Today I unplugged from real estate for a while and participated in an art class at the Northern Nevada Museum of Art. I love our museum. Yes, though small by big city standards, it has a constantly changing array of interesting exhibits and many fine classes and events. Even my mother-in-law, a Bay Area sophisticate, critical of all things artsy in this world, approved of our fine little museum.
Fall is in the air, and I’m loving the rain, wind and changing colors of the leaves. Yes, the housing market has issues, but this is still a wonderful place to live, full of history, beauty, and places to explore.
48 comments
I couldn’t agree more with you Diane. I love the smell of fall in the Air, Brings back memories of living in NY. I also believe Reno Is such a beautifull place to live. Not just with the skiiing, lake tahoe, northern cali so close, but the history as well.
There is no other place I could imagine living now and for the rest of my life hopefully. I think its good to not think about RE sometimes especially someon like you who has to deal with it 24/7. After a while it can make you crazy I’m sure. Besides When one looks back at what prices are today 10 years alot of homes are going to look like they were STOLEN !
Btw How is the melting pot? I wanted to check it out when I found some free-time, And I love fondue!
“When one looks back at the prices being paid today 10 years from now, Alot of homes will seem as if they were stolen”
“When one looks back at the prices being paid today 10 years from now, Alot of homes will seem as if they were stolen”
Housing prices in Reno ten years from now could be very close to what they are today. The only difference would be that the market would be in balance and DOM a reasonable number. This mortgage melt-down is going to take a long time to heal and the lenders will have a sour taste in their collective mouth for a long, long time. I doubt that they will be falling all over themselves to make no-money down mortgages on an over-priced stucco slab mass-produced work of art. Probably they will set strict limits of how much them will loan and the market will slowly adjuct over the years to that number.
I have lived through a number of boom and busts in a variety of industries and towns. From my perspective, a boom/bust follows a bell curve. As long as it took for the boom to occur, it will take just as long for it to unwind.
SJ
Nice touch, Diane. Nice touch.
Realtors are still not getting it. They are agreeing, oftentimes suggesting, to list properties at above 2005 prices. A family members neighbor just put their house on the market for $10k above the 2005 purchase price. They are $50k above what they could realistically get at this point in time. It appears that their strategy, like many, is to try to control the sale price, while subsequently riding the market down. Fools abound.
Here is somebody who is getting “it”. On 9/20 a Notice of Default was filed on a house located on Eagle Vista (zip 89511). The outstanding mortgage is $1, 950, 450. (ouch!)
Currently, the banks own 350 properties in Reno with another 294 set to go to auction. The number of houses which are in the NoD stage is 703.
Should be interesting to see how these numbers look next February.
Don’t worry, Bantering Bear, forces much more powerful than delusional sellers are now at work in the market.
The first house listed in today’s new MLS listings is MLS # 70019422. 9979 Moodust. Last sold on 10/13/05 for $315,000. Now an REO. Listed today at $262,900. If the bank takes 90% of asking, that means it sells for $236,600. That’s how comps drop 25% in two years. No delusional seller required.
This one is for Smarten, whom I ask to review my thinking and tell me if I’m wrong.
Let’s say I wanted to live downtown in the Palladio in a brand new one bedroom condo. Listed on Craigslist tonight is a one bedroom 752 sq. ft. unit for rent at $1,050 a month. Owner wants renter to have a very good FICO and sign a one year lease. Seems fair enough.
Or,
I could purchase unit # 806, 761 sq. ft., listed on the MLS tonight for $345,000. MLS # 70000484.
Let’s say I put down 10%, and finance the $310,500 balance at 7% amortized over 30 years. My monthly P&I is $2,065. Add to that, say $250 a month for taxes and $300 for HOA fees. I am at $2,615 a month.
So,
I have the choice of coming up with $2,100 (first and last) and pay $1,050 a month to rent, or coming up with $35,000 and pay $2,615 a month to own. In other words, I can rent at 40% of the cost of ownership. Now, with renting I take the chance that prices in the Palladio will skyrocket upward in the coming year, and I may get “priced out forever.” But with ownership I take the chance I get to ride the market down as I watch the developer drop prices on unsold units.
Is this is a close call to any thinking person who is paying attention to the housing market in Reno?
Disclaimer: I have owned my own house for many years. So please, no “bitter renter” comments.
