BloggingRedding.com

Smooth Finish Red Oak

Red oak is a very open-grained wood. It can leave a rather rough finished feel if you just sand, stain, and walk away. Here are some tips that have worked for me that should give you a finish that will feel great to the touch.

Sand your project to 180 grit.
Apply stain with a cloth, working it in by rubbing it. Wipe off the excess.
With the stain still wet, sand the project using 220 grit zirconium oxide (black) sandpaper. This creates a slurry with the sawdust and stain and will help fill in the open grain.
Wipe down the project with a finishing cloth.
Allow to dry.
Apply a coat of polyurethane. Allow to dry and rub with steel wool, or lightly sand with a fine-grit sandpaper.
Apply a second coat of polyurethane. Allow to dry and very lightly rub with steel wool or sand with a fine-grit sandpaper. This is mostly to knock down any bubbles that may have formed with the poly (most usually settle themselves), or any bits of dust/debris that may have settled on the finish.
Apply a coat of paste wax. The wax will fill in any marks from the steel wool. Wax on, wax off – don’t allow the wax to sit 10-15 minutes as the manufacturer may recommend. Buff it like crazy. It will go on hazy, but the more you wipe, the more luster you’ll achieve. Allow this coat to dry, and apply additional coats if you prefer.

Experiment with this technique on a piece of scrap red oak until you’re comfortable doing it on a completed project.

Chris Hill
SPC Woodworking Editor

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

RISMEDIA, August 20, 2010—(MCT)—Facing new penalties if they lowball estimates of upfront mortgage costs, lenders and brokers appear to be coming clean about how much borrowers will pay. As a result, the so-called good-faith estimates that mortgage providers must give to prospective customers show closing costs soaring 36 percent this year, interest-rate tracker Bankrate.com said in a report this week.

The main reason for the increase, according to Bankrate: Lenders are giving more accurate estimates because they now must pay to cover the difference if they underestimate the costs, according to Bankrate.

In other words, the good-faith estimates are, well, being made in better faith.

Before Jan. 1, there was no penalty for giving bad estimates, so lenders battling for mortgage business had more of an incentive to give lowball quotes.

Lenders told Bankrate that actual closing costs rose modestly this year, in part because regulators and loan buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are requiring mortgage firms to do far more fact-checking than during the boom years.

Consumer advocates say the report demonstrates how lenders took advantage of lax regulation during the housing boom by often keeping borrowers in the dark about costs until they were faced with nasty surprises when their loans closed.

“Why is transparency such a challenge for them?” said Alan Fisher, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

According to Bankrate’s survey, which obtained online good-faith estimates for loans of $200,000, estimates of closing costs charged directly by lenders are up 23 percent from a year ago. Estimated charges for third parties such as appraisers and title insurers soared 47 percent.

California was among the highest-priced states in the survey.

The only states with higher fees than California were New York, with costs averaging $5,623, followed by Texas at $4,708 and Utah at $4,605.

Arkansas was the least expensive state, with costs averaging $3,007.

The most expensive component of closing costs was a title search and insurance to protect the lender from the possibility that title is not held free and clear.

These title costs averaged just $1,011 in Arkansas and $1,141 in North Carolina but set Los Angeles borrowers back an average of $2,391 and San Franciscans an average $3,181, Bankrate said.

The increase in estimates of closing costs stems from regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

RISMedia welcomes your comments and questions. Email realestatemagazinefeedback@rismedia.com.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

Cottonwood (Cottonwood – Cottonwood, California, US)
Details

Beautiful home located in Cottonwood on 3+ acres. 3 large bedrooms and 2 nice bathrooms with double vanities plus a 3 car garage. A large enclosed sunroom with ceiling fans is just off the livingroom and boosts great views of the surrounding mountains and oak covered hills. The master suite comes with a private covered patio with views as well as a good sized bathroom with a walk in shower. the property’s landscape was professionally designed and now has mature shade trees and beautiful shrubs. There is a full alarm system that is wired for an automatic entry gate. The Koi pond is just off the enclosed patio and is outstanding with lights and a waterfall. The list goes on with a fenced, raised bed garden area, 3 storage sheds and a dog kennel. The original owners are offering this place to the market for the first time, after years of loving care.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

(Southeast Redding – Redding, California, US)

Details

Large home in Pacific Heights nestled on a cul-de-sac lot on 1/3 acre. Built in 2003, this home features, 4 full bedrooms + an office with a closet and 3 full baths with over 3,000 square feet. Huge kitchen and pantry, 3 car garage. 2 HVAC units make for efficient heating and cooling. Great covered patio to enjoy those summer evenings.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

Shasta (Southwest Redding – Redding, California, US)

Details

Foxwood at Lower Springs Lot #10. Great views of Mt.Shasta in an upscale westside development. Electricity and phone are at the lot line! OWNER WILL CARRY!!!

