In anticipation of my next PCS I have been doing quite a bit of research on my next location and the housing market. Theoretically, it is now a buyer’s market; however, not all areas of the country are seeing price reductions due to the mortgage crises. My next location just happens to be one with a fairly strong market. I have found several sites that are helpful with finding a home and determining how much a house may be worth.
Information on the amount a property last sold for can be found on the county tax assessors’ web site. Type into your search engine and the name of the city or county you plan on moving and “assessor’s office” or “public real estate records” and you can research the property to include not only the last sales price, but the tax assessment on the property.
Another way to get a ball park estimate of property value is to find information on Comparables. Comparables should be the properties in the approximate area (say within 1 mile) that have sold within the last few months. Don’t look at other houses on the market as comparables – that price may be just what a seller hopes to get which may or may not be based on actual worth. Knowing what comparables sold for can help you to determine what price you should base your offer. This information should be particularly helpful to anyone who is trying to buy or sell a home on their own and needs help to determine fair market value. It is also a great way to check the claims made on real estate web pages. For example I came across an add stating:
“Below market value! $90,000 in upgrades for fifty cents on the dollar.” A bit of research showed that the house had been purchased 2 years ago for over $150,000 less than the current asking price. I found that average appreciation per year in that area had been 7% however, this year the market saw a depreciation of 4%. Considering all this, the asking price of the house should have been around $515,000, not the $570,000 they are asking. Another consideration is that renovations do not necessarily bring a dollar for dollar return. Also, if a renovation is very buyer specific, you can expect no return. Some renovations offer nearly 100 return, others go for as little as 5%. I found the return on investment rates for renovations at www.remodeling.hw.net/2008/costvsvalue/national.aspx. For the area I am looking, properties are generally being sold for 94% of the asking price, with very expensive properties pulling in only 82-88% and less costly properties reaching the higher end of the scale.
Other Helpful sites:
Walkscore.com: This site focuses on urban dwellers who like the conveniences o f walking to everything. This web site lists community’s amenities such as restaurants theaters, schools, parks, retail stores, and supermarkets that are within walking distance to the address in which you are interested. It also integrates Google map view so you can check out the neighborhood. Many of the restaurants, shops, and parks have reviews by locales.
www.trulia.com: This site has good information on market trends and real estate overview. It provides some public records information and links to local real estate sites. The site can also be set up to send price alerts on changes made to the price of specific properties.
Zillow.com: This site has a feature that gives an estimate of the value of a property should be; just type in the address and get an estimate. Click on “comparables” and the site shows you a map and list view of all properties that sold within a one mile radius to include Zillow’s original estimate and the amount the property actually sold for. I found that they were pretty close to their estimates; most of the properties actually sold for a bit less – some for a bit more, but not much more. This gives you a really good starting point for your offer. Some realtors indicate if you can show a rational for a lower offer than the asking price as proof that your offer is reasonable, it puts you in a stronger bargaining position.
Frontdoor.com: This is a website sponsored by HGTV. It runs a bit slow but has some helpful features like community profiles on large cities, links to good earth which gives a street view of properties, and links to the listing agent’s site.
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
McCauley FCS
The United States Army is at a critical juncture in force modernization. The Army has not introduced a completely new combat system since the late 1980’s, those were the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, Blackhawk Utility Helicopter, and the Apache Attack Helicopter. For over 20 years the Army has relied on those proven combat systems which have been periodically upgraded to stay ahead of potential adversaries. Shortly after the turn of the millennium the Army began development of the Future Combat System (FCS). The FCS is a highly complex and ambitious program aimed at creating a force able to defeat any future threat and retain our technological superiority. The FCS budget has been increased from $91.4 billion to 160.9 billion and the end date for final fielding has been pushed back several times. With the current economic crisis and the impending election coming up the focus on the FCS has been mainly negative. Several key questions have been asked, such as; “what should the Army do with the Future Combat System?” Should this program continue? Should it be modified or adjusted? Or should the FCS program be cancelled? We will try and answer these questions, because it is clear that the FCS program will continue to be scrutinized.
As stated earlier the Army is at a critical juncture in force modernization and the FCS program is the center of gravity of the Army’s future. In less than two weeks the United States will elect a new President and one of the candidates has stated that he will look at reducing military expenditures. Since the FCS budget has increased by almost $70 billion it is sure to be given a hard look by the next administration. Especially a administration that wants to reduce budgets. FCS is due to begin initial fielding in 2015 and have 15 brigade fully fielded in 2030. At that time the current combat systems in the Army will be approaching 50 years of service. The FCS program relies heavily on emerging technologies many of which have not been tested in a military environment. The center of gravity for the FCS program is the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) communications network and the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radio system, neither of which have been field tested. Both have amazing potential but remain unproven. The Army has taken the viewpoint that these technologies married up with the new FCS vehicles and other systems will create a force that no other Army could stand against. Opponents of the FCS have taken the view that WIN-T and JTRS may never be ready and the will cause numerous delays and budget increases. The Army wants this program to continue and even though there have been problems with the FCS, the program must continue because Army combat systems are over 20 years old, and this is the only modernization project in the pipeline.
