I’ve just received October’s Market condition report from our friends at First Centennial Title. Click on the picture to enlarge.
Synopsis from the report:
- OVERVIEW: Activity holding at current levels with no big movements. SFR Prices appear to have stabilized (slightly negative) in the current range while Condo displayed unexpected weakness. This trend in Condo prices is not likely to continue given that the ask price of Condos in escrow is in the mid $80’s.
- SUPPLY (ON MARKET): Moderate increase in supply for both types.
- DEMAND (SOLD PER MONTH): Demand increased for SFR (+29 units) but backed off for Condo (-9 units).
- FAILURES (EXPIRE-WITHDRAW): Holding steady in the current range.
- IN ESCROW (FUTURE CLOSINGS): Up slightly from October for SFR (+9 units); down slightly for Condo (-5 units). So long as the level of escrow is relatively stable, closings will remain rather constant at current levels.
- PERCENT SELLING: Very steady in the current range with little movement for either type.
- MONTHS SUPPLY: This key measure tightened but the change was small. This signals a continuation of current activity levels.
- MARKET SPEED: The pace of the Reno market is stable at current levels for both types. The best performing Reno submarket remains Fernley SFR, returning a Market Speed of 42 (up from last month). The slowest is Yerington SFR at a very sluggish 8. The market seems to “hovering” around these current values with significant change neither occurring or forecasted in the near term.
- PRICES: Both SFR and Condo returned median price declines with Condo posting a rather large (and unexpected) negative deviation (see comments in overview). Expect up and down movement from month to month. Large changes in price should not be expected, while relatively small diminishing negative shifts are more likely. This trend is generally in line with other markets surveyed.
Recent MCR reports:
54 comments
If Reno can stop bleeding jobs soon, I would tend to agree with the analyses that say the Reno market has bottomed and stabilized.
But not only are we still shedding jobs, returning workers are taking large pay cuts (33%+) and unless that stops, we could have a serious double dip next year.
I live in a neighborhood in Reno where the asking prices of houses are in the $325K to $375K range. I watch these houses sit on the market month after month after month. The 3% price drops every four months do nothing. If we are at a bottom, how come these houses have no buyers? They don’t even have lookers. And please understand these houses are not delusionally priced. They are all asking about 30-35% off of 2005 prices.
1 - How many people in Reno can afford the debt service on a $350K house? Anyone know what the most recent data is on the median income in Reno? I bet it won’t float a loan on a $350K house using traditional/historical lending standards.
2 - The median selling price of a house in Reno is down about 50% from the 2005 market peak. If the houses in this neighborhood are marked down “only” 35% then they still have a ways to go to reflect reality in today’s northern Nevada market.
IMHO of course.
Julia….the houses you describe are in the vicinity of twice the median sales price in Reno now. Once you realize, Julia, that a $375K house is now in the upper price range, you can adjust your thinking and get used to the reality that only 10% of all houses that sell now are priced above $375K.
Until you understand that what happened in the housing market between 2002-2007 was the biggest abberation in history, you will continue to be baffled as to why buyer’s with household incomes of $50K cannot afford a $375K house. And they never will.
Wazoo and SkrapGuy pretty much nailed it.
And please, don’t anybody comment that what they say is not accurate because it’s never been that way in Palo Alto, or San Francisco. Or Newport Beach. Or Malibu. That argument is just way too tired and way too worn out and way too ineffective. Reno is a nice place, but it ain’t any of those places.
you guys just keep hitting the nail right on the head
For those who are interested in the >$350k market, I recommend you read Mark Hanson’s latest at: http://mhanson.com/blog
His main thesis, and what he has been postulating for some time, is that the mid to high end is in the process of a slow moving train wreck. He predicts a slow crash in that segment over the next 1-2 years, and it’s difficult to argue with his logic.
We all have observed an increased rate of price reductions in such areas as Arrowcreek, St. James, Galena Forest, and Lakeridge. I believe it’ll only get worse for the sellers in those areas. Those holding out for a bottom before they sell might want to reconsider. Might be better taking the 10-15% additional haircut right now and unloading.
In Reno there just aren’t any buyers for the 18+ months of inventory on the market above $400k. Those that can afford such properties are likely already underwater. Continuing short sales and declining prices will only serve to drive prices further south.
OBTW, regarding Julia’s post, if you carefully read her contribution, she is not taking the position that we are at/near bottom. Quite the contrary, she asks, “If we are at a bottom, how come these houses have no buyers?”
