^^ interesting…. This is not my experience at all. Where I live, connecting to public sewers will run less than $10k (my neighbor just did it). Prices must vary widely depending on locale.

I don't think you're being unreasonable at all. Septic failure is a major defect. I would almost certainly walk unless this house is really that special.

Connecting to public sewers, if it is an option, can be very expensive. It depends on the state and the municipality.

While the GC is a very good source of cost information, I would also consult with a septic installation company for firm pricing. This can be a very expensive fix. It could be less expensive depending on whether the old drain field can be rehabilitated or more expensive if a new drain field is needed.

The seller has offered to pump the septic. They should have already done this. That is not a concession. The seller has already been put on notice that the septic, boiler and pool are failing, need replacement or expensive repair and will need to disclose this to another seller. She shouldn't have been so greedy and fixed these issues before marketing the property for top dollar.

Rule #1 of buying homes, never fall in love. There is always another home. Always.

If it were me I would play hardball. Be fully prepared to walk away after making a fair counter offer in light of the deficiencies.

Get pricing for the