So I was reading every known real estate section again and came across this story about people who bought and are living in mid-rise and high-rise condo complexes. Read on:

Barbara Sanz has never missed a mortgage payment, but the plunge in real estate is punishing condominium owners like her anyway.

Four years ago, she bought her first condo in a glassy new Miami tower when the building was filling up. Now nearly one in six residents in the 43-story building is battling foreclosure and their contributions to the building association are shrinking. Each of the remaining owners has had to chip in an extra $1,000 assessment and $50 more a month for cable and Internet. That is on top of Ms. Sanz’s $450 monthly maintenance fee.

Even though she pays more, her building has broken washers and dryers and unusable exercise equipment, and her hallway is spotted with mold.

“It’s not fair,” said Ms. Sanz, a 32-year-old event planner. “The first two years, I enjoyed all of the benefits of living in a condo. I’m disappointed now. I hate the way the building looks.”

Apparently since there are so fewer owners, property operators are doing anything to cut costs, including dimming lights, condo owners mowing lawns and taking shifts as security officers.

It’s a symptom of the foreclosure crisis and the slow housing market. And, honestly, if the new buildings are looking worse for wear and the tenants are doing all the chores — would you want to buy there? Me, neither.

I can’t buy a house, so  I have to look for whatever satisfaction I can find. And I found this.

The game, created for the Windows world by HipSoft, came out late last year. Red Marble Games rejiggered it for Apple computers, and a demo version has become one of the most downloaded games on Apple’s Web site  since it made its debut there in late February.

For those who play more than a few computer games, “Build-a-lot” is akin to the popular “Sim City” collection. Those games let folks craft entire cities. “Build-a-lot,” in comparison, is much more on the neighborhood block level. A “Build-a-lot” player gets cash, building supplies, a work crew and some real estate to start out with — plus development and cash flow goals to reach in a set time period.

The weird thing, is there are several programs out there that let you be a virtual tycoon, including Mansion Impossible, where you flip houses (and which I profiled last year) and Google has a 3-D modeling program, SketchUp that allows you to sketch and create rooms, homes or communities. (There’s also this very girly–and pink!–game probably better-suited for the younger folks, aptly named Pink Mansion Makeover.)

Personally, I’m a fan of The Sims, which has always allowed you to create your own homes (and furnish and populate them. The screenshot is from the game.) Do you think the proliferation is a result of the housing boom, or the housing bust? Either way, you can still plan your house now.

Hi, all. I have been getting your emails and messages asking about what happened with the Jade condo (Oakland) and Vista Del Mar (Pittsburg) auctions last weekend.

I’m sorry to say, I didn’t go because I like a day off now and then. So, I called them on Tuesday. Then Wednesday, then Thursday and then today, which is Friday.

Ken Stevens, CEO of Accelerated Marketing Partners, based out of Danville. has been hard to pin down but I finally caught up with him on Friday afternoon. But don’t expect him to be very forthcoming:

“At Jade, we sold 21 homes for $7.6 million,” he said, which would add up to the average condo selling for $361,904 — but realize some much higher and some bought closer to the minimum bid.

Me: Why only 21? Weren’t there more than 30 on the block?

KS: The seller decided he was going to hold back some homes for sale. … We sold three of those today to some of the unlucky bidders. … At Vista Del Mar, we sold 27 homes for $12.3 million. (That’s $455,555.55 a house, which may or may not be a buy in Pittsburg, but you be the judge.– b.)

Me: Again, wasn’t there more than 40 on the block?

KS: Yes, but some were in contract and closed escrow during the four weeks of marketing.

Me: So can you give me an idea on the prices?

KS: Oh, Barb, you know I don’t want to go into that … I’d say the prices went 10 to 30 percent higher than the minimum bid. But someone (at Vista Del Mar) went up to 142 percent! …  Oh, but I don’t want that in the paper, it might scare some people off.

Me: But certainly that’s the exception, right? Most people don’t go that high.

KS: Depends on the room. If the excitement level is high …

So, now you get if straight from the horse’s mouth.  And I’m sorry I can’t be of more help. If anyone was at these auctions, feel free to comment. It sounds like the Vista Del Mar was a circus. Stevens said that people were jumping up and down and bidding like crazy. Not the best way to get a deal.

It’s time for our Broken Dream Home feature, where we unleash our frustration on the market on a poor, hapless soul who bought into the feverish buyer market of the last three years. Today’s broken dream home is a beauty in Vacaville: a 4-bedroom, 2.5-bath, 2,663-square-foot Edwardian charmer sitting on the market for 203 days (that’s almost 7 months.) It’s only been reduced once, on Nov. 13, from $749,000 t $719,000.

I think its time on the market says that no one will pay that price for the house. The owners sure didn’t in 2006.

Doing my research via PropertyShark and Ziprealty, I found that the house was bought April 14, 2006 for $699,000 by the family that now owns it. The family before that bought the home in 1996 for $240,000, which almost tripled in 10 years. They made out like bandits.

I don’t think it will be the same outcome for the current residents who look likely to lose money on the home. However, if you do buy the house, there’s a chance you may get your own weenie dog (dachshund) to guard the back yard.

 The various economic eggheads of the world (Moody’s, Case-Shiller, etc.) estimate about 4 million families, or 1 in 12, owe more than their house is worth. So, why don’t lenders acknowledge that and lower their mortgages? Whoa, Nelly, that’s not a popular topic. Read on from the WSJ:

In ordinary times, a lender shouldn’t need prodding from the government to do what’s in its self-interest. But these aren’t ordinary times. . . . No one in Washington wants to help the “speculators” who bought homes they don’t live in or those who lent to them.