Offered by Shirlene Bramson of Next Generation Real Estate Services DRE License #01500303.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

Shasta (Northeast Redding – Redding, California, US)

Details

3 bedroom ranch home situated on a large .59 acre city lot! Home features a very usable floorplan with a converted garage for bonus recreation/family room/office. Indoor laundry room, fireplace in living room and slider to large covered patio. Central heating and air conditioning.

Home is a short sale at this price and subject to lender approval but communication is taking place with lenders.

Offered by Clint and Mindy Cronic of Next Generation Real Estate Services DRE license #s 01314114 and 01458166.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

RISMEDIA, August 19, 2010—(MCT)—As director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, Nicolas Retsinas has had a front-row seat for the real estate market’s dramatic boom and bust. After 12 years at the center, Retsinas left the director’s job to teach housing finance at Harvard Business School. He spoke recently with New Jersey’s The Record about why buyers got mortgages they couldn’t afford, and why real estate matters so much.

Were you surprised by the magnitude of the housing bust and how long it has lasted?
Nicolas Retsinas: Yes, by the severity of the housing bust but even more so, how credit just seized up.

When do you see any kind of loosening-up of the credit markets?
NR: I would suspect we’re likely to see the same dominance of the government at least through the balance of this year. One of the big issues facing public policymakers is what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If we want to attract private capital, not only from this country but also global capital, some part of that credit risk has to be borne by the government.

One of the biggest factors in the bust was that credit standards got too easy. Buyers who weren’t qualified got mortgages. Do you have any ideas about why this happened?
NR: In part, people were granted mortgages not on their ability to repay the mortgage, because it was clear that wasn’t going to happen. But there was an expectation that even if they couldn’t pay, the future increase in the value of the property would end up being the collateral for that loan. For a long time, that was a formula that worked. But we reached a point where even with these exotic—what turned out to be toxic—mortgage terms, they just weren’t affordable.

What has been the biggest human cost of the housing bust?
NR: The biggest human cost is the millions of people who have lost their homes. One can look back coldly and say, “Well, maybe a lot of them shouldn’t have bought a home in the first place.” But a lot of people lost their homes the old-fashioned way: they lost their jobs.

Who has benefited from the bust?
NR: Beside the investors who played with different sorts of financial products, I think the key winners probably have been first-time home buyers, who have maybe longed to buy a house but could not afford to. Now we’ve essentially transferred wealth from existing homeowners to new homeowners.

Some observers have been disappointed by the number of homeowners helped by the federal loan modification program.
NR: In defense of the government, when they designed this program 18 months ago, they based it on a premise that the principal problem in the housing market was egregious mortgage terms. And if those mortgage terms could be reset and recalibrated to more typical mortgage terms and could be afforded, through subsidy or whatever means, by the borrower, that would stem the hemorrhage of the defaulted loans and foreclosures.

As we moved into 2009, the problem was less about the subprime loans and more the traditional reason why people have problems making ends meet—which is that they lost their jobs. If you modify the loan so that your monthly payments are only 31% of your income, and your income is zero, that’s probably not going to work. The problem outran the solution.

Will home-price appreciation return anytime soon?
NR: The next couple of months will be an interesting test because we’ve had the withdrawal of the home buyer tax credit. I think we’re likely to have a sort of trawl-along-the-bottom type of recovery, a little bit lumpy for a year or so.

Congress is looking at new financial regulations. What effect are these likely to have on mortgages?
NR: I think it’ll make it more difficult to go back to the Wild, Wild West. There will be a new consumer financial agency, and I think that will be more likely to look at some of these (mortgage) products. I think that’s going to be critical. RE

RISMedia welcomes your comments and questions. Email realestatemagazinefeedback@rismedia.com.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

RISMEDIA, August, 18, 2010—(MCT)—With sweeping financial reform legislation enacted, the White House and Congress now must focus on fixing the mess created by the failed housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s a complex challenge with high stakes for taxpayers and the struggling real estate market.