Correct Future, I did not mean to suggest we are at a market bottom. Quite the opposite actually. I just pointed out that these houses are simply languishing month after month. To me, that does not signify a market bottom.
In response to Wazoo, I underatnd that the median price is down more than 50%. But that does not mean that every house in Reno is down 50%. Some are in fact down more, some less. These houses are in a neighborhood that is down about 30-35% from the bubble top. I only meant to point out that these are not delusional sellers who still think it is 2005.
In response to SkrapGuy, your point is well taken. I think we all got too taken in by the bubble mania and forgot that a $375K house used to be a pretty pricey house for the great majority of people. So here we are back at the past.
“These houses are in a neighborhood that is down about 30-35% from the bubble top”
True if these houses are selling. From your post, doesn’t sound like they are. When they start selling we can make a more educated guess as to how far this neighborhood actually has fallen from the bubble’s peak.
Today’s RGJ has an article discussing the growing number of short sales in the local market. Two RE agents boast about the benefit of Short Sale vs Foreclosure for the homeowner. I’ve been told that in some cases foreclosure is a better alternative to short sale especially with regard to deficiency judgments. It seems that every person I talk to, including attorneys, give me a different answer. My understanding is that in NV the lien holder has 6 months after the trustee sale to file a deficiency lawsuit. I’m told that when the homeowner agrees to a short sale, basically a new contract with the lien holder, the timeline extends to 6 years. If true that means happy homeowner could pull his/her life and credit back together in a couple years but still have to worry that the lien holder could come knocking at any time. Is this true? Has anyone had experience with a deficiency judgment? Are the RE agents giving out bad advise because they have no clue what they’re talking about or they’re just trying to protect the commission they’ll receive on the short sale transaction? It seems like a win/win for the banks. They get the sale, reduce their costs, and buy themselves time to recoup their losses down the road once the foreclosure storm has passed. I assume that most homeowners breathe a sigh of relief once the short sale is complete because they’ve been told that once the deal closes they have nothing else to worry about.
I know there are some experienced RE/Legal people that follow and contribute to this site so I’m hoping someone will have some factual input on the Short Sale vs Foreclosure issue.
NV Homeowner - You need to consider the source of the info stated in the article. Here it’s our longtime Chase Int’l buddy, managing broker Craig King; king of rallying the troops and promoting the “glass half full” philosophy.
What Craig and his fellow quoted Chase agents are suggesting in the article is that the credit hit to a short sale seller is somehow less negative than a foreclosure three [rather than seven] years after the fact. So I guess from their perspective, a short sale is a better alternative for the seller.
Although I’m no expert in the field of credit, I know there is an entry for a creditor to report that an obligation has been settled for less than the full amount owed - and such an entry would last for [surprise] seven years. So really, where’s the benefit to the short selling seller?
In my way of thinking, there’s no advantage to a short sale seller UNLESS he/she secures an agreement with his/her shorted lender[s] that the sale satisfies any and all of the seller’s outstanding obligations [in legal parlance, an accord and satisfaction]. I don’t know what percentage of short sale sellers have an agent sharp enough to negotiate such a benefit on their behaves [which if you think about it would be tantamount to practicing law without a license], but my suspicion is very, very few.
I’m no expert of NV law and nothing I say here is intended to double as legal advice, but it’s my understanding you are correct that a shorted foreclosing lender [the operative words here] has 6 months after foreclosure sale in which to file a deficiency action - all the more reason IMO for the seller to go the short sale route IF he/she can secure an accord and satisfaction with his/her shorted lender[s].
I know nothing about a short sale extending the statute of limitations, so to speak, for filing a deficiency action, up to the six years you state. But I think I know what you’re getting at, and I’ll try to respond. First of all, without a formal foreclosure sale there can be no deficiency per se, so there’s no deficiency judgment to secure. Thus short sales cannot result in deficiency judgments.
Next, you need to understand the legal differences between a deed of trust or mortgage the promissory note [or other obligation] it secures. It is the note that evidences the obligation to repay money. On the other hand, the deed of trust or mortgage represents nothing more than an agreement to secure that obligation with real property. Although a note can exist without security [i.e., an unsecured note], the opposite is NOT true [without an underlying obligation, there can be no secured interest].
