The verdict is in! Based on your responses to our article “What’s More Valuable: the Land or the House?,” it’s clear that our readers think the land is more valuable.
We wonder if this is the opinion of coastal California residents. After all it’s the house that has all the improvement value of the land – water hook-ups, electricity, cable, sewer, etc. Raw land doesn’t have any of these very costly improvements – and as home buyers we think they are taken for granted.
It’s not an accident that California is the most populous state in the nation. Twenty years ago I remember having a conversation with co-workers from the Midwest asking why they moved to California from the mid-west and many cited watching the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl in freezing conditions in their home state while we basked in glorious weather on New Year’s Day!
It’s like a domino theory, people just kept coming and coming resulting in California having everything one could want. It’s America’s population re-distribution.
If the old adage holds true — “Location, Location, Location!” — the most important rule in buying a house is the land the house is situated on.
How many of you have told your clients to buy the cheapest house in the best location they could afford? When you say that aren’t you saying the real value is in the land?
If we were talking about Missouri rather than California would our comments be any different? What do you think?