Should the Army cancel the FCS project? If the FCS is cancelled that would stop the only major combat system development program in the Army. Cancelling the FCS may in the short term be fiscally advantageous for the country, but in the long term disastrous. With combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing and the potential for each conflict to continue for many more years the cumulative wear and tear on these combat systems is high. Furthermore, with Russia, China and India emerging as regional and world powers the potential for limited or full combat operations against any of those nations is probable. Also, with our combat systems engaged in two conflicts the potential for a future adversary to study weaknesses and develop tactics to overcome our current advantages is likely. The Army needs to develop new combat systems to replace our current fleet and cancelling the FCS program would be catastrophic for the Army in future conflicts.
The FCS program is vital to ensure the Army’s dominance on the battlefield in future conflicts. The question is if the FCS program the correct way to go about modernizing the Army? The main issue with the FCS other than funding is the use emerging and unproven technologies. If the FCS program could incorporate technologies that are proven that may not provide the full potential of WIN-T and JTRS, but a reasonable facsimile we could modernize the force for less money and on a quicker timeline. There are wireless technologies and Internet Protocol (IP) based radio systems the Army is using today in Iraq that could be the gap filler until WIN-T works. These commercial off the shelf (COTs) equipment would be a drastic improvement over current Army communications systems. WIN-T and JTRS need to be fully developed and should stay in the research and development arena (R&D). It is critical to continue with R&D programs and use them to upgrade combat systems as they become available, much like JNN and SINCGARS. Furthermore, the Army needs to begin R&D for a replacement for the M1 Main Battle Tank and all of its helicopters. The need for a main battle tank must not be ignored. Yes, they take longer to deploy but the main battle tank has ruled the battlefield for almost 70 years and in a major conflict they will be required and as good as the M1 is it is getting old. The Army is placing all of its modernization eggs in one basket with the FCS program and that is dangerous.
The Army must go forward with the FCS program, but it should be modified to make use of existing technologies. Removing WIN-T from the FCS program will reduce cost and the amount of time required to field the system. Research and development on WIN-T and JTRS needs to continue but they should not be tied to the FCS program. Also, the Army needs develop replacements for all of its major combat systems.
V/R
MAJ Hugh McCauley
As stated earlier the Army is at a critical juncture in force modernization and the FCS program is the center of gravity of the Army’s future. In less than two weeks the United States will elect a new President and one of the candidates has stated that he will look at reducing military expenditures. Since the FCS budget has increased by almost $70 billion it is sure to be given a hard look by the next administration. Especially a administration that wants to reduce budgets. FCS is due to begin initial fielding in 2015 and have 15 brigade fully fielded in 2030. At that time the current combat systems in the Army will be approaching 50 years of service. The FCS program relies heavily on emerging technologies many of which have not been tested in a military environment. The center of gravity for the FCS program is the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) communications network and the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radio system, neither of which have been field tested. Both have amazing potential but remain unproven. The Army has taken the viewpoint that these technologies married up with the new FCS vehicles and other systems will create a force that no other Army could stand against. Opponents of the FCS have taken the view that WIN-T and JTRS may never be ready and the will cause numerous delays and budget increases. The Army wants this program to continue and even though there have been problems with the FCS, the program must continue because Army combat systems are over 20 years old, and this is the only modernization project in the pipeline.
Should the Army cancel the FCS project? If the FCS is cancelled that would stop the only major combat system development program in the Army. Cancelling the FCS may in the short term be fiscally advantageous for the country, but in the long term disastrous. With combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing and the potential for each conflict to continue for many more years the cumulative wear and tear on these combat systems is high. Furthermore, with Russia, China and India emerging as regional and world powers the potential for limited or full combat operations against any of those nations is probable. Also, with our combat systems engaged in two conflicts the potential for a future adversary to study weaknesses and develop tactics to overcome our current advantages is likely. The Army needs to develop new combat systems to replace our current fleet and cancelling the FCS program would be catastrophic for the Army in future conflicts.
