, Qc. earlier this month has given rise to a lot of talk about the wisdom of running trains through populated areas.
One of my Facbeook acquaintances even kidded me about whether there was going to be a run on St-Henri real estate as people dumped their homes out of fear for their safety. I was skeptical then and remain skeptical now. That's what I told CTV News, when reporter Max Harrold called me up.
He had already interviewed a Management prof at UQAM who had studied the sale of 40,000 residential properties on Montreal island. His analysis indicated that living within 50 metres of a super highway reduced the value of a home by as much as 5 per cent, living within 50 metres of a rail line meant an 8-10 per cent reduction in property values.
This I don't dispute.
My larger point when asked about the impact of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy on Montreal home prices was that Montreal was built along rail lines. Think about all the communities where trains are a fact of life - Point St. Charles, St. Henri ( the level crossing pictured above), NDG, Westmount, Cote St. Luc, TMR, Griffintown and all those suburbs served by commuter rail service. That's a lot of trains.
Montrealers have long made their peace with trains and for all the horror of what happened in Lac-Mégantic, it says something that it is the only train disaster most of us can remember. I was chatting with The Gazette's Allison Lampert and she pointed out that the big difference between Montreal and Lac Mégantic is that CN owns and controls most of the freight rail track in the city and has a better track record for safety than the corner-cutting Chicago outfit MMA whose freight train caused the fiery explosion in small-town Lac-Mégantic.
I think that the images of burning crude oil and a leveled downtown core are fresh in our minds but that within a few months those memories will fade and Montrealers will feel comfortable with the rumble and squeal of passing freight trains once more.
We buy homes near rail lines, like we buy homes near airports or near flood zones.
You can watch the CTV report here.
One of my Facbeook acquaintances even kidded me about whether there was going to be a run on St-Henri real estate as people dumped their homes out of fear for their safety. I was skeptical then and remain skeptical now. That's what I told CTV News, when reporter Max Harrold called me up.
 | |
| Don't mind my dorky face. I was talking, ok. |
This I don't dispute.
My larger point when asked about the impact of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy on Montreal home prices was that Montreal was built along rail lines. Think about all the communities where trains are a fact of life - Point St. Charles, St. Henri ( the level crossing pictured above), NDG, Westmount, Cote St. Luc, TMR, Griffintown and all those suburbs served by commuter rail service. That's a lot of trains.
Montrealers have long made their peace with trains and for all the horror of what happened in Lac-Mégantic, it says something that it is the only train disaster most of us can remember. I was chatting with The Gazette's Allison Lampert and she pointed out that the big difference between Montreal and Lac Mégantic is that CN owns and controls most of the freight rail track in the city and has a better track record for safety than the corner-cutting Chicago outfit MMA whose freight train caused the fiery explosion in small-town Lac-Mégantic.
I think that the images of burning crude oil and a leveled downtown core are fresh in our minds but that within a few months those memories will fade and Montrealers will feel comfortable with the rumble and squeal of passing freight trains once more.
We buy homes near rail lines, like we buy homes near airports or near flood zones.
You can watch the CTV report here.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Vermont Reverses Course on Cloud Computing
A little over a year ago, we wrote in this space about the State of Vermont’s moratorium on the taxation of cloud computing in the form of software as a service, or SaaS (“pre-written software accessed remotely” in the state’s terminology). The moratorium had been enacted in the wake of outcry from Vermont-based software companies, who objected to assessments for unpaid taxes on SaaS charges going back to 2006, based on a technical bulletin issued by the Department of Taxes in 2010.
At the time the moratorium was passed in 2012, there was some support for permanently exempting SaaS from Vermont’s sales and use tax, and Vermont’s governor had come out in favor of an exemption. A special study committee set up to make recommendations to the legislature on the issue also supported exempting SaaS from taxation. However, legislators were ultimately unable to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget to make up for loss of anticipated revenue from SaaS taxes. As a result, the moratorium was allowed to expire, meaning that, as of July 1, charges for SaaS are taxable in Vermont. Because the moratorium applied only to taxes on SaaS, its expiration does not affect the tax treatment of other types of cloud computing, such as infrastructure as a service or IaaS.