So by participating in a short sale, a shorted lender is typically doing nothing other than releasing its security [i.e., the property] in consideration of a PART payment of the note. If the note is not extinguished in consideration of that payment, then the balance due continues to be owed and can be enforced [within the statute of limitations period] in an action directly on the note. Again, I don’t know the NV statute of limitations for recovery under a promissory note. But if it’s the six years you suggest, without an accord and satisfaction, a shorted lender [or its assignee] WOULD be able to bring an action under the note for six years after a short sale.
So I guess the moral of the story is that if you’re a short sale seller, for the reasons noted you need an experienced LAWYER far, far more than an agent.
Make sense?
Short follow up NV Homeowner.
First of all, very good question - thanks.
Second, when one thinks about it [the way you’ve presented your question], a short sale is really a better deal [compared to foreclosure] for a potentially shorted lender[s].
But more interesting [at least to me], if you’re an agent primarily interested in your commission [which IS exactly what you are if you don’t secure an accord and satisfaction on behalf of your short sale seller], don’t you think the prospect of collecting the note “deficiency” six years down the road [whether through assignment or otherwise] makes a compelling argument in favor of a resisting lender agreeing to a short sale?
Stated differently, one has to wonder why potentially shorted lenders have been so resistent in the past to the concept of agreeing to a short sale? Maybe it’s because agents haven’t make the kind of compelling arguments they should?
It is correct that a lender has 6 months from the date the TD is recorded to file a deficiency action. Some 5 years into this market meltdown that remains, as a practical matter, an academic point, as I am unaware of even one single deficiency action having been brought against a residential borrower. But, yes, the lender has the right.
The confusion arises, I suspect, from the practice of many lenders to require the borrower to sign a promissory note for at least a portion of the loan balance that will remain unpaid after the short sale is completed. For example, let’s say that borrower owes $400K to lender. Lender agrees to allow a short sale for $300K. Lender also requires borrower to sign a note for $50K, representing one-half of the amount that will remain unpaid after the short sale. The statute of limitations in Nevada on an instrument in writing is 6 years. And note that the statutue begins to run from the date of last payment. So the borrower here could be looking at being sued on that $50K note years and years into the future.
Smarten is quite right when he says that the only way a short sale makes any sense is for the borrower to secure an accord and satisfaction from the lender. That is, an agreement from the lender that the amount received in the short sale will be in full and final satisfaction of the lender’s secured note. I undersatnd that many lenders will not agree to that. In such case, I am with Smarten that a short sale is very problematic for the borrower. And I also agree with Smarten to consider carefully the source of the information provided in that article. Who has an agenda?
Considering that no lenders are filing deficiency actions, it may be worth the risk to the borrower to go through foreclosure if the lender will not execute an accord and satisfcation. 6 months and 1 day after the TD is recorded, the borrower is home free. And there is no note obligation that will follow the borrower around for years.
We have had this discussion before here, and the issue never seems to get quite understood. Maybe it is just one of those topics that is difficult to explain on a blog.
Isn’t the whole point of a short sale to get out from under the loan you owe to the bank? What sense does it make to agree to pay the bank anyway in another promissory note, even if it is just a portion of the debt? I think your credit takes a hit either way with a short sale or a foreclosure.
I totally agree with Smarten and RI here. Plus the fact that the lenders are too disorganized to sue for a deficiency, seals the deal it seems to me.
Is there anybody reading who has personal experience with this?
I have a question for regular readers of this blog. Does anybody here think that Smarten and RI are not lawyers? They have to be. Normal people do not talk that way.
They sound just like Tom.
Thanks for the input Smarten and RI.
RI - If the homeowner doesn’t agree to execute a note am I correct to assume the lien holder simply has the right to come after the entire balance?
I’m not opposed to trying a short sale with the help of an experienced RE agent but the lien holder would have to agree to a full satisfaction of debt, as Smarten and RI recommend, otherwise it makes no sense. Most RE agents, atleast the ones I know, don’t ever bring up the deficiency issue. I also don’t foresee much negotiation happening since the homeowner doesn’t have any leverage to negotiate with. “If you don’t agree to report full satisfaction then I’ll bring my payments current?cancel my short sale?call you bad names?
The other item I’ve been researching (more like googling)is the actual trustee sale. If I only have a 1st mortgage, it goes to Trustee sale, and the lien holder enters a credit bid at or above the amount owed am I clear? The trustee sale amount satisfied the amount of my outstanding debt - no deficiency? I may be way off on this one but I’ve seen it explained this way a couple times.
