Real Estate ballot recap: Arden-Arcade remains city-free and marijuana stays illegal

Now that the first Tuesday has passed and the polls are closed, let me give a few comments about real estate-related measures and propositions on the ballot yesterday in the Sacramento area.  

Measure D: A vote on Arden-Arcade Cityhood
Residents voted very strongly against the Arden-Arcade area of Sacramento becoming a city. Based on conversations with residents and signage over the past two months, it seemed like the “no” vote was strong, but it was actually overwhelmingly strong with 76.05% of the vote against cityhood. The most recent areas in Sacramento County to become cities have been Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights & Elk Grove, but Arden-Arcade will not join their ranks anytime soon.

A blog post on the “Stay Sacramento” website today says the following:

In a lopsided win, Measure D went down to a sounding defeat with gathering only 23% of the vote to an overwhelming 76% of voters who said no to this risky venture. It was a passionate fight on both sides but the majority vote won out to prevent another layer of government coming to our region. Today it is time to forge forward and work together to make our communities better. We hope those who supported Measure D will join us in our efforts.

Proposition 19: Legalization of Marijuana.
This proposition did not pass, so I suppose I’ll continue to see more tomato and cucumber plants in backyards of properties I inspect instead of cannabis. 58.97% of voters said “no” to the legalization of marijuana. Speaking of pot, I just looked up half-a-dozen local pot house comps for a local Realtor who recently listed a former “growing facility” in a nearby community. Would you purchase a house that was formerly used for marijuana cultivation?

Any thoughts on the propositions above or any others that you feel impact real estate?

Comments

    • says

      Tom, I put this question out to a couple Realtor friends. Hopefully they’ll get back to me with an answer. I’m not sure from a real estate agent end, but I do know my end would very clearly state the history of the property. I have found agents saying things like, “former growing facility” and things of that nature in MLS. Or sometimes agents I have spoken with have disclosed these details over the phone (while the information was not in their listing).

      I don’t want to give the impression that we have a huge pot house problem in the Sacramento area (though it has definitely been an issue, particularly in Elk Grove). I don’t think that’s the overwhelming case. However, we’ve definitely seen some media attention to the issue in surrounding cities over the past several years in particular.

      According to News 10, a local station, in April 2010, these houses were raided (I mention this to show the magnitude of plants seized in these operations):

      · 8208 Cliffe Way, Sacramento (372 marijuana plants seized)
      · 1782 Highbridge Way, Sacramento (807 marijuana plants seized)
      · 150 Stone Valley Circle, Sacramento (993 marijuana plants seized)
      · 7901 Scottsdale Drive, Sacramento, CA (80 marijuana plants seized)
      · 5415 Elderdown Way, Sacramento (944 marijuana plants seized)
      · 9244 Earl Fife Drive, Elk Grove (513 marijuana plants and 624 clone marijuana plants seized)

      By the way, with crime information like this made public, it might be one relevant way to find “growing facility” comparbles for an appraisal if an MLS search is coming up blank (of course assuming these houses were sold on the open market afterward).

    • says

      As an FYI, regarding disclosing pot houses to buyers, a Realtor/broker contact got back to me and he says, “The answer is, “it depends.” A person does not have to disclose anything, but they also can be sued for something discovered after the fact 🙂 Any legal counsel will tell you, “if in doubt, always disclose.” So I would say the same thing as a broker/Realtor.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*