Because Vermont, like many states, continues to struggle with the application of old definitions to new technology, determining whether a given cloud computing transaction will be taxable under Vermont’s law requires a careful analysis of the individual transaction. The key issues in this determination are whether the object of the transaction can be characterized as a sale of taxable tangible personal property (including software) or whether it is really the sale of a service. If the transaction is a sale of software, it must then be determined whether it is prewritten or custom software. Vermont imposes its sales and use tax on prewritten computer software, whether accessed remotely as is the case with SaaS, downloaded, or purchased on a tangible medium such as a CD. Custom software, designed to the specifications of an individual purchaser, is not taxable. Additionally, while pre-written software is taxable, services are not. Merely using the term “Software as a Service” to describe a cloud computing transaction, however, will not transform the transaction from a sale of software into the sale of a service under Vermont law, since pre-written software is taxable, regardless of how it is accessed. Instead, vendors should determine whether what they are selling is properly characterized as not software at all, but instead is an exempt service such as data processing.
The Vermont Department of Taxes has stated its intention to promulgate formal regulations on the topic of cloud computing, but has in the meantime published an information sheet providing basic guidelines on its taxation. The information sheet includes a number of factors to consider in determining whether Vermont’s sales and use tax applies to a given transaction. Sellers would be wise to consult with their tax counsel regarding the tax and its impact on their businesses.
At the time the moratorium was passed in 2012, there was some support for permanently exempting SaaS from Vermont’s sales and use tax, and Vermont’s governor had come out in favor of an exemption. A special study committee set up to make recommendations to the legislature on the issue also supported exempting SaaS from taxation. However, legislators were ultimately unable to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget to make up for loss of anticipated revenue from SaaS taxes. As a result, the moratorium was allowed to expire, meaning that, as of July 1, charges for SaaS are taxable in Vermont. Because the moratorium applied only to taxes on SaaS, its expiration does not affect the tax treatment of other types of cloud computing, such as infrastructure as a service or IaaS.
Because Vermont, like many states, continues to struggle with the application of old definitions to new technology, determining whether a given cloud computing transaction will be taxable under Vermont’s law requires a careful analysis of the individual transaction. The key issues in this determination are whether the object of the transaction can be characterized as a sale of taxable tangible personal property (including software) or whether it is really the sale of a service. If the transaction is a sale of software, it must then be determined whether it is prewritten or custom software. Vermont imposes its sales and use tax on prewritten computer software, whether accessed remotely as is the case with SaaS, downloaded, or purchased on a tangible medium such as a CD. Custom software, designed to the specifications of an individual purchaser, is not taxable. Additionally, while pre-written software is taxable, services are not. Merely using the term “Software as a Service” to describe a cloud computing transaction, however, will not transform the transaction from a sale of software into the sale of a service under Vermont law, since pre-written software is taxable, regardless of how it is accessed. Instead, vendors should determine whether what they are selling is properly characterized as not software at all, but instead is an exempt service such as data processing.
The Vermont Department of Taxes has stated its intention to promulgate formal regulations on the topic of cloud computing, but has in the meantime published an information sheet providing basic guidelines on its taxation. The information sheet includes a number of factors to consider in determining whether Vermont’s sales and use tax applies to a given transaction. Sellers would be wise to consult with their tax counsel regarding the tax and its impact on their businesses.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Despite Prior Veto, Missouri Governor Signs Click-Through Internet Affiliate Nexus Provision into Law
As we reported last month, on June 5, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed a bill that included an Internet affiliate nexus provision. What a difference a month makes. On July 5, Governor Nixon signed a different bill, S.B. 23, that amends Missouri’s definition of “engages in business activities in this state” under Mo. Stat. § 144.605(2) to add a presumption of nexus for retailers with “click-through” online advertising agreements with residents of the state. Under the Missouri statute, “a vendor shall be presumed to engage in business activities within this state if the vendor enters in an agreement with one or more residents of this state under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential customers” to the vendor by an Internet link or otherwise, so long as the vendor realizes at least $10,000 in sales from such referrals. The presumption may be rebutted by submitting proof that the affiliates were not engaged in activities that were significantly associated with the retailer’s ability to make or maintain a market for sales in the state. In particular, such proof may consist of “sworn written statements from all of the residents with whom the vendor has an agreement stating that they did not engage in any solicitation in the state on behalf of the vendor during the preceding year.” See Mo. Stat. 144.605(e), (f).
The Missouri statute continues a disturbing trend among state “click-through” Internet affiliate nexus laws under which a presumption of nexus is created regardless of whether the compensation paid to the in-state affiliate is based on sales completed by the retailer. Statutes recently enacted in Kansas, Maine, and Minnesota contain similar language, as do statutes already on the books in Arkansas, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont (although Vermont’s statute is not yet in effect). By the plain terms of such statutes, a passive “pay-per-click” advertising arrangement would be sufficient to create a presumption of nexus. Such a presumption is inconsistent with the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the New York affiliate nexus law. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. Department of Taxation and Finance, 20 N.Y.3d 586 (2013). In Overstock, the Court emphasized that “no one disputes that a substantial nexus would be lacking if [in-state] residents were merely engaged to post passive advertisements on their websites.” 20 N.Y.3d at 596. These several states’ affiliate nexus statutes are at odds, on their face, with this fundamental principle.
