[vegaseaglesfan1]

Are there any older neighborhoods in the Las Vegas area where the homes are reasonably priced that have no HOA's? I'm looking in the Desert Inn area perhaps.

[demoknite]

What is your aversion to an HOA? I could understand in some leafy Des Moines suburb, but in LV they are almost a must.

[MollieW]

With repos and foreclosures you really NEED to have a HOA to protect your property values!

[irishspy]

Yes there are homes off DI some are nice and well kept but the further you go down those streets the more messy the houses are because of no HOA. I suggest a good realestate agent they can find places much more easier than you trying on your own.

[Scott456]

when I was looking for a house in Vegas a couple years ago, I look both non-HOA neighborhood and HOA neighborhood. My conclusion is that HOA neighborhood usually look cleaner (i.e. no oiled driveways, no broken furniture sitting outside...etc).

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by vegaseaglesfan1

Are there any older neighborhoods in the Las Vegas area where the homes are reasonably priced that have no HOA's? I'm looking in the Desert Inn area perhaps.

There are many areas where homes without HOAs can be found. It is a field in the MLS. Any agent can set you up with a search that provides only the nonHOA homes.

If you want to finance "reasonably priced" is difficult. That is what the investors want and they will pay cash. Best bet is HUD or Homepath Homes where owner occupancy is required. Still can be competitive though.

[von949]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Best bet is HUD or Homepath Homes where owner occupancy is required. Still can be competitive though.

Don't know about HUD but Homepath is the best thing going in the valley. The 30 days of "Primary Home owners ONLY" time frame is great. That is the only way we got this home. Investors would have loved our place.(low priced, new build, over 2000 sqft, non fixer upper)

Every home that hits the MLS should be for primary home owners only, for at least a couple of weeks. Then let the investors have at it.

[BBMW]

^
The sellers wouldn't like that. They want the highest price, and probably appreciate the all cash deals. And remember, the brokers, and by extension the MLS, work for the sellers.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by BBMW

^
The sellers wouldn't like that. They want the highest price, and probably appreciate the all cash deals. And remember, the brokers, and by extension the MLS, work for the sellers.

Not true. Buyers agents work for the buyer pretty much. Sub-agency is pretty much non existent in the west. The Buyers Brokerage is in fact paid by the Seller's brokerage...not the seller.

[Scott456]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Not true. Buyers agents work for the buyer pretty much. Sub-agency is pretty much non existent in the west. The Buyers Brokerage is in fact paid by the Seller's brokerage...not the seller.

Every agent work for him/herself. Buyer agent works for him/herself, and in the best interest of him/herself, not the buyer. And yes, the seller, not buyer, pay the commission.