Fantastic, RI. You nailed the equation. Absolutely nailed it.
Thanks RI -
Now you’re thinking [as if you hadn’t done your thinking prior to writing your post]! And with all due respect to Mr. Wazoo, I think you can nail it a bit more securely.
I say offer $950/month [because there are currently a glut of rentals out there, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (after all, if the owner’s rental sits vacant for a month, he/she has lost the equivalent of the extra $100/month he’s/she’s holding out for].
Actually, I say structure the rent so you pay the owner $700/month plus his/her secured real property taxes [that way you may be able to claim a federal tax deduction for the taxes you’re now obligated to pay] assuming they total $250/month - actually, what you have is a double net lease.
Negotiate an option to purchase at a price to be determined on/before a specified date in the future [I say try to get 3 years because you need that long to save a down payment (don’t tell the owner you too are a homeowner)]. The purchase price gets determined by a third party professional [like Guy] at then FMV less 6% [the brokerage commission which the seller would otherwise have to pay in any event (O.K., maybe 5% because real estate commissions are negotiable)].
If the owner balks at letting your option price float, show him/her the latest Montreux newsletter to convince him/her [assuming convincing is really necessary] prices have nowhere to go from here but up!
If that doesn’t work, ask him/her if he/she really expects you to exercise the option if the purchase price is agreed to in advance and prices decline? Or stated differently, ask him/her if he/she really will let you exercise the option if the purchase price is agreed to in advance and prices appreciate 15% or more?
Finally, have your CPA create a spreadsheet which demonstrates that the owner can shelter ALL the rent you will be paying him/her PLUS an additional $200/month by realizing depreciation write offs for federal income tax purposes.
You’re now set because:
1. Your real cost to rent is about 34% of the cost to own [assuming you’re in a 25% federal tax bracket].
Actually, your real cost is far, far less for two reasons. First, you forgot to factor in the cost of property insurance [another $850 or more annually]. Second, you forgot to reduce the rent you pay by the 5.5% in FDIC interest income you can earn on what would otherwise be a $34,500 downpayment.
2. You get to milk the cow before buying it [who knows, you might not want to be a buyer?].
3. You’ve already negotiated a price at 6% below FMV.
4. If prices start to rise and you don’t want to be left holding the bag, you have the luxury of exercising the option earlier rather than later.
5. If prices decline and you want to call the bottom, you’re in the driver’s seat for virtually no cost.
In other words, why in the world would anyone ever buy now?
As I’m thinking of this a bit closer, maybe we should ask Mr. Murray if he wants to rent us his $1.2M Caughlin mansion he’s hot to sell on similar terms? What do you say Allen?
In the past few years I’ve been researching who are the successful agents, tried to figure out why top agents are top agents.
Do they have a common educational background? No. Good ones have high school diplomas, masters and doctorates. No correlation.
Similar previous careers? No. One of the best agents I know used to teach baton twirling. I doubt if I could find a lot of those if I tried! I’ve had waiters, teachers, high powered executives and stay-at-home Moms who were all very successful.
Common interests? No. Other than eating, (which we Realtor-types seem to do exceptional well) the interests are widely diverse.
After 13 years in real estate sales and management, I’ve only found a few constants.
1. Successful agents treat the real estate business as a business. They actually have a business plan and a budget. They understand that you have to spend money to make money. They know how many sales they need to make the income they require and then they figure how they’ll get from here to there. They plan in advance and execute the plan.
2. They actually work when they work and play when they play and take a day or two off every week. (Just like a “real job!”)
3. They have fun and enjoy selling real estate but know that it won’t be forever.
4. They buy a lot of real estate for investment when they see good deals because they know that no one gets rich selling the stuff. You get rich owning it! Financial independence gives one a lot of freedom, autonomy and a certain air of confidence that smells like success.
. . . And people like to do business with successful people so they do more business!
That’s why I choose this realtor http://www.realtydirectorymakers.com/ for my future
^^So the “successful agent” has to spam. LOLs
If you guys want to play the rent v. own game, it’s an easy call for an over-priced ($453 a sq ft!!!) condo in a terrible market. However, it’s a different story when it comes to a SFR because (1) the pricing spread is a lot closer, (2) each house has unique characteristics, and (3) demand is alot higher for SFR’s as opposed to condo’s. Try that equation with a condo priced at $150 a sq ft.
