Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
Apparently not an increase as those prices that Jimbo and others have shared aren't much different than the price of our bond for a Camellia in 2008.
I still wish that they were included in the price of the home so that it wouldn't be so different and so confusing. All it is, is the price of the roads and electrical lines and water lines and all that stuff that other builders back north always include into the price of the home itself. Here it is separate. I always tell people to add about 21K to the price of a designer and you will get the "real" price.
|
From a marketing point of view the bond is much preferable. They can advertise a much lower price than if the infrastructure costs were included in the price, and many (wouldn't guess a percentage) buyers don't seem to see it as part of the purchase price. I was at an open house and a very successful real estate lady (whom I would never use) argued with me when I said I simply included the bond in the sales price. She said something to the effect that, "Oh no, you can't look at it that way, it is paid along with the taxes." It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud. As though an extra couple thousand a year or so wouldn't be noticed. I have not studied the bonds as thoroughly as some, but I think it allows the developer to get the money to pay for the improvements before selling the homes, so that they can put all the amenities in place before home construction and sale begins. I don't see the bond as a big problem, although the interest on it is higher that current mortgage rates, but one should definitely take it into consideration as part of the home's cost.