Melissa Loughridge Savenko

Being in real estate, and because I work primarily in historic urban neighborhoods, I found this week's Style Weekly cover story especially fascinating. The title is "Neighbors In Waiting" and the subtitle is intentionally provocative - "The country's real estate meltdown hasn't just sparked a recession - it may have ended modern-day suburbia."

Now, let me say for the record that I am completely and totally one of those people who has drunk the Kool-Aid and doesn't understand why everyone doesn't want to live in a walkable, historic City neighborhood. And if I am ever consigned to the 9th ring of Hell, I'll be doomed to live in a subdivision on a cul-de-sac in a stick construction transitional in a planned community. BUT, I also recognize that some people would consider MY lifestyle and neighborhood to be the 9th ring of Hell. As my mother always says, "different strokes for different folks."

So let's start with the premise that we can all agree to disagree about what is "better," urban vs. suburban life. Any conclusion to that analysis is a morally and personally subjective one. What I found most fascinating about the article was the discussion of the possibility of a paradigm shift. Is it possible that large numbers of the population that we presume would have chosen a suburban lifestyle in the past now no longer will, because it is no longer what they want? In other words, would modern suburbia have "died" as a development model anyway, even without the market meltdowns? Has the modern suburban development model only be been rushed to a premature death by the crash of the real estate and financial markets?

I really don't know the answer. That's going to be for much smarter people than I to figure out. But what I DO know is my own experience. The demand for a historic, urban, architecturally significant neighborhood seems to be at least stable, if not increasing. One of the telling and interesting things I am seeing is this: As much as 50% of the "lookers" at Fan Open Houses are people who want to move into town from the surrounding counties. Lots of these are the empty nesters, the Baby Boomers, who no longer need to be in the suburbs for the public schools. They want to change their lifestyle. They're tired of the commute. The idea of a neighborhood coffee shop, art galleries, restaurants, museums, movies, and shops, all within walking distance, is very appealing.

We've always had the die-hard urbanites and the young professionals who want to be right in the thick of it, close to the bar and restaurant scene, and close to downtown. The VCU students, both undergraduate and graduate, are neighborhood staples as well. But here's what I've personally observed in the 15+ years that I've lived in the Fan:

• Increasing numbers of families with young children, as the word spread about how great William Fox Elementary is; and
• More and more empty nesters from other areas, be they suburban counties or outside of the market altogether.

What does that mean? Stable property values, for one thing. Even though property values have dropped to some extent, the demand for Fan real estate does not seem to be decreasing, and the supply is limited. No one can create more 19th century Victorian neighborhoods. The same thing seems to be true in Area 20 - from Windsor Farms through the Mary Munford area to Glenburnie and beyond. The same factors seem to be in play - architecture dating from the 1920s and 1930s, a great elementary school, walkable neighborhoods, convenient access to Downtown and points in all directions.

I also wonder if the Green movement, and increased environmental consciousness, is going to continue to drive this trend. I personally think so. I think my generation, and especially the generations coming behind me, are going to be more concerned about the natural environment and how their choices impact the world. I think there will be more personal commitment to the "Think Globally. Act Locally" philosophy. I think people will make different choices about transportation, and where they live, and what they eat.

But read the Style Weekly article for yourself. It's certainly thought-provoking. And that's a good thing.

I am a little bit flummoxed. Right now, housing affordability is the best it's EVER been, since the National Association of Realtors has been tracking the statistics. Interest rates are at record lows, under 5% in many instances. The Federal Government is still making 3.5% down payments, under 5% interest rate financing available to buyers through its FHA program. AND there is a federal first time home buyer credit available of $8,000, which means eligible individuals or couples filing jointly will get an $8,000 credit on their 2009 tax return. That is essentially $8,000 in free money back from the government, just for doing what we're all told is the American dream, buying a first home.

So why aren't first time home buyers out there in droves? Or why aren't the ones that are out there BUYING, rather than just lolly-gagging around and looking?

I don't know the answer. I really AM flummoxed. I welcome any feedback from you fence-sitting buyers, or other real estate professionals. The only thing I can come up with: buyer psychology. That d*mn national media has been talking for so long about the sky falling, it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My advice, if you are a first time home buyer that's been taking his or her or your collective sweet time: Get off the fence NOW. It's the Spring market. Inventory isn't going to get better. There is no guarantee the interest rates will stay at these record lows. And the $8,000 tax credit expires on December 1, 2009. That means you have to have closed on the sale by no later than November 30, 2009 to get that free $8,000 government handout. And trust me, the way loan officers are swamped right now, with refinancing and sales, don't think you can write an offer September 30 and be closed on time. Oh no. I think loan officer volumes are going to get even heavier as people realize time is running out, rush to get closed, and that December 1, 2009 deadline looms nearer.

