This story needs to be completed, so read this as well!
*1. 2 wage earners per housing unitIn this scenario -
*2. Wage parity for both partners... pick yourself up off the floor.. It could happen here - Really.
*3. 35 hour work week
*4. No overtime
*5. Gross earning...
$100,000 per year divided by 2 - $50,000 each
That means each person earns
$4,166.47 per month ($50k divided by 12) or $961.54 per week ($50k divided by 52- because you hopefully will be paid during that 2 week vacation)
This means if each person works 35 hours per week they would need to earn $27.47 per hour to hit the target of $50,000 per year, AND have a partner earning the same amount.
Ok WHERE are THOSE Jobs you are asking... but that is a topic for another day. Let's stay focused on our scenario...
I asked my Local Expert Mortgage Specialist Pamela Owen from RBC what our hypothetical homebuyers would qualify for in today's market for a mortgage with their $100,000 income. Here is her response:
So at the average income of gross- $100,000 per yr, with 0$ down, using the 4 yr fixed rate sale of 5.59%, assuming property taxes of at least $2000/yr, and 50$/month for heating costs, and assuming $700/month in other debt pmts-- which is realistic as the average Canadian household has at least 2 credit cards, 1 credit line, and a car/truck loan--- then those clients would qualify for a purchase price of $450,000.
This doesn't include using any extra money that they could draw in if they had a basement suite for rent. If they did, then their purchase price could go up even more. (This example is over 40 yrs.)
With 5% down, this puts the purchase price up to $465,000 over 40 yrs.
Over 25 yrs, the same household could afford a purchase price of $400,000 with 0$ down, and with 5% down, this would put them in a home valued at $430,000 over 25 yrs.
I have tried several times - but I just cannot do it. I cannot put those numbers and attainable in the same sentence.
Posted by Brenda Ellis @ 10:16 AM on July 3, 2008
Tags: future growth, Hesperia, Real Estate
With reference to Coldstream's sewer I believe Richard Rolke has hit upon a number of very valid points. Why, indeed do we need to construct a 1.7km line on Aberdeen Road and try to convince the 20 or so home owners to connect to the sewer at not yet known cost and start paying the present annual sewer fees of $568?
Why did a 7 member Council approve the construction of a 1.5km sewer line at utility customers' expense using false information? Six of those Council members did not have to face the financial burden resulting from their decision.
Administration gave false information. The information on which Council based its decision stated that in the past sewer customers only paid 7% of capital costs.
In fact, hundreds of utility customers paid 100% of their sewer capital costs. Following the initial construction of the Coldstream portion of the sewer infrastructure developers spent millions of dollars on sewer infrastructure without a any subsidy from any government agency and without subsidies from the existing utility.
The only developer benefiting from huge subsidies from utility customers was Coldstream Meadows which by, coincidence is owned by a former Councillor.
The reserves raided by Council of 2005, and to some extent 2006 were paid for by customers many of whom have already paid 100% of their infrastructure costs.
This latest decision regarding the SUGOI development is just another blunder that will create major headaches for future Councils.
It appears, the majority of Council could not give a hoot to what most residents of Coldstream hold dear about their community.