The Missouri statute continues a disturbing trend among state “click-through” Internet affiliate nexus laws under which a presumption of nexus is created regardless of whether the compensation paid to the in-state affiliate is based on sales completed by the retailer. Statutes recently enacted in Kansas, Maine, and Minnesota contain similar language, as do statutes already on the books in Arkansas, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont (although Vermont’s statute is not yet in effect). By the plain terms of such statutes, a passive “pay-per-click” advertising arrangement would be sufficient to create a presumption of nexus. Such a presumption is inconsistent with the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the New York affiliate nexus law. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. Department of Taxation and Finance, 20 N.Y.3d 586 (2013). In Overstock, the Court emphasized that “no one disputes that a substantial nexus would be lacking if [in-state] residents were merely engaged to post passive advertisements on their websites.” 20 N.Y.3d at 596. These several states’ affiliate nexus statutes are at odds, on their face, with this fundamental principle.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Mark's Ventura County Market Analysis - 2nd Quarter 2013 April - May - June
Mark’s Ventura County Market Analysis – 2nd Quarter 2013
April - May - June
This month I’ve added Santa Paula, Fillmore, Bardsdale & Piru to this monthly market snapshot. Now we truly have a comprehensive look at Ventura County’s Real Estate Market. Westlake Village and Agoura Hills are also included as part of the Conejo Valley even though they are actually in Los Angeles County.
So what’s going on? Our market is healing. Home inventory is still low but for the last 3 months it has been gradually growing. Prices continue to skyrocket in the county at rates we haven’t seen since 2006. Interest rates are continuing a 6 week trend of upward motion and topped 4% at the end of June for a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.
Distressed sales which include short sales, foreclosures and bankruptcy sales are now the exception rather than the rule. They are still a significant part of the local market but they continue to shrink in the percentage of our market that they represent. That’s a good thing.
Here is a look at some of the specific market trends for Ventura County:
Camarillo
Total inventory since April has risen from a low of 80 single family detached (SFD) homes to 125 homes at the end of June. That’s a very encouraging trend. The number of properties which came to market in the month of April was 39, May - 43 and now in June - 58. As prices increase, more folks will be able to refinance or sell at a profit, so as long as prices continue to rise, I would predict inventory to continue rising as well.
Condos went from 9 homes to 17 and back to 11 homes for sale, with 10 to 15 homes selling each month, so no major trend changes here.
Our local newspaper – “The Acorn” reported this week that 2 new apartment complexes and 1 large Townhome project are planned for the Springville Exit area (West edge of town) as part of a city's "Springville Specific Plan" . "Rancho Associates of Beverly Hills, plans to construct 130 three and four bedroom condos. About 26 condos are designated as affordable housing for seniors. The Springville Specific Plan will develop 95 acres of former farmland into an additional 384 unit apartment complex behind the Hampton Inn and Suites. A second apartment complex will contain 163 units which back up to the 101. Construction for all three projects is to begin during the summer of 2014.
Oxnard
Oxnard is the largest town in Ventura County so it has an advantage to us in magnifying any strong trends. It shows us more clearly what is happening than some of the smaller towns. Total inventory has risen from April’s 104 SFD homes to 149 homes by the end of June. The month of April saw 40 homes come to market in Oxnard, followed by 49 in May and 67 in June. That is a nice trend for Buyers and Sellers. Average time on the market before selling has been hovering around 70 to 75 days.
The condo market has remained flat at between 25 and 35 homes coming to market each month and maybe 25 to 35 actually selling. Inventory has hovered between 50 and 60 homes each month.
New homes continue to be built at “Riverpark” and “The Hideaway” but no word on the 2nd phase of “Port 121” in the Seabridge Community.
Ventura (San Buenaventura)
The market in Ventura is more typical of the West County. We are seeing Oxnard trends but smaller numbers. Total SFD home inventory rose from 79 homes in April to 97 at the end of June. April saw 32 homes come to market, May saw 34 and April rose to 51 homes! Slowly but surely this market is improving. The number of SFD homes which have come to market since January and not soldusually increases from month to month. This is usually a condition of sale price or home condition. In Ventura this number has actually shrunk from 74 homes in April to 59 homes in June. That’s a strong market.