Don't miss the boat and be kicking yourself December 2, If you're going to buy anyway, why not buy now?

People who read my blog know how I feel about dual agency. To define it yet again, dual agency is when one single real estate agent represents both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transactions.

As a general rule, I think dual agency is a joke, it shouldn't be legal, and the statutes and rules should be changed to absolutely prohibit dual agency in any real estate transaction, residential or commercial. However, I appear to be in the clear minority in the real estate agent community, and the Virginia Association of Realtors ("VAR") is a pretty powerful lobby. So I suspect the laws and regulations permitting dual agency will remain, at least until there is some scandal and consumers wake up to this legally permissible, but ethically dubious, practice.

[ASIDE: Maybe if dual agency was prohibited, it would clean-up some of the more egregious behavior in the commercial real estate brokerage world also, which I think would be a great thing].

Here's an interesting article from Christopher Cruise at www.bankrate.com titled "Is 'Your' Agent Really Working for You?" [ASIDE: I love the fact that he uses the divorce lawyer example to illustrate why a buyer taking advice from the listing agent is such a bad idea. I used that same example too!].

[ASIDE: Actually, I just double-checked my earlier post, now linked, and my analogy for dual agency was using the same lawyer to represent both the plaintiff and defendant in a personal injury lawsuit, not divorce. I think I like the divorce analogy better].

I do disagree with Mr. Cruise's generally negative view of designated agency. Designated agency is when two agents from the same brokerage represent the buyer and the seller. To use RE/MAX Commonwealth as an example, there are multiple offices and agents that I have never met, never seen, never worked with. To say RE/MAX Agent A couldn't independently represent buyer, with RE/MAX Agent B representing seller, because they both happen to be RE/MAX agents - well, that's just silly, in my opinion. So long as designated agency is appropriately disclosed to both parties, and the agents observe carefully their fiduciary obligations to maintain the confidences of their own clients, I don't see why the fact that RE/MAX is the common broker should "bounce" one of the agents from representing their client.

So, read someone else's opinion, and form your own. And as always, if you are looking to buy or sell a home, I'd be honored to help you. And I promise NOT to represent both sides.

I've been selling real estate full time now for over three years. Most of the time I absolutely love it. But days like today make me wonder if I made the right decision. Being a single mom on 100% commission, with no other source of income, in THIS market....well, it's a scary time.

So, what can one do? I don't ask that as a rhetorical question, I really am asking for any advice, or guidance, or words of wisdom, that anyone, Realtor or no, wants to offer.

Right now, I try to focus on the positive. Here are some of the most positive things about my career choice:

• I get to spend more time with my daughter. She's 11. I can already see that 18 and college is going to be here in just a blink of the eye, and then she'll be gone. Right now, for probably a very little while longer, she'll still let me hug her and kiss her in public - although she is starting to do the "Oh, Mom!" with eye roll. Gosh, they grow up quick!
• I get to combine several things I really enjoy - working with people, deal-making, looking at houses, exploring Richmond neighborhoods - and if I do it well, I make money doing it.
• I have met some fabulous people.
• I have had the opportunity to get involved with several organizations which have either enriched me, in education and interactions, or allowed me to feel like I am giving back to a cause I believe in.

• I get to set my own schedule. For a natural night owl like me, that means I can sleep until 7:30 and lounge around in sweats with coffee and the morning paper until 9:00, without feeling guilty. And I can do a great deal of work at night, after my daughter goes to bed.

I know it's bad out there for most everyone. I see the sad story of people losing jobs, having to sell their houses, or even worse, losing them to foreclosure, first hand. I'm trying to be the Little Engine that Could, I really, really, REALLY am. But in this market, it's hard not to get demoralized or just d*mn scared to death.

So, should I tough it out? Or try to find a "real" job, with a salary and benefits?

Once again, this is not something I wrote - d*mmit! - but I think the article is both well-written and timely. We're seeing lots of first-time home buyers getting into the market, based on a combination of (i) affordability; (ii) inventory; (iii) record-low interest rates, and still readily available federal money; and (iv) the $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit. But as this article points out, there are plenty of pitfalls for the unwary.

So beware. There are great values out there, but know thyself. Don't buy a banged-up foreclosure unless you are very handy, or willing and able to manage contractors.