[downeaster]

Originally Posted by elevatorman

In most areas up north the infrastructure is in the price of the home. Here it is the bond. So if a builder in the north builds 10 houses and he wants to sell them for $500,000 but he spent $100,000 puting in sidewalks, sewer, water, and other infrastructure for the development he would sell each house for $510,000. In TV they sell the house for $500,000 and you pay a $10,000 bond.

Good uncluttered explanation, elevatorman. I might add The Villages is the only southern developer that I know of that separates the cost of infrastructure from the price of the house. Perhaps other CDD's do likewise.

[Tbugs]

Bill -

I have never heard of "FWIW". What does it mean? I tried to figure out some connection with popcorn but couldn't think of any.

Yes, I know the idea of a brand new house seems wonderful. I have friends building one right now in St. James. They have found each little upgrade costs more money like a fancy front door is an extra $2K. We were doggone lucky to find a home that had lots of extras in it that we would have gladly paid extra for. It took a lot of looking with both a Villages Property agent as well as an agent from ERA/Tom Grizzard just up on Hwy 441.

[waterman1952]

for what it's worth

[Tbugs]

Thanks for the answer - however, the "avatar" of the child makes me feel as though this is something even little kids should know.

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Bill -

I have never heard of "FWIW". What does it mean? I tried to figure out some connection with popcorn but couldn't think of any.

Yes, I know the idea of a brand new house seems wonderful. I have friends building one right now in St. James. They have found each little upgrade costs more money like a fancy front door is an extra $2K. We were doggone lucky to find a home that had lots of extras in it that we would have gladly paid extra for. It took a lot of looking with both a Villages Property agent as well as an agent from ERA/Tom Grizzard just up on Hwy 441.

waterman's got the FWIW covered. Sorry about that - no intent to confuse!

We did the same as you in TV - bought a pre-owned Patio Villa, furnished. We're more than happy with it and we feel like that was an appropriate route for us to go. On the flip side of the coin, we built a new home here in OH a couple of years ago, right as the real estate market started it's downward slide. And we did it for somewhat emotional reasons that I won't bore anyone with. We went into it, though, with our eyes open, knowing we'll likely not see all the money back out of it if/when we sell. But it's what we wanted, when we wanted to do it, couldn't find anything else where we wanted to be that would even be close to what we wanted, blah, blah, blah. A "fiscally prudent" decision? Doubtful. Do we feel like it was the right thing for us? Absolutely.

Who knows what we'll wind up doing in TV if we ever decide to become frogs!!

Bill

[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by Tbugs

I thought I would add in a couple of things regarding bonds.

First, instead of buying a new house with no rights of negotiating the price, consider buying a resale house. You can negotiate price with the seller. Also, the bond will be lower (or even zero) as compared to a new house. My bond was only $2,500 when I bought a resale about 18 months ago as compared to friends who bought new and have about $23,000 bond. I have a much nicer home with much lower bond.

Secondly, I have seen some people who want to pay off their bond will take out a home equity loan; pay off the bond; and then the interest on the home equity loan is tax deductible. The interest is a lower rate than the non-tax deductible bond interest. Disclaimer: Check with a person who knows for sure.

I hope these ideas are helpful. Any way you do it, you will love The Villages.

A smaller or better yet no bond is only one reason to consider buying a resale. Resale homes have negotiable prices. They also have mature landscaping, often more extensive than is put into new homes. Homeowners add extras to their homes in the belief that they will live there for the rest of their lives, and when they do sell, they can't take for example ceramic or laminate flooring, solar tubes, enclosed lanais, screened porches, crown molding, attic stairs, an elegant front door, storage units, even just handy shelves, and on and on and on. Resales tend also to be closer to supermarkets, doctors, banks, restaurants, other shopping, town squares and on and on and on. Of course these things will catch up to the newer areas, but they take time. With a resale you don't have to wait, and it's amazing what a coat of paint can do to make someone else's home your own!

[robertj1954]

The bond has a principal amount, when paid by installment, includes interest that is not tax deductible. It makes better sense to pay it off (if you can afford to do it) and deposit the saved interest money into your rainy day account.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

A smaller or better yet no bond is only one reason to consider buying a resale.