Give the market forces time to work (say 2 years) and then check out the rent v. own equation for SFR’s in Reno. They will be a lot closer together. For folks who plan on living in their houses for at least 7 years, buying instead of renting is usually the better choice.
Smarten, thanks for thinking of me. My $1.2M mansion is not in Caughlin as you wrongly assume, but I’m getting used to it. Again, you have very well thought out theories, but seem to be more of a thinker than a doer. If you are asking if I think we have hit bottom the answer is “no.” If you are asking “is one better renting now in Reno instead of buying,” I would say it depends. If you are trying to prove how smart you are, I would say “do you want a cookie?”
Move to Reno states “if you guys want to play the rent v. own game, it’s an easy call for an over-priced ($453 a sq ft!!!) condo in a terrible market. However, it’s a different story when it comes to a SFR.”
I disagree. Until there’s a shortage of housing in Reno [something which I can’t imagine happening for the rest of your lifetime], there’s always going to be a marked differential in the rent vs. own equation; even for SFRs.
Don’t mean to pick on Mr. Murray but let’s examine his SFR. I don’t know how many square feet it boasts but for argument’s sake, let’s assume 4,000. At $1.2M [his reduced asking price] that works out to a more “reasonable” [compared to RI’s condo example] $300/square foot. But the fundamentals remain the same.
Rents are a function of supply and demand. The absolute top of the SFR rental market in Reno is about $3,500 and more likely, Mr. Murray can’t get much more than $2,750-$3,000/month if he were going to rent his home [remember, I could have rented a new Montreux 3,700 square foot home a couple of months ago for $3,000/month].
Run the numbers [as did RI] using this example and you’re going to come up with a very similar result.
The reasons to buy versus rent are threefold [they’re actually more than three but for purposes of this discussion we’ll limit them to three]: First, where the price differential is less because prices have DROPPED appreciably [something which likely won’t happen]. Second, where the price differential is less because rents have INCREASED appreciably [something which likely won’t happen]. Third, where sales prices are appreciating [which makes up for the differential over time (something which likely won’t happen in Reno for at least the next several years)].
Again I point to the San Francisco Bay Area. High rents; high sales prices; high rates of appreciation in value; and yet renting still costs about a third of the comparable cost to own.
Sorry, but it is what it is.
smarten, your examples are not typical of the “average” Joe’s situation in Reno. Most people in Reno don’t live in $1.2 million homes. They live in $200k to $400k homes.
Take as an example the new listing that RI posted last night. 9979 Moodust. List price is $263k and RI thinks it will sell for about $238k. At 1648 sq ft, the selling price would be about $144 a sq ft. How much does a 3bed, 2bath house rent for in Reno?
As for a potential shortage of housing in Reno,I agree that it is not likely insofar as supply is always a function of price/demand.
At some point houses selling for $144 a sqft will be in short supply because of inflation. I bought my first house in 1980 at $33 a sqft. Now it’s market value is $187 a sqft and in 5 years will probably be $225 or $250.
Future forecasts of the Reno real estate market are subject to a number of unknowns, such as the future wage levels.
There are other reasons to buy vs. own.
1) tax advantages, all the interest is tax deductable. making the mortgage payment cheaper than a rent payment. When and if the government gets rid of this, there will be a huge drop in demand and prices which would make this bubble look small.
2) Home improvements take time to make a “home” your home. I have enjoyed setting up a house to my tastes. It gives me enjoyment. I enjoy working with my hands and putting in a bit of sweat after sitting in an office all day (but that is a different story).
3) My home is not treated as an investment. It is something which I like to be comfortable in.
Now would I invest in real estate today for anything other than my personal residence now? Hell no.
Ran a search on Yahoo for a 3 bed, 2 bath SFR in Reno. They had one listing. an 1100sq ft house with a rental rate of $1490.
That $16.25 a sq ft a year in rent.
For the Moondust house, assume a 100% mortgage at 6.5% and $2500 in property taxes. That’s a total of $17970, or a yearly payment of of about $11 a sq ft a year.
No kidding . If you are going to give a side by side comparison atleast make it a sound comparison. Not a 1.2 mill house or a $500sq/ft condo.. As move to Reno noted these are hardly the situations most people in reno face.
Horrible analysis.
Derrick says “if you are going to give a side by side comparison at least make it a sound comparison.”