The FCS program is vital to ensure the Army’s dominance on the battlefield in future conflicts. The question is if the FCS program the correct way to go about modernizing the Army? The main issue with the FCS other than funding is the use emerging and unproven technologies. If the FCS program could incorporate technologies that are proven that may not provide the full potential of WIN-T and JTRS, but a reasonable facsimile we could modernize the force for less money and on a quicker timeline. There are wireless technologies and Internet Protocol (IP) based radio systems the Army is using today in Iraq that could be the gap filler until WIN-T works. These commercial off the shelf (COTs) equipment would be a drastic improvement over current Army communications systems. WIN-T and JTRS need to be fully developed and should stay in the research and development arena (R&D). It is critical to continue with R&D programs and use them to upgrade combat systems as they become available, much like JNN and SINCGARS. Furthermore, the Army needs to begin R&D for a replacement for the M1 Main Battle Tank and all of its helicopters. The need for a main battle tank must not be ignored. Yes, they take longer to deploy but the main battle tank has ruled the battlefield for almost 70 years and in a major conflict they will be required and as good as the M1 is it is getting old. The Army is placing all of its modernization eggs in one basket with the FCS program and that is dangerous.
The Army must go forward with the FCS program, but it should be modified to make use of existing technologies. Removing WIN-T from the FCS program will reduce cost and the amount of time required to field the system. Research and development on WIN-T and JTRS needs to continue but they should not be tied to the FCS program. Also, the Army needs develop replacements for all of its major combat systems.
V/R
MAJ Hugh McCauley
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Time Travel in a Bottle
All,
During my time at the Command and General Staff College I have been inundated with the concept of achieving balance. Over the long weekend I have discovered the key to achieving balance. Beer, though I was stationed in Germany for five years beginning in 2002, I have only recently discovered the hidden secret only know by brew masters and Albert Einstein.
The current CGSC ratio of class work to home work is one to one so every hour of class time students are expected to conduct one hour of class prep outside of class. That ratio is fine it you are a single introvert who enjoys artificial light and Top Raman noodles for dinner. However your typical CGSC student is between 33 and 37 years of age with 2 children, has deployed at least once and is working on an Advanced Degree, providing little time to relax. Roughly an average day at CGSC is six hours of instruction with another six hours of homework. Roughly twelve hours devoted to CGSC. For those working for a Masters tack on average a four hour block of instruction and two hour block for home work. So our total is 18 hours of self improvement. Include family time 3hrs and sleep your day complete.
Back to the jest of my recent discovery, beer is a time machine. Here is the theory; the person who is drinking a beer has caused the space time continuum to bend slightly thus creating a “Beer Gap”. Once inside the beer gap the beer drinker begins to speak slowly, and have slower reaction time relative to those non-beer drinkers in the general area. The “Beer Gap” is widened by prolong consumption and therefore in order to commutate the beer drinker must yell to compensate for the perceived distance.
John
Time Traveler Extraordinaire
During my time at the Command and General Staff College I have been inundated with the concept of achieving balance. Over the long weekend I have discovered the key to achieving balance. Beer, though I was stationed in Germany for five years beginning in 2002, I have only recently discovered the hidden secret only know by brew masters and Albert Einstein.
The current CGSC ratio of class work to home work is one to one so every hour of class time students are expected to conduct one hour of class prep outside of class. That ratio is fine it you are a single introvert who enjoys artificial light and Top Raman noodles for dinner. However your typical CGSC student is between 33 and 37 years of age with 2 children, has deployed at least once and is working on an Advanced Degree, providing little time to relax. Roughly an average day at CGSC is six hours of instruction with another six hours of homework. Roughly twelve hours devoted to CGSC. For those working for a Masters tack on average a four hour block of instruction and two hour block for home work. So our total is 18 hours of self improvement. Include family time 3hrs and sleep your day complete.
Back to the jest of my recent discovery, beer is a time machine. Here is the theory; the person who is drinking a beer has caused the space time continuum to bend slightly thus creating a “Beer Gap”. Once inside the beer gap the beer drinker begins to speak slowly, and have slower reaction time relative to those non-beer drinkers in the general area. The “Beer Gap” is widened by prolong consumption and therefore in order to commutate the beer drinker must yell to compensate for the perceived distance.
It is within this “Beer Gap” where time lost to CGSC can be regained to accomplish yellow sheets and essays in a record time.
This new miracle in science does not come without some consequences. In order to maintain a “Beer Gap” large amounts of beer must be consumed which may cause severe headaches a temporary aversion to noise, loss of memory and possible motion sickness. All cases are not due to beer but the sever trauma of time travel. So please test my theory and I will be expecting my Nobel Prize for science in the mail with my latest order of sea monkeys.
This new miracle in science does not come without some consequences. In order to maintain a “Beer Gap” large amounts of beer must be consumed which may cause severe headaches a temporary aversion to noise, loss of memory and possible motion sickness. All cases are not due to beer but the sever trauma of time travel. So please test my theory and I will be expecting my Nobel Prize for science in the mail with my latest order of sea monkeys.
John
Time Traveler Extraordinaire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