On Tuesday, key administration officials conferred with about 200 industry executives, affordable housing advocates and other experts about the role the government should play in the nation’s housing finance system. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner asserted that federal involvement still was needed, but he promised “fundamental change.”

“It is not tenable to leave in place the system we have today,” he said, adding that Fannie and Freddie will change dramatically when they emerge from government control.

Pressure is growing to remake or replace the mortgage leviathans, which were seized by the government in September 2008 after huge losses from subprime mortgages put them on the brink of bankruptcy. The bailout has cost U.S taxpayers nearly $150 billion. But lawmakers must tread carefully to keep from further damaging a housing market that Fannie and Freddie almost solely are supporting. The two companies, along with the Federal Housing Administration, collectively guarantee more than 90 percent of all new U.S. home loans.

“Nobody wants to mess up the mortgage market,” said Douglas Elliott, an economics fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank. “And any transition with Fannie and Freddie is going to be fraught with some risk.”

Tuesday’s event came as the second anniversary of the government seizure of the firms approached, a bailout that left taxpayers as 80 percent owners. The administration faces a January deadline, added by lawmakers to the financial reform legislation, to make recommendations to end the expensive federal conservatorship of the firms.

Congress plans to ratchet up its involvement as well, with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., saying his committee will begin hearings when members return next month.

That’s not fast enough for many Republicans, signaling another bitter partisan reform fight. They have been pushing the administration for more than a year to address the mounting losses at Fannie and Freddie by getting the government out of the housing finance business.

“It is past time to rid the American taxpayer of the liabilities of these financial institutions once and for all,” Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said Tuesday as he blasted the Obama administration for continuing the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie begun under President George W. Bush.

But the Obama administration has been moving slowly for fear of further harming the housing market. There was fresh evidence of problems Tuesday as Southern California home sales plunged 21.4 percent in July compared with a year earlier, according to research firm MDA DataQuick of San Diego.

“It’s much more important to get this issue right than to do it fast,” said Michael Berman, chairman-elect of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said the stakes were high not just for the financial system but also for average Americans because of the major investment in their homes.

Donovan said the federal government’s involvement in the housing market needed to be reduced. And Geithner said there was a strong case for a “carefully designed” government mortgage guarantee in the future, a point echoed by panelists at the conference.

There also appeared to be consensus among the participants that any government guarantee needed to be explicit, not murky and implicit like the guarantee that stood behind Fannie and Freddie as private, government-sponsored enterprises before they were seized.

William Gross, managing director of bond fund giant Pimco, said government guarantees were crucial to the housing market, helping keep mortgage rates low.

But there still is major debate about how to structure such a guarantee and what size mortgages it should cover.

“The challenge is to make sure that any government guarantee is priced to cover the risk of losses, and structured to minimize taxpayer exposure,” Geithner said.

Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress and later turned into private, government-sponsored enterprises mandated to expand homeownership with requirements to purchase a set amount of loans made to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

Fannie and Freddie combined hold the credit risk on about $5 trillion in mortgages, and losses from loans made during the housing boom have continued to mount. The Treasury Department has pledged it will cover an unlimited amount of losses through 2012. As of June 30, the department had pumped $144.9 billion into the two companies.

Federal officials have stressed that the losses came from loans purchased before the government seizure and said standards at Fannie and Freddie have tightened significantly since then. And as the housing market has stabilized, the losses at Fannie and Freddie have lessened. Fannie lost $1.2 billion in the second quarter, down from $11.5 billion in the first quarter. Freddie lost $4.7 billion in the second quarter, down from $6.7 billion in the first quarter.

Still, the losses meant the two firms would need an additional $3.3 billion from the Treasury Department, bringing their bailout cost to $148.2 billion.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

RISMedia welcomes your comments and questions. Email realestatemagazinefeedback@rismedia.com.

For more Redding information click here to visit our main Redding Blog, www.ReddingBlogs.com for everything Redding!

RISMEDIA, August, 18, 2010—(MCT)—With sweeping financial reform legislation enacted, the White House and Congress now must focus on fixing the mess created by the failed housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s a complex challenge with high stakes for taxpayers and the struggling real estate market.