I don’t know how we do this other than comparing something finite like RI did. But even so, let’s give it a try.
I went to Craigslist.org and queried every 3BD [is that real world enough for you?] SFR home/condo rental in Reno proper [not Sparks] that were posted just TODAY. I got back 15 hits ranging in asking rent from a low of $850/month [#430843278 (a duplex on Rocky Mountain)] to a high of $1,495/month [#430648557 (2,200 square feet, 2-1/2 bathrooms and a den on Regal)].
There were 10 rentals listed at $1,100/month or lower [3 at $1,100, 2 at $1,000 and 1 each at $1,050, $960, $950, $875 and $850], and 5 rentals listed at $1,350/month or higher [2 at $1,495 and 1 each at $1,475, $1,400 and $1,350]. I’d say the median asking rent was probably at about $1,050/month so let’s use that figure for a median priced home [about $297,000 according to Guy]. I don’t know the fmv of the homes with asking rents of $1,350 or more, but since the $1,350 rental [#430829013] is located on Trek Trail in Double Diamond, are we safe in using a $400,000 fmv figure?
Now let’s run the numbers. 10% down on the $297K house is $29.7K leaving a $267.3K mortgage. Monthly P&I at 7% fixed is $1,778.35. Taxes run about $200/month, and real property insurance runs about $70/month. Add your loss of use of your down payment at 5.5%, and that’s another $136/month. All told [and assuming no maintenance nor repair expenses] then, this totals $2,184/month - more than twice [208%] as much as fair market rent.
10% down on the $400K house is $40K leaving a $360K mortgage. Monthly P&I at 7% fixed is $2,395.09. Taxes run about $300/month, and real property insurance runs about $92/month. Add the loss of use of your down payment at 5.5%, and that’s another $183.33/month. All told then [again assuming no maintenance nor repair expenses], this totals $2,970/month - more than twice [actually 220%] as much as fair market rent.
As prices and interest rates drop, the differences between owing and renting will diminish. But it will almost always cost more to own regardless of the price/square foot [and as we’ve seen, the disparity becomes greater the more expensive the housing]. It’s just that if fmvs are appreciating, combined with possible federal income tax benefits [BUT you ONLY realize income tax benefits if your personal mortgage interest and property tax deductions exceed the standard deduction (which ISN’T always the case)] and pride of ownership, it makes financial sense to own versus rent.
But when prices are dropping [meaning no appreciation in value], it hardly ever makes financial sense to own versus rent.
So are these sound enough examples?
In today’s Reno marketplace the question really isn’t should I buy versus rent? It’s how much more house can I secure renting versus purchasing? In this example we see that for $3K/month you can become an owner in Double Diamond. But for the same monthly expenditure, you can rent a 3,700 square foot home in Montreux. Which would you choose [and the answer explains why why comparing the cost to rent a $1.4M home makes a whole heck of a lot of sense for “most people”].
A 1,200 Sq ft house in Reno will rent for about $1,200. Not $1,490.
RE: “$300/sq ft reasonable?”
That’s not even close to reasonable.
smarten, thanks for providing more guidance on the Reno rental market. However, my experience with rental properties is that many are in poor quality because the tenent isn’t interested in upgrading the place and the landlord wants to maximizes income. I feel sorry for folks who have to rent their nice homes because it can go downhill in a hurry. Fair wear and tear and all that.
I would have to look at the rentals you mention and then look at the house on Moondust to see what would be the best choice. The house on Moondust was built in 2003 and has solid kitchen counters and a 3 car garage. I forgot about insurance so toss in another $500 a year.
Rentals will always be cheaper than buying. But in the long run buying at a low fix rate at a good price will be a better economic decision than renting. The house I bought in 1980 for $79k now produces net cash to me of about $17k a year and will soon be tossing out about $20k a year (rents always go up). Of course, when I sell it for $600K in 5 or 7 years I’ll be sure to thank myself for not renting back in 1980. The price differential back then between renting and owning was only $200 a month and the top tax was over 50%. So it was cheaper for me to buy than rent at that time!!
RI thought the house on Moondust could be bought for $238k.
Assume one pays cash for it. The lost interest on the $238k is $12495 (@5.25%). Figure a 25% haircut for taxes equals $9371 plus property taxes and insurance of $3000 equals $12371.
