Dublin Real Estate Update – 10/17/08
Dublin’s real estate market held fairly strong this past week with the average home sale price dipping a bit to $524K and 11 reported homes being sold:
- 6 new homes sold (2 at Silvera Ranch, 1 at Sonata, and 3 at Elan)
- 5 existing homes sold
Will the U.S. government’s $700B+ bailout result in improved home sales? It’s still too early to tell. However, there are some data points that suggest that the national real estate market is strengthening:
Many readers have asked why Dublin seems so determined to build high-density housing. Around Dublin will be publishing an article over the next few days to help shed some light on why high-density housing has become a top priority.
11:51 AM on October 18th, 2008
The last thing Dublin needs at this point is more high density homes. We are flooded with foreclosed properties that cannot sell. We want more? Who is getting loans these days anyway? With the 30 year note well above 6% who is in a hurry to buy? Do you want to put 20% down when you don’t know if you are going to have a job next month – don’t you want to hold on to your rainy day funds?
Is the city so desperate for new revenues that they are willing to sell out the current residents and settle for lower tax assessments? Wouldn’t it make sense to get property values back up to get back that lost property tax base?
Fixing the housing crisis doesn’t involve building more homes! Locally, let’s clear out the excess inventory first.
Let get Business to locate here by building more office space. Those will bring new jobs and they will hopefully want to locate here.
12:15 AM on October 19th, 2008
Regardless of the merits of building High Density, whatever benefits it may bring, or whether it is a mandate by the State and County for each town to build a certain amount of units, there is too much of it in Dublin, too many in the wrong places. The balance is unproportional and unhealthy.
I don’t believe many readers/citizens are arguing the merits of building High Density. Young homeowners bring life to an otherwise sleepy town. These citizens including myself and my family are opposed the shear number and where they are being built or planned. We’ve squeezed way too many massive apartment building on Eastern Dublin, this isn’t Downtown Oakland or San Fran where mass transit is at your doorstep. This is suburban Dublin like it or not.
Most of the arguments I’ve seen on this log and from speaking to neighbors, WHERE and how MUCH is the issue. No one is arguing about the Condos/Apartments that are either already built or are planned for Downtown Dublin, East Dublin BART, even Grafton Plaza. These areas are within walking distance to Mass Transit and close to I580, also close to planned retail centers. Wallis Ranch, Sorrento East and Dublin Land Co. has no business being zoned High Density, or even Medium. Anything north of Central Parkway should be preserved for Single Family Residences with yards. Wallis Ranch should be reserved for a product we don’t have much of in Dublin, executive single family residences.
Our Leaders keep talking about recruiting business with high paying jobs. Grafton Plaza is planning upscales Class A Offices, for lease and for ownership. Where are the top high earning executives and managers and employees with families going to live? Likely Ruby Hills, Castlewood, Sunol, San Ramon, Danville and Alamo because they could afford it. We don’t have a product for them in Dublin. These families will contribute to those towns and school districts, not to Dublin.
I’m not saying that I someday could afford one, what I’m saying is we need a balance. Right now what is already built and what is planned are Condo/Apartment/Cluster Homes heavy. If we don’t preserve Wallis Ranch and Sorrento East for the lower density products, we won’t have any other place to build them 8-10 years from now even if we wanted them then. These larger exclusive homes also stoke pride in the community, even though many of us may never be able to afford them.
As for High Density, if there is such a high merit to continue to build them for whatever reason, we still have plenty of places to build them in Dublin. Grafton Plaza, East Dublin BART, West Dublin BART, Downtown CORE, Lower Fallon Village and Camp Parks, most of these places are already zoned for High Density. Even Blake Hunt has floated the idea of some High Density housing for the land they own around The Green at Park Place. As you can see there is still plenty of logical places High Density can go to, Wallis Ranch and Sorrento East needs to be preserved for the other scarse product, SFR with yards to house the employees that will be earning the high salaries in these fancy office buildings we hope someday will dominate Dublin’s landscape like they do now in Pleasanton, San Ramon and Walnut Creek. Even without Wallis Ranch, Sorrento East and Dublin Land Co. out of the mix for High Density, we’d still be Condo/Apartment heavy considering the areas mentioned above that are also zoned High Density.