[In Rep. Barney Frank’s plan] the lender takes a hit, but gets rid of the risk that house prices will keep falling or the borrower will default on a new loan; the government picks up that risk. . . . The homeowner has to surrender some profits, if any, to the government when the house is sold.

The White House condemns this as a “bailout” and says it won’t work.

As Mr. Wessel points out, when the U.S. Department of Treasure reported in a presentation, “‘Homeowners who can afford their mortgage but walk away because they are underwater are merely speculators.’” … It’s a bit jarring to hear the Treasury vilifying people who are acting in their economic self-interest.”

Although convoluted, I think the plan has merit. But my worry is that the government, our government, doesn’t work well with convoluted. I think we’ve had example after example of how that doesn’t work.

Yes, we’ve talked about it before, but we revisit the buyer incentive again — this time builders/developers offering a price guarantee to push would-be home buyers off the fence. Read on:

LIVERMORE — In the housing industry builders and buyers have been at a stalemate. Who wants to buy when the price might go down? And while builders need to sell their homes, they also needed a way to convince buyers. So in this game of chicken, builders have pulled off the road and are offering price guarantees to sweeten the deal.

While other builders like KB Home and Taylor Morrison will lower the price of a home if it sells for less to someone else before the close of escrow, other companies are going further to get people off the proverbial fence.

Apparently, Signature Properties is attempting a two-year price “guarantee.” Is it worth it? I think not. There are too many caveats to the two-year guarantee: the guarantee only works with a home sale within two years, if the local office is still open and offering the same home plan and provided the seller can supply original paperwork with the resale price.

And, as PPIC research fellow, Jed Kolko points out, the point is moot if the company goes under. So, at best, it’s a minimal guarantee and shouldn’t be enough to make you buy a home — only slightly influence your decision, as it did with the woman in my story, Pamela Puro.

Puro decided on the two-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath town home because of the location, and was attracted to the floor plan which gave her plenty of storage and a bathroom on the main floor so guests don’t have to travel upstairs. While the Live Secure program was an added value, she said she bought the home because it made sense for her.

“It sounded nice, but I was really already going down that road,” she said.

I came across this story in the Washington Post about people trying to sell their condominiums in a down market and not having much luck. So, they decide, what the heck — let’s rent it out! And then the frustration ensues:

Now Moss, 33, wants to find a tenant for her condo while she waits out the economy. But the condominium association allows only 20 percent of the units to be leased at once, so Moss is on a waiting list. If she tries to rent the unit without permission, she could face a $500-a-month fine.

The rental restrictions are also meant to guard against the condo being viewed as a risky investment by lenders who believe that buildings with a high concentration of rentals are harder to market to home buyers. Fannie Mae will not guarantee a loan for a condo in which renters make up more than 49 percent of the occupants.

There could be some remedies ahead, the FHA is looking to loosen the 51 percent restriction on renters — which is good for those landlords, but maybe not such good news for the people there still living in their property.

Any ideas how HOAs can be fair while not hurting those already living in their condos?

I’m sure you saw this on Inside Edition, the Los Angeles Times or even WSJ. We are all a big too into schadenfreude, are we not? Oh, yeah, we are. I feel better cashing in my plastic bottles to buy groceries if I know that Jose Canseco is living in a modest house and owes $2.5 million to Washington Mutual. Read on and on:

“I do have a judgment on my home and it to me is very strange because it didn’t make financial sense for me to keep paying a mortgage on a home that was basically owned by someone else,” he said in an interview that aired Thursday.

“I live in a much smaller home. I’ve got way less than I had before,” Canseco told INSIDE EDITION’s Jim Moret. 

Jim Moret asked Canseco, “Are people thinking, ‘Hey if this can happen to Jose Canseco, it can happen to me’ ?”

“It’s happening to anyone and everyone,” was Canseco’s answer.

Maybe his new book, Vindicated, will help him pay the rent.

Interesting piece in the WSJ about stats from First American CoreLogic, which tracks mortgages and exotic loans. It turns out that those who used the option-ARM, which allows borrowers to pick their monthly payment (usually no interest, interest-only or full amortized payment — guess which one most people chose?) may be more toxic than “subprime loans.” No surprise here, but read on:

Nationwide, delinquencies on subprime loans — at about 28% as of February, according to First American CoreLogic– remain much higher than for option ARMs. But recent reports from mortgage securitizations suggest that subprime delinquencies have started going bad at a lower rate while delinquencies on option ARMs are speeding up.

Unlike subprime loans, which went to people with weak credit, option ARMs were generally given to borrowers considered to be lower-risk. But lending standards weakened in recent years and many borrowers now have little or no equity. Many lenders reduced the teaser rates on these loans as home prices climbed, making them appealing to borrowers looking to make the lowest monthly payment possible.

As you can see, California has probably the biggest chunk of these loans, many from Countrywide, Washington Mutual and Wachovia, according to the article.

Yes, it may sound familiar to you faithful readers, about Perata’s mortgage and foreclosure relief bill currently in the Assembly, but here it is:

In Oakland, you can see a house or two in foreclosure and it’s obvious right away,” he said, saying the bill was an important step to preventing further deterioration of neighborhoods. “It’s like watching a house burn and you can’t do anything about it.”

Perata said that the bill gives local governments the ability to put liens on the property until it’s maintained. That means if the property owners, whether a bank or investors or a mixture of the two, do not clean up the property they could lose the property to the city or county.

“Cities and counties could be in the housing business,” he said.

 Well, I thought that was an interesting point of view. Cities or counties owning some of these foreclosures … hmmm. Start dream sequence … OK, end it. I’m not sure that will happen, but perhaps it’s enough of a threat that the foreclosure owners may start maintaining them. Ideas, anyone?