|
|
| We've been hearing from the anti-Muskie folks how bad Muskies are for their lakes as well as the property values, so we did a little looking into this and so far it looks like if you have Muskies in your lake on average the property is worth $28,805.00. So congratulations to all those haters who cost themselves and their neighbors a fortune.
Much More to come
Property Values
Edited by Muskiefool 10/29/2011 9:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| And how does that compare to the average property values on non-muskie lakes?
Ok, I looked at your attachment. Muskie lake property is on average worth $28,805 more than non-muskie lake property. Very interesting, but certainly not surprising.
Edited by Fishwizard 10/29/2011 9:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Its all there |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3913
| No muskies in this lake and $29K might cover the cost of my driveway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | 29k was the cost of my lake property 26 years ago. Without Musky in Palmer/Tenderfoot I doubt I'd have built a home on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I looked at the attachment also guys. He's not saying that $28000 is the value of the property, but that property on muskie lakes is averaging $28000 MORE than property on non-muskie lakes. The average values appear to be over $200,000 for both types muskie and non-muskie, he's just pointing out that values are higher, property moves quicker also it appears on muskie vs non-muskie waters.
Great info MuskieFool!! |
|
| |
|
| Awesome info! A little more ammo to use against the "haters". *WHY DO ALL THE "passwords" TO MAKE A POST HAVE TO BE SO HARD TO READ! DRIVES ME NUTS!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Register and login.
Or get a bigger monitor, or hit Ctrl +. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | look at the cash cost of taxes on the same homes vs. losses taken as the real-estate bubble continues to burst. $28k more in market value vs. what? they get to pay 2x the taxes to hold onto it while they try to figure out how upside-down they are in today's market. real-estate/investment/value are words that don't seem to go together so much anymore ... unless you've owned it as long as GMG has.
but, honestly do you really think it's because muskies are swimming in it? what if it were lakers? or any other combination of quality bio-mass???
i get it but holy cow sometimes you guys really stretch the argument beyond logic ... |
|
| |
|
| so an additional 28 grand value on a 250,000.00+ house doubles the taxes and makes you more upside down? you got some mad skills of perception sled. God Bless You........ I'll pay the difference in those taxes. and furthermore you dont have to pay property taxes at all, go live in a card board box and save all those evil taxes. 
Edited by Muskiefool 10/30/2011 12:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | show me the house on prime water that goes for $250k
next, do a search on the tax bill for those homes vs. today's value and then compare it to what it was worth 5 years ago ...
then tell me about all the money that's being made ...
you're a genious ... |
|
| |
|
| I have looked at alot of property here in MN on both Muskie lakes and non Muskie lakes that are equal in other fishing and water quality, beauty etc.. and I completely agree that the Muskie lakes carry a higher price tag and more demand and and seem to be holding their values a little better.
Alot of the people grumbling about muskie stocking have had the cabin in the family for decades and passed down and want to continue to pass it down and they hope to never have to even think about selling so they want their value as low as possible. If their assessed values go up then alot of those people can't afford the property taxes and the gas to get to the cabin. They also don't want more people on their lake etc etc..
All I have to say is boo F'ing Hoo.. The demand for more Muskie fishing opportunities and the money it brings to the small towns in northern MN and Wis far outweighs the $$$ concerns of the people that think they own the lake.. If it is a problem, sell the place and go somewhere else. There are 23,000 other lakes Mn and Wis that don't have evil Muskies in them.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8842
| Muskiefool - 10/30/2011 12:04 PM
so an additional 28 grand value on a 250,000.00+ house doubles the taxes and makes you more upside down? you got some mad skills of perception sled. God Bless You........ I'll pay the difference in those taxes. and furthermore you dont have to pay property taxes at all, go live in a card board box and save all those evil taxes.
Tell that to the Vilas County Tax assesor's office. There's nothing but trees on my lot and I'm still paying a pretty substantial property tax bill every year. And Sled is ABSOLUTELY correct - Real Estate vaues chave changed in the Northwoods - down by about 30% in the last 4 years. If you bought in the last 7-8 years, and if you sell now (that is presuming you CAN sell it), you're still going to lose a hefty chunk of change. Even if you paid cash, you're looking at a loss that amounts to most folks annual salary. If you have a mortgage? All said and done, over a hundo just to get out from under it.
All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion, however.