Condo inventory has risen from 11 homes to 18 at the end of June. 5 or 10 condos and townhomes come to market each month and sell about as fast as they come to market.
Moorpark
Home inventory in Moorpark has not seen any significant growth over the last quarter. Total inventory has remained between 37 and 41 SFD homes and less than 8 condos for the same time frame. An average of 25 homes of both types come to market each month. That doesn’t mean it is a weak market. Actually, most of the home inventory has turned over during that 3 month period. This is a small but healthy market.
The “Highland Development” continues to grow with a recent announcement of a new tract under construction. More to come on that.
Simi Valley
Ventura and Simi Valley are very similar in market numbers with Simi Valley just edging out Ventura with market inventory growth from an identical 79 SFD homes in April, to a nice growth spurt of 97 homes in May and finally 114 homes vs 97 in Ventura for June. The number of SFD homes coming to market each month has remained steady at roughly 50 to 60 homes. As in Moorpark, these homes are selling as fast as they come to market with an average 90 homes selling each month.
Just shy of 20 condos come to market each month and usually sell as fast as they list.
A new home development has been approved according to one of my neighborhood experts for the South edge of town. I need to find out more about this, but I’m told it will be pretty large and require changes to many of the area streets.
Thousand Oaks & Newbury Park
Some of the strongest inventory growth in the county has been happening in the Conejo Valley – specifically TO and Newbury Park. April saw 118 Single Family Detached homes on the market. This grew to 135 homes in May and 178 homes by the end of June! The number of homes actually selling has remained fairly constant 98 and 103 homes per month. However, the number of homes which came to market during the month grew from 67 homes in April, to a slightly higher 72 homes in April and then rocketed up to 107 homes by the end of June.
Obviously, home owners are seeing prices that are now approaching a point where they have the freedom to either refinance their homes or sell without taking a loss. I predict more growth in the 3rdquarter for these cities. The average time on the market for these homes is just over 2 months. Considering that average home prices are some of the highest in the county – this should have a very positive effect on their local economy.
Westlake Village & Agoura Hills
Smaller than TO and Newbury Park in market size, but mighty nonetheless, Westlake Village and Agoura Hills have seen steady growth in their numbers. April saw an inventory of 92 homes which grew to 103 homes in May and a bit more to 106 homes in June. We saw the number of homes coming to market each month – grow from 26 homes in April to 37 homes in June. We have seen between 35 and 40 homes sell each month in these communities – basically homes are selling as fast as they come to market. The average sale time has dropped from 151 days to 72 days. That’s a pretty hot market for these two smaller communities.
This is one market where the market for condos and townhomes is growing. The condo inventory grew from 12 homes in April to 16 in May and on up to 30 by the end of June. More condos are coming to market each month now as well – going from 6 to 30 in the same quarter. Average sale time for a condo here is between 2 and 2 ½ months.
Santa Paula and Fillmore
These two towns will be covered in greater detail next month when I have enough data to see trends. The two months information I have currently collected show our smallest markets but growing just the same, especially in Santa Paula where inventory has grown from 17 homes to 27 in 1 month. Fillmore has grown from 10 SFD homes to 17 in the same time frame.
The condo markets for these 2 towns is very small with less than half a dozen properties for sale in either town. Those that do come to market sell very quickly.
Both of these communities have announced new home developments for the very near future or are actively selling in new home communities like the “Bridges” in Fillmore.
Summary
Wow! Somebody just threw another light switch in Ventura County.
Inventory is slowly increasing across the county as prices reach levels high enough to allow sellers to make a profit. Competition continues to be intense between home buyers and investors. Multiple offers and above list price offers are driving the market upwards. It's not unusual to receive 10 or 20 offers for one nicely priced home in a good area.
More new construction is happening throughout the county and I would expect that we will sadly wave good bye to many more acres of prime farmland in the next few years. We lose about a thousand acres a year. Still as prices rise, current owners may be able to find some relief with their ability to refinance into newer, lower interest rate loans if they hurry.
The real unknown is what levels interest rates may reach in the coming months. The recent rate hikes have been significant even with encouraging announcements from the Fed, the US Banking System seems intent on making more profit from higher rate mortgages this year.
Bottom line - Sellers are doing very well. Buyers will do well if they are successful in finding and snagging a home yet this year, but future months will probably see higher prices and mortgage interest rates. The "Good Ole Days" for buyers in Ventura County are gone for good.
Mark Thorngren Movewest Realty - (805) 443-3366
Dre Lic #01413932 - Like me at www.facebook.com/markthorngrenrealtor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)