I agree with much of what RI has stated.
Thus the point: if you’re a short sale seller and your lender is demanding you execute a new promissory note as a condition of sale; your odds may be good that by letting the lender foreclose instead, you may be off the hook entirely 6 months and 1 day after the trustee’s sale; and, your credit IS going to take a hit [for the reasons stated above], regardless; what’s in it for you [maybe Guy or some of the other agents who regularly read this blog and are in stealth mode (maybe even Ms. Plevel), can explain why]? And why are there so many short sales being consummated [in comparison foreclosure sales]?
Now although this query is a bit off topic, consider the issue we’re discussing to the short sale seller in California where unlike NV, there can be no possible deficiency judgment if the lender[s] elect to proceed with non-judicial foreclosure [which the overwhelming majority do]; and/or, the secured lender’s loan was used by the seller to purchase the subject property? Why would a CA short sale seller EVER agree to sell his/her home as a short sale?
Raymond, I have not hidden the fact before that I used to practice law in California [Tom and John Newell have also told us they are practicing lawyers, and I personally know there are a number of other lawyers who currently and regularly post]. Is that a problem [especially when NV Homeowner asks the question he did]? I would think it’s a benefit to this blog.
RE: “I know there are some experienced RE/Legal people that follow and contribute to this site so I’m hoping someone will have some factual input on the Short Sale vs Foreclosure issue.”
Anyone who bases a major life decision like this on advice from a blog, is taking a huge risk.
Find youself a real estate attorney and get real answers.
I’m constantly amazed how few people in this area retain specialized attorneys for matters like these. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake!
I would *never* think of buying or selling (especially not short selling) a house without my own attorney, on retainer, to advise me on the finer points of the law.
There’s simply too much at risk to cut corners just to save $1,000-$2,000.
NV Homeowner,
If the borrower is unwilling to execute a promissory note as a condition of a short sale, then then lender can foreclose. In fact, the lender must foreclose in Nevada under the so-called “one action rule” before it can pursue the borrower on the loan.
Then if the foreclosure sale does not result in enough money to pay the loan in full, the lender can file a deficiency action within six months of the recordation of the TD. But as I have said, lenders have not been doing that. Once the six months period passes, the lender is barred from filing a deficiency action.
If the lender at the foreclosure sale bids in the full amount of the debt, then there is no deficiency. But Mike has put up many threads over the last several months of instances wherein the lender did not bid in the full amount of the unpaid debt. In such cases, the potential for a deficiency exists.
OK, as soon as I read what I just said I realize it needs some clarification. And this is where the topic becomes too complicated for blog talk, and Mike Z is absolutely right that competent counsel needs to be consulted.
The amount of a deficiniency judgment is not necessarily the difference between what was owed to the lender and what the property sold for at the foreclosure sale. It could also be the amount by which the debt owed to the lender exceeds the FMV of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale. It will be whichever is the lesser amount.
Again, now we are into issues too complex for the RRB, and if anybody out there ever ends up in a deficiency case, you need to consult competent counsel.
Since lenders are not filing deficiency cases, all this is nice academic talk right now. For the legal types, see NRS 40.459.
competent and counsel in same sentence?
i couldn’t resist
any news on the montage?
i’m going officially on record: smarten pick the bottom with his real estate purchase…..worst case is a double dip back to that level
I’ll add a red herring to the discussion:
Whether or not a lender files a deficiency judgment, most if not all lenders will file a 1099 listing the deficiency balance as taxable income to the borrower. Notwithstanding the changes in the laws from recent legislation, a taxpayer must qualify for the exclusions created in 2008. If a taxpayer doesn’t qualify for the exclusion, then tax is due on the deficiency. In that case, it’s simply the difference between the outstanding loan balance and the FMV of the property at foreclosure as determined by the recorded trustee’s deed.
I haven’t looked at the tax law recently, but in my case (foreclosure in 2007 with a deficiency), I owed taxes on the deficiency because the loan I defaulted on wasn’t a purchase money loan, but a refinance. Refinances qualified for the exclusion, but only if the refinance amount was less than the original cost of the property.
Interesting discussion. Thanks for the thread.
Which bottom bob c?
The bottom for Smithridge condos? Yep, probably.
The bottom for $600K houses in Arrowcreek and Somersett? No way.