You have to look at WHY real estate is more expensive on those lakes. While we'd all like to think it's because of muskies in the lake, there aren't enough muskie anglers to affect real estate prices for one. Second of all, the folks who are buying these lakefront homes? Not sure about your area, but in my area of Vilas, these are NOT ordinary joes. Not by a long shot. These are business owners, CEO's, people who are wealthy by anybody's measuring stick. And they don't care what is IN the lake. They care about what's ON the lake, and the size of that lake. For a lake to support a substantial muskie fishery, in most cases, it has to be larger and deeper, or connected to bodies of water that are. And that's your real estate premium right there. It just so hapens that the lakes that are most desireable to people also happen to be the lakes likely to support a population of muskies. Then you have to look at accessability, whether the lake has a public launch, what sort of topography bulders have to deal with, zoning restrictions, covenants, fire service, waste management... What are the lot sizes? How much development is on the lake? What direction do these properties face? What sort of septic systems are allowed? How is the tap water? Are there invasives in the lake? What about mercury? Is the lake clear or stained? Is it weedy? There are just too many other factors going into lakefront real estate prices, factors that are important to everyone whether they fish or not, to presume that the presence of muskies has any effect whatsoever on the value of those properties.
Edited by esoxaddict 10/30/2011 1:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Do you think the average John Q. Public really cares if there are muskies in the lake they are looking to purchase lake property? Doubtful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Who purchases vacation property on lakes? Often times fishermen. What is the area of freshwater fishing that is growing the most? Muskie fishing.
MN unlike WI has a very limited amount of waters that have muskies so therefore there should be a larger demand for waterfront property that has muskies. I have several friends that have purchased waterfront cabins and the determining factor of which lakes they looked at was muskies. Now it isn't going to matter in the majority of cases, but if there's a 10% increase in demand for a muskie lake vs. a non-muskie lake that's $25,000 on a $250,000 house. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Most would just call it scramblin' ... A for effort tho. LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | I think the point is that a majority of people against muskies point to the negative effect that muskies will have on a fishery for a variety of reasons. When you see that property values on lakes with muskies are at the same level or higher than those that do not have muskies, what does this tell us? I agree that there are many more factors than just muskies. But it sure points to the fact that muskies aren't going to have the detrimental impact that many try to make people believe. To those that try to paint that picture, where is the evidence that backs up their claims?
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 342
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | You should be able to appeal your tax rate or assessed value for a drop in value of 30%. That could save you thousands of $$$ a year to buy more muskie baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8842
| AWH - 10/30/2011 4:58 PM
I think the point is that a majority of people against muskies point to the negative effect that muskies will have on a fishery for a variety of reasons. When you see that property values on lakes with muskies are at the same level or higher than those that do not have muskies, what does this tell us? [...] Aaron
AWH, there are two factors at work here in my opinion:
1. Those folks actually believe that the presence of muskies in their likes WILL have a negative impact on their fisheries. Where is the evidence of that? I'd suspect most of them can't present any. And they don't need to. That belief, true or not, is very common among anglers of other species. It could be overharvest, but nobody wants to believe that their Friday night fish fry is the case of the decline in other species. It could be a natural cycle in the system, a few year classes experiencing a major die-off, for example. But it's far easir to blame those #*^@ muskies.
2. It's been my experience in dealing with my own lake association, that the REAL reason that these folks are oppsed to muskies in their lakes is that they don't want muskie ANGLERS on their lakes. That opinion is much more prevalent than any of us want to believe. I've heard it all - too many boats at the launch, too many out of state anglers (sound familiar?) the big rangers with the loud motors, people flinging muskie lures around their boat and their dock. For many, I think if you could quietly sneak muskies into the lake and not bring the likes of US along with it, they'd me much more excited about the idea. Thankfully I am in a muskie friendly area, which is mostly a product of local history and lore. But even in my area there is an animousity towards the muskie angling public at large.
But few are willing to admit that, and even fewer will admit to it publicly. So they paint a different picture. Muskies are bad, they eat all of our walleyes.
Back to property values... I supect there are the crazy few who bought their properties based on whether there are muskies present. But I still think it's a pretty big stretch to say that muskies are affecting the property vaules. Our lake association has a few avid muskie anglers. The rest bought there because development is low, the lake is clear, and it's one of the larger lakes in the area.
