Here are some FACTS straight from the Washoe County Assessor records:
- ArrowCreek properties are selling at a premium to those in Sparks and the North Valley.
a.) Thirty nine (39) properties were sold in ArrowCreek between 17 December 2014 and 21 May 2015.
b.) Eight (8) of those properties were on the golf course (the property boundaries actually touch the golf course, not just have a ‘view’ of it). Six (6) of those were homes with an average selling price of $218.96 per square foot. Two (2) were vacant lots with an average selling price of $143,401 per acre.
c.) Thirty one (31) properties sold that are not connected to the golf course. Twenty four (24) of those properties were homes with an average selling price of $230.70 per square foot. Seven (7) properties were vacant lots with an average selling price of $130,056 per acre.
d.) Homes that do not have a boundary with the golf course are selling at a five percent (5%) premium to homes actually on the golf course.
e.) Vacant lots with a common boundary with the golf course, however, are selling at a 10.26% premium over non-common boundary lots.
- The ACHOA (all of US property owners) currently owns 502 acres of vacant land. We haven’t implemented any of the existing plans for hiking trails or exercise stations on our land or improved the Residents Center.
- Only twenty one (21%) percent of our community identifies with ‘golf’ per the Pingle Report.
- The ACHOA Board is spending an awful lot of resources, especially legal hours at $275 per hour, to continue to look for a way to acquire the golf course should the Friends of ArrowCreek offer it for sale.
Given ALL of the above ‘FACTS,’ do we really need another 525 acres? Especially when we’ve done nothing to enhance the property we already own.
Let’s focus our energy on improving the amenities we currently have and expand those amenities by using our already available acreage. Let’s stop the wasteful energy and expenses of trying to purchase another 525 acres, NOW!
Another Look at “Facts” and the Data
We can learn a lot by looking at the home sales numbers given by Realtor.com for homes sold in ArrowCreek. The interpretation of those numbers can be frustrating. For example, on June 4th, Mr. Duncan posted a note on this site about home and land sales. He grouped home sales and vacant land sales according to weather or not the homes or land have a “boundary with a golf course”. He states that two vacant lots that actually touch the golf course sold for an average of $143,401/acre. I found two vacant lots that meet his criteria that sold for an average of $250,853/acre. Mr. Duncan found seven vacant lots that were not touching the golf course that sold for an average of $130,056/acre. I found eight lots that sold for an average of $123,676. He says that vacant lots with a common golf course boundary are selling at a 10.56% premium, I say they are selling for a 102% premium. When we compare home sales numbers it is much more difficult to understand the numbers.
Another way to try to evaluate the numbers is to look at the original layout of houses, roads and golf courses in ArrowCreek. ArrowCreek was planned so that many homes are on high areas while roads and fairways are in lower areas. Many homes have a view to the east while a few of the homes look to the mountains. One way to classify homes in ArrowCreek home is according to its view. We could put each in one of three types: Extensive and over a golf course; Extensive and not over a golf course; or limited distance.
With this in mind, I used Google Earth, Google Earth Street view and some drive-by observations to classify each of the thirty one homes in ArrowCreek sold between December 17, 2014 and June 6, 2015.
My data is available for the asking.
Type of Home view Number Average Average Selling Price
Size $/Sq. Ft.
Homes with a view over a golf course 12 4,647 214.86
Homes with a view not over a golf course 15 3,894 224.23
Homes with limited view 4 2,786 203.00
These numbers suggest a few conclusions, which include: Homes with a view sell for more than those without a view. Smaller homes with a view sell at a premium over larger houses with a view (5%). Or you can say that a view over a golf course is less desirable than one without the course. Or, because the homes that do not look over a golf course are smaller, they sell for the expected premium over the larger homes that have a view over a course.
It is risky drawing conclusions on such a small amount of data. Perhaps the property definers I chose are wrong or not the best. Maybe it’s more complicated or maybe there is no accurate and reliable way to classify homes in ArrowCreek—each home must be evaluated by the buyer and seller.
Your search of the internet drew upon data that is not validated by the Washoe County Assessor’s data base. Furthermore, the issue is the ‘myth’ that a golf course adds value to homes. The ‘FACTS’ don’t support the ‘myth’ and yet you continue to try your best to validate it.
Now you’ve subtly tried to change the discussion of ‘FACTS’ to one of views and the construction of ArrowCreek. I didn’t realize you were one of the original ArrowCreek planners. Perhaps if you were you’d have incorporated the Horse and hiking trails called out in the Articles of Incorporation. The change in the discussion is welcome as views are one of the top three reasons people purchase homes in our development (golf doesn’t make the top 3) in the demographic study or realtor discussions we just had. Many of us enjoy views from the time the Truckee river enters the meadows, Peavine Mountain, all the way to the end of Double Diamond and the road to Virginia City (by the way that’s from north-north-west to south-south-east. Quite a bit larger than the views captured in your rebuttal).
The bottom line is the FACTS are still the FACTS and that doesn’t change a builder’s ability to charge more for a given property. In the end it is, indeed, what the buyer is willing to pay. We can agree on that.
I certainly hope you’re a better geologist than you are a data analyst.