So the real cost of owning is about $1031 a month. Very close to the cost of renting.
Didn’t figure in closing costs but also didn’t deduct the tax advantage of paying property taxes.
Also, cash goes down in value by 3% a year whereas real estate keeps up with inflation.
Move to Reno stated “in the long run buying at a low fix rate at a good price will be a better economic decision than renting.”
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I agree with you MTR.
However, we’re talking about fixed income California retirees looking to downsize by relocating to Reno and buying now at a bad price in a declining real estate market versus renting a very nice upscale [in fact probably a new] home that hasn’t been trashed by past tenants.
Once prices decline and the market begins to turn, there will be time enough to jump back into the Reno real estate market as an owner. But for the next several years, it just doesn’t make sense to some of us and we can secure far more home for less money being renters.
I guess we are pretty close to agreement except I think that low-balling some of these REO’s can produce some reasonable pricing points in today’s market.
If saving money were the only consideration in making the decision between renting and owning, I guess I could stay in an extended stay hotel and save even more than renting a house - what’s that cost? $1200 or $1300 a month? no utilties and they provide towels and bed linens….
I like owning a house (even if the bank is the ‘real’ owner) For one thing, I can do what I want to it, paint it, alter it, even make a big mess out of it - I don’t have to worry about being accountable to a landlord for my choices. And, I don’t have any desire to live with the uncertainty of not having my lease renewed at the end of 12 months and having to deal finding another place and moving…
People complain about gas prices going over $3 a gallon. Wow! That’s going to cost them an extra $50 a month in gas. Amazing people complain about this, but when there over-valued house drops $100K in value it’s ok becuase they own the house and can make changes to it. Or if they lose $10k in a year in payments by owning instead of renting. That’s ok? Gotta laugh.
smarten, don’t be so dogmatic about the people who bought at the top of the cycle. Everybody makes mistakes and next time they will be a lot wiser about the whole process. The people who buy homes at the right price and location will do just fine. Eventually even those who bought at the top, as long as they stay put for 5 or 7 years will do alright.
Even though most folks can’t do it, I think that buying the land and building the home oneself (with help and sub-contractors of course), is the way to go, especially if one has the cash and/or the cash flow to skip the mortgage costs all together. In ‘92 I bought 4 acres for $22k and built a 2700 sq ft house for about $97K. And we are talking about a house that could be on the cover of Home and Garden. In my humble opinion many people are getting ripped off by the home builders, mortgage orginators, title folks, realtors, lawyers, government and everybody else who has their hands in the home buyers’ pocket.
Bleah. As a renter waiting to buy I can tell you, waiting this thing out is pretty difficult (already). It’s like we’re in limbo waiting for sellers to start dropping prices like everyone predicts they will. Maybe I need a hobby (other than feathering my nest, entertaining guests, and puttering in my own back yard).
Faust, just start making lowball offers on REO homes that are already priced below market. Good chance you could get lucky. A lot of the typical sellers are not really motivated to sell. The professional bank sellers have no emotional attachment to the house. Just be sure that you get a competent real estate agent that is totally in your corner. Price the house on the basis of sq ft and lot size. The seller’s agent will talk about views or granite counter tops but that stuff has already been paid for.
Move to Reno,
Only becuase someone stays in a house for 5-7 years does not mean they are going to do “alright”. People that bought into the California bubble in the early 90’s had to wait ten years to get there money back. Take a look at this house as an example:
525 Allview Terrace, Laguna Beach, Calif., 92651
Size: 2 beds, 2 baths, 1,550 sq ft (built in 1958)
MLS: L23207 (134 days on Redfin)
Asking price: $2,149,000
Asking price/ sq ft: $1,386
Income requirement: $537,250
Purchase price: $2,150,000
Purchase date: 10/28/2005
Other sales history: 1/9/1998: $550,000
4/12/1990: $560,000
See what they bought it for in 1990 at the top of the market? Eight years later it sold for less. It will be 2015 before they see the 2005 price again. Same in Reno. Not trying to be a pessimist here. Just stating some facts that someo on this board are unaware of. Remember, history repeats itself.
Smart Money wrote: “It will be 2015 before they see the 2005 price again.”