I urge readers/Citizens to write to your City Representatives (Mayor, Council, Planning Commission) and express your opposition. Also write to the developers. They either will heed the Citizens opposition or face a drive to put all future projects up for a Citywide vote.
They can push our City Leaders around but they cannot push the Citizens of Dublin around. It will cost them dearly if they try.
6:01 PM on October 19th, 2008
What’s up with pickets at Toll Brothers??
6:09 PM on October 19th, 2008
Hi Anonymous,
The Around Dublin Team is happy to report that Toll Brothers has released Building 7 at the Terraces for sale. Toll Brothers was able to do so because the required percentage of sold units in Building 6 has been reached.
9:47 AM on October 21st, 2008
Jimmy,
I think you did not understand the question regarding Toll Brothers, so to clarify let me give more details.
On October 17, 2008 I began picketing at the entrance to Toll Brother’s Sorrento subdivision located at the intersection of Grafton and Gleason streets in Dublin to protest their unfair and possibly predatory sales practices. In three days there, two other couples stopped and stated that they also had similar experiences with Toll Brothers and shared their experiences with me. Catherine F—- and husband stated an $18,000.00 situation and Jason and Carmina B—— stated a $30,000.00 situation where deposits were not returned. So my case, outlined below, apparently is not an isolated instance.
My wife and I entered into an agreement dated August 20, 2008 with Toll Brothers to purchase a single family residence in their Sorrento subdivision. This agreement was cancelled on September 1, 2008. Agreement was in effect for only 10 days.
Toll Brothers was given a total of $39,998.00 as deposit on the property with our understanding that these funds would be placed into escrow until property was constructed and escrow closed upon title transfer. Both the escrow holder and title company are clearly designated in the agreement.
Toll Brothers did not place our deposit of $39,998.00 into the escrow account as is stated in the sales agreement.
On September 1, 2008 Toll Brothers was given a letter cancelling the agreement due to our not getting a loan approval from their mortgage affiliate TBI with rates compatible with those verbally stated by a TBI representative prior to entering into agreement.
Toll Brothers reply was that we were in violation of terms of agreement and given 5 days to re-instate.
On September 22, 2008 our attorney sent a formal letter to Toll Brothers demanding the return of the deposit submitted with the agreement.
The attorney also contacted the escrow company named in the agreement requesting the deposit be returned only to find that the deposit was never entered into escrow.
Toll Brothers is not in compliance with the agreement’s Section 7 paragraphs (e) and (f) which lays out terms of claims for liquidated damages to be disbursed to seller – i.e. Toll Brothers.
Toll Brothers is also not in compliance with California Civil Code Section 1675 paragraph (d) which states: “(d) If the amount actually paid pursuant to the liquidated damages provision exceeds 3 percent of the purchase price, the provision is invalid unless the party seeking to uphold the provision establishes that the amount actually paid is reasonable as liquidated damages.”
The deposit made when agreement was made exceeds three (3) percent of the total purchase price of the property.
Toll Brothers has no legal right to retain the deposit. And yet they still have it and have made no indication they will return the funds.
How many others like the three of us are out there? And how many more might there be if Toll Brothers continue current practices?
Regards,
Paul Teas
10:12 AM on October 21st, 2008
Hi Mr. Teas,
I apologize for misunderstanding the question, and I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with Toll Brothers. John and I did not see the pickets, so we assumed the commenter was referring to the flags on top of Building 7 at the Terraces in a facetious manner.
I really appreciate your bringing this legal matter to our attention. I can speak from personal experience that the Sales Agreements drafted by production home builders are generally designed to put home buyers at a disadvantage, so that is why I encourage anyone who is thinking about buying a new home to hire a good real estate attorney, not a real estate agent, who specializes in production home purchases in California before signing ANYTHING produced by the builders. Again, I am sorry to hear about your negative experience with Toll Brothers, and I hope everything will work out for you in the end.
If there are readers out there who had similar experiences with Toll Brothers or another production home builder as Mr Teas, please share them in the comments, on the Around Dublin FaceBook group, and/or on Trulia. Thank you.