The information regarding the ultimate price of a home in TV based on whether or not there is a bond seems to me to be largely anecdotal and I am uncomfortable about whether it is accurate. The bond,if still in existence,is part of the purchase price. If all of the resales were evaluated using valid appraisal techniques and applying appropriate adjustments for physical, time , and economic conditions, I believe the there would be little dispersion based on the amount of the bond. I also believe that there is less dispersion in price between new and used homes , again when appropriate appraisal techniques are used. I am neither an appraiser nor real estate salesman, but I do believe in using QUALITY practioners not just relying on anecdotes.

Further as some others have suggested repayment of the bond early would make sense for most people unless they could find a very secure investment at rates higher than the bond interest rate. If you know of such an investment please share it with us all.

[l2ridehd]

I have been tracking sales for 4 years and have two huge spread sheets of data. I even take the ultimate price paid down to the square foot of home and square foot of lot based on a formula I developed from lot premiums and home prices. Difficult to do because a base home price includes a basic interior lot. But I have something that works for me. On average of the homes with bond paid, they recover about 46% of that amount when compared to a like home with a bond. So unless you are fairly sure your going to stay in your home for the remainder, paying off the bond is probably not a great idea. However if you do plan to stay there, at the interest rate they collect it is a good idea. Just take the annual payment, divide that into the total bond owed, equate that number to years and decide if you will be there 70% of that amount of time. If that answer is a definite yes, pay it off. If no or I don't know, wait.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

I have been tracking sales for 4 years and have two huge spread sheets of data. I even take the ultimate price paid down to the square foot of home and square foot of lot based on a formula I developed from lot premiums and home prices. Difficult to do because a base home price includes a basic interior lot. But I have something that works for me. On average of the homes with bond paid, they recover about 46% of that amount when compared to a like home with a bond. So unless you are fairly sure your going to stay in your home for the remainder, paying off the bond is probably not a great idea. However if you do plan to stay there, at the interest rate they collect it is a good idea. Just take the annual payment, divide that into the total bond owed, equate that number to years and decide if you will be there 70% of that amount of time. If that answer is a definite yes, pay it off. If no or I don't know, wait.

Nice info and I think that it helps my argument that more than anecdotes are needed for good decision making. Square footage is a determinent of value but so is "location, location,location" as well as upgrades , and other items that might be included. Not knowing the real financial realities relating to a specific property is like signing a loan document without reading it.

[Turtlediver]

Isn't it always about location

[2 Oldcrabs]

Re-sales have a "wear & tear" factor to look at. At some point the roof, HVAC, water heater, appliances and kitchens will need replaced. New homes should be more energy efficent. Some re-sales are priced higher than new,even when looking at the bond. Need to look at all factors whether you buy new or re-sale. Need to do what you are comfortable with. When you buy new the "wear & tear" factor kicks in.

[Taj44]

Why do you say a new home would be more energy efficient? We have a block home with double pane windows purchased new in 2006. I don't see that the block homes being built in 2011 are any more energy efficient.

[Uptown Girl]

[QUOTE=Tbugs;356147]Bill -

I have never heard of "FWIW". What does it mean? I tried to figure out some connection with popcorn but couldn't think of any.


Don't feel bad... I used to think LOL meant, "Lord O Lord". (I'm a dolt sometimes)
Reminds me of the great scene from "The Odd Couple", when Oscar Madison complained about the notes Felix kept leaving him:
"Pick up your socks. FU..... Take out the garbage. FU... It took me six weeks to figure out that FU meant Felix Unger!!!!"

Okay, back to business!

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Originally Posted by 2 Oldcrabs

.......New homes should be more energy efficent. ......

Originally Posted by Taj44

Why do you say a new home would be more energy efficient? We have a block home with double pane windows purchased in 2006. I don't see that the block homes being built in 2011 are any more energy efficient.

Perhaps the intent was better energy efficiency in the form of appliances, etc. that consume less power - fridge, dishwasher, HVAC system, and so on. Just my interpretation.....

Bill