The bottom for imagined multi-million dollar houses anywhere? puh-lease.
To Waldo,
Smarten bought his home in Incline Village, and from all appearances, got a great deal.
Even if values drop from the time he purchased, he probably won’t be hurt badly.
So in Smarten’s case, it was more a confluence of diligent property searches and falling values that resulted in his purchase.
yea that bottom billdrummer……..the panic sales early year when the the depression was upon us….there were several good delas then of higher priced homes and smarten got one of them—-90% of higher priced homes need some more downside
I wonder if condo sales are down because with prices as low as they are, HOA dues are as much as, or more than, the mortgage payment would be. Anyone care to comment on the ridiculous HOA dues, especially in areas such as Clearacre, Highview, and Tripp Dr. properties. You can purchase these units for about $30k (give or take), but with $200/mo HOA dues, who wants to? I would love to buy a few of these properties, but how good of an investment is it really, when you’re getting $500/mo in rent and $200 goes to HOA??
Alicia, you can also assume the HOA fees will increase. As we get into hyperinflation (sometime in the near future) the HOA will have to increase fees to keep up with expenses.
Hyperinflation???? If your going to throw bold claims of hyperinflation out there, then AT LEAST back them up with some credible information/research!~
btw.. this isn’t ZIMBABWE!
AND if you REALLY think we are going to have hyperinflation then I suggest you buy some gold, oil contracts, and perhaps a house or TWO!
since we all know that savers do NOT benefit from inflation, let alone hyperinflation..
but seriously.. please tell me why you think we are going to have hyperinflation? I could use a good laugh!
Hyperinflation. Not a high probability outcome. But Jackson, your casual attitude is a bit unsettling.
Do you think it’s ok for the Fed govt to print $17 trillion (that’s with a “T”) dollars?
Do you think that this band aid has taken care of the whole mess that Wall Street got us into?
Do you think that this will end well, esp. once the Chinese decide to stop buying our debt?
No country has ever successfully bailed itself out of an economic crisis by printing paper. None. Don’t be so glib in your dismissal of Sully’s brief mention of the dangerous possibilities that are still out there.
Yeah, real estate would benefit if inflation really took off, if that’s your only concern. And this is a real estate blog. But, wake up and smell the coffee if you think that all is well with the world and remarks like Sully’s should be mocked.
where in my post did I EVER insinuate that all was well with the world?
I merely asked for supporting theories/arguments as to why we sully thinks hyperinflation is a given!
Do I think its ok for the fed to print 17trillion in money? Actually I think if they didn’t things would be A LOT worse than they are right now. As far as I can tell, they didn’t have much of a choice.
I do believe that higher inflation is inevitable. what I DON’T believe is that United States will become the next Zimbabwe.
Well jackson I might be wrong, how’s that?
But - I also was telling people back in 2003 that we were in a real estate bubble and it would crash, and for sale signs would pop up like mushrooms. Everyone thought I was full of poop then too!
why is the long term treasury market so strong (yields low?)—i do see the spread on the TIPS has factored in approx 2% inflation (depending on where in the curve you are)
the odds of economist being correct is the same as flipping a coin
Sully, I too was telling people back in 2003 that the explosion in residential real estate couldn’t last. But then came 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and the first portion of 2008. Yes, we were ultimately correct - just 5 years too early. There was a lot of money we all could have made but were scared to act because of the resistence we saw happening in the marketplace.
Now could be a good time to buy. But maybe we’re 5 years too early. So come 2015 will we be looking back lamenting at the deals we passed up because of what we saw happening in the marketplace? Or will we be patting ourselves on the back because of our clairvoyance?
To me, 2010 [which will soon be upon us] is really very similar to 2003!
smarten, I think so too. That’s why I still have my eye open for another fair value buy. Maybe the next one will have that view I wanted. Fortunately I’m not under any kind of pressure this time around, as the first (current) purchase was for reasons I don’t have to contend with anymore.
Smarten,
Please clarify. If 2010 is like 2003 (only inverted?) does that mean one should still wait a few years to buy, as they should have waited until 05 to 06 to sell? I think one won’t risk a huge runup in prices if one waits a year or two after 2010. However, I think interest rates could skyrocket between now and then (~2013), significantly reducing one’s ability to afford a certain price point.