This is an interesting observation I was going to comment on when the opportunity arose [and now it has]. California residential real estate booms/busts used to run in 8-10 year cycles, at least for the last 40 or so years; and, at least in the San Francisco Bay Area [which has really been the bell weather for pricing in the rest of the United States (at least for the last 30 or so years)].
There was a run up in prices in the latter 1970’s, a pull back and then relatively flat pricing until the late 1980’s. Then about a 20% pull back and again relatively flat prices until the late 1990’s [which coincided with the beginning of the dot.com explosion].
The never ending rise in prices came to a screetching halt in 2000 with the dot.com bust. I thought we’d go back to the “normal” 8-10 year cycle until 2003 when sales started to pick up again. I attribute this unexpected rise in prices to the drop in interest rates [which skewed what would otherwise be a “normal” market].
So a 20% or so drop in prices from 2005 highs should not be a surprise unless you’re not a student of history. And based upon history, assuming long term mortgage rates don’t dip back into the 4-1/2% or so range, “normal” could very well again translate into “flat” prices until 2013 or so.
But of course, it’s a new paradigm [isn’t it?] and the traditional rules no longer work in markets like these! If this mirrors your response, you’re probably in your thirties. Don’t you remember this was the same song being sung by every Tom, Dick and Harry day trader [don’t quit your day job as a full service gasoline station pump operator] at the last turn of the century?
MTR said: “Faust, just start making lowball offers on REO homes that are already priced below market.”
I’m watching the listings very closely for a situation like that. But we’re keen on an extremely particular and established neighborhood (known in Reno as Old Southwest)and hoping to catch a deal on the type of house that, at the hight of the market, are a bit beyond our means. In other words, we think this is our one chance to really score on a house we can spend the next 30 years in, so we’re anxious and picky.
When I made my comment about 5 to 7 years holding period before those who bought at the top of the Reno market (say 2005) could reach a break-even point on their house again, I was thinking about the median price place, not the houses priced above $500k. The higher price houses will take longer to get back to their loftly heights, but the lower price homes will bounced back quicker because (1) most people live in lower priced houses and so demand is greater and (2) it will be easier to get a mortgage for a $300k house as opposed to a $800k house.
I also think that the Reno real estate market is different from the California market and that while they may have tracked each other in the past, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will do so in the future. California could stay in the dumpster for 10+ years while Reno is back to a stable non-boom market in 5 years. Reno is a small, isolated real estate market which means that any positive developments such as the sellers lowering their prices could have an impact on producing a wave of buying activity. What will save the bacon of those who bought a lower priced home at the top is the demand factor: people would rather live in a SFR than a condo or apartment.
BTW, I can’t wait to hear why that u-tube video was pulled.
probably because it was lame…
Sit tight, Faust. Reno’s got another 20-25% (inflation-adjusted) price decline to experience before prices stabilize and begin an upturn.
During the next 12 to 15 months a huge wave of foreclosures is going to hit Reno. That is the time to buy.
I love it how you are all professional crystal ball readers… Hilarious!!!
Derrick, what is the vacancy rate for SFRs in Reno’s MLS?
Hey, Derrick, if you want a REALLY good laugh, check out 3225 Palacio Ct, Sparks, NV on Zillow.com.
10/2003: $270K
10/2005: $418K
10/2007: $330K
Woah! Look at that plunge! It’s already more than halfway back down to 2003.
Now THAT’S hilarious!
So they are still up 60K+ on their purchase in 2003? Doesnt sound that bad to me.. I’ve seen alot worse than that.
Besides how much merit does 1 give zillow anyhow?
According to zillow.com A house in somersette went up 25k last month!! LMAO
RE: “So they are still up 60K+ on their purchase in 2003?”
It would be a real knee-slapper if the owner had the audacity to publicly claim in this blog that the value of his home would never come back down to 2003 levels. As you can see, adjusting for inflation, it has.
And, even funnier: it’s still falling.
Still LYAO? I know I am.
JustTheFacks, don’t think we have had that much inflation since 2003, maybe 12%. So the $270k selling price then is adjusted to inflation equals $302,400.
Nice thing about real estate is that in the long run it keeps up with the devaluation of the dollar.
Everybody knows REAL inflation is more than 3%
The CPI tracks rents, not home prices. The building materials of cement, PVC, land, lumber, plywood, copper, steel have all gone up much more than the CPI. That’s why a return to the pre-2001 home prices is not in the cards given Reno’s continued population increases.