Of course we've got 100 muskie lakes within an hour, so it might just be different in an area with relatively few lakes.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| lakes that effectively hold muskies are typically healthier lakes and are usually better walleye fishing lakes as well as other species. It takes a healthy lake to hold muskies and muskies keep the lakes healthier as well! in my opinion. Probably a good reason why these properties are worth more being on higher quailty bodies of water! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I'll suggest it has little to do with muskies, but what type of body of water it is. A lake that holds muskies very well be a more appealing body of water due to size, depth, type of frontage, etc. The pool of musky fishermen/home buyers that would have their buying decision affected by whether muskies are in a lake would be so small as to be statistically meaningless.
Show me some figures of properties on two almost identical lakes with identical frontage, one with muskies and one without, and your figures would have more meaning. That's a paired sales analysis.
It's possible it makes a difference, but the way you're going about it is too general. It is interesting that you think the figures "defiantly" show a difference.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MuskyHopeful - 10/31/2011 12:52 PM
I'll suggest it has little to do with muskies, but what type of body of water it is. A lake that holds muskies very well be a more appealing body of water due to size, depth, type of frontage, etc. The pool of musky fishermen/home buyers that would have their buying decision affected by whether muskies are in a lake would be so small as to be statistically meaningless.
Show me some figures of properties on two almost identical lakes with identical frontage, one with muskies and one without, and your figures would have more meaning. That's a paired sales analysis.
It's possible it makes a difference, but the way you're going about it is too general. It is interesting that you think the figures "defiantly" show a difference.
Kevin
Quit trying to be so smart! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's the pizza. Brain food for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Real estate. The only thing I know anything about.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Back to property values... I supect there are the crazy few who bought their properties based on whether there are muskies present. But I still think it's a pretty big stretch to say that muskies are affecting the property vaules. Our lake association has a few avid muskie anglers. The rest bought there because development is low, the lake is clear, and it's one of the larger lakes in the area."
We just had one lot open up on Palmer about 1.5 years ago, owner was asking $385,000.00 for 500' of frontage and 2.125 acres. Some lady from California bought it without ever seeing it. Has zero clue what fish are in it. Price? $245,000.00. Bought it as an investment with no thought to building on it. Pretty ballsy I'd say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Wow thats cheap for 500', here that would cost you a couple mil....Going rate now is around $10K a foot of lakeshore....Was up around $15K a few years ago.... Bare lot, 75' shoreline in the paper last week, $650K...And this is in Iowa.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8842
| Those prices aren't really that far out of line, believe it or not. In my area of Vilas, you'll pay about $1,200 per linear ft of frontage and/or $160k/acre just for the land. Add a house to that and you're in the range of $450-$700k. Nowhere near what is was 3-4 years ago, but it's still not cheap. |
|
| |
|
| These are paired analysis from a broker in north central MN, I have every listing with photos; many of the lakes with Muskies present the listing states "Muskie Lake", "THIS CABIN IS LOCATED ON CLEARED LOT ON ONE OF THE AREA'S PREMIER MUSKIE LAKES!", "Sunfish to Muskies abound in this great fishery." or "premium lake and priced to sell! Can anyone say MUSKY FISHING!". This is not a Wisconsin deal where there are far more Muskie lakes. In MN Muskie lakes represent just over 100;and WI has 780+ Lakes and Rivers.
All of the lakes in this area sampled are similar; all have the same fish aside from Muskies. This doesn't not include any of the super lakes such as Mille Lacs, Miltona or Vermilion. There was statements in the Star Trib a few years ago how in one area Muskie opener was bigger money wise than Memorial or Walleye opener. These economic impacts are important because they show that the fish being present is not doing any damage and its quite simply the opposite. This is one piece of a huge puzzle that no-one has addressed to date. |
|
| |
|
| http://realestatetwincities.net/muskie-lakes/ http://realestatetwincities.net/muskies-milfoil-and-minnetonka/ http://www.customboardwal
il-and-minnetonka/ http://www.customboardwalks.com/forsale-lake-miltona/170.html http://www.trulia.com/property/42313990-2481-N-Lake-Milto
www.trulia.com/property/42313990-2481-N-Lake-Miltona-Dr-NE-Miltona-MN-56354 Just
a few examples of Muskies not detracting from home sales..MN is full of them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Minnetonka real estate is driven by muskies? You're seriously using tonka
as a comparison of home value and claim vs non-musky lakes?
Edited by jonnysled 10/31/2011 5:21 PM
|
|
| |