On a separate note, I have also been looking at the SoCal market (specifically San Diego). Despite all the media attention claiming that that market has taken a dramatic hit, I find RE prices there to still be delusional. For a small 3/2 SFH with a postage stamp backyard in relatively good repair near Pt. Loma (no view), you better be prepared to pay $800k+ (>$500/sq.ft.). Other choice is affordable housing near the Tijuana border. Their unemployment is up near 12% as well. Without trying to restart the debate on SoCal vs. Reno, one must wonder how people can afford to live in SoCal.
The chance of 2003 being remotely close to 2010 is just around zero. We are in a grinding credit contraction, which is not hyper-inflationary nor inflationary. Painting the tape on commodity and equity exchanges with their game to sell the contrary is part of the Fed-Banks-Gvt. job to get money velocity and M2 off the floor. Either way, the longer term and necessary debt contraction will have to work itself thru in due course as the average consumer raises savings over debt.
The mortgage delinquency rate in NV is now 14.5%. WOW. This time last year: 7.7%.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091117/D9C18RSG4.html
“I also was telling people back in 2003 that we were in a real estate bubble and it would crash, and for sale signs would pop up like mushrooms. Everyone thought I was full of poop then too! ”
so basically you MISSED the boat?
look, all I was asking for was some factual data would makes you think hyperinflation is certain? Maybe you were just talking out of your arse? !!
well said worried guy. I completely agree with the M2 analysis.
further, with extremely HIGH unemployment,under utilized resources, and tight credit for the foreseeable future. The likely hood of hyperinflation is almost ZERO!
jackson, which boat did I miss?
In case you still need some data on the possibility of hyperinflation read this:
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/hyperinflation
For all intents and purposes I hope we don’t have it, but I’m not convinced we won’t, with the current leadership in Congress (all positions not just Reid and Pelosi) I am seeing too much of the blind leading the deaf and simply do not think that the same people that led us into this mess are qualified to lead us out of it.
Guy or Mike,
Do you have any updates on how the distressed buyer/flippers have been doing lately? I don’t recall the LLC name, but they were the most prolific buyers of foreclosures in Reno for a while. I’m just wondering if, headed into winter, they are now trying to dump their flips on the market now at more reasonable prices.
CommercialLender,
I do not have any data available to report on the success/failures of flippers. Perhaps Mike does.
Mike?
Sully i think you should study money supply. just because the government is printing hundreds of billions of dollars DOESN’T mean all that money is going into circulation.
shadow stats also said we were going to have hyperinflation in the late 90’s !lol
Well, the M3 rate, which isn’t published anymore because Greenspan didn’t think it is necessary, was about 300% of historical nominal the last time I was able to get info. The M3 rate is the amount of money in circulation, is it not?
“Do you have any updates on how the distressed buyer/flippers have been doing lately? I don’t recall the LLC name, but they were the most prolific buyers of foreclosures in Reno for a while.”
I believe it was Page Ventures LLC. I don’t know what they are doing in terms of selling, but I know they are still buying low end properties - at least in Sparks…
MikeZ: “The mortgage delinquency rate in NV is now 14.5%. WOW. This time last year: 7.7%”
September 2009 Nevada Unemployment Rate 13.3%
October 2008 Nevada Unemployment Rate 7.7%
California gets all the national press because the numbers there are so huge. But on a per capita basis, Nevada’s budget shortfall is virtually as bad as California’s. Nevada’s unemployment rate is worse than Califonia’s, as is its mortgage delinquency rate. It is true that Nevada’s numbers are heavily influenced by Las Vegas and Clark County, but the reality is that as goes Clark County so goes Nevada.
Nevada is going to lag any national recovery. Nevada will be one of the last states to see it’s unemployment rate improve. That is not good news considering only Michigan has a worse unemployment rate.
Gaming and sales tax revenue in Nevada overall and in Washoe County have been down now for
21 consecutive months.
Exactly Cooley. I’m (one of the few apparently) who also sees Nevada as worse off than CA. Besides the equal per-capita deficit, tax revenues are still too dependent on (locally dying) tourism. And unfortunately our state government has taken a more heads-in-the-sand approach than CA has…budgets built on over-optimistic projections.
But Steve, maybe the new tourism marketing slogan mentioned today in the local newspaper will save everything. After all, “Reno-Tahoe is far from expected” whatever that means.
I have nothing to say, good or ill, about the new slogan.
I doubt it will reverse the region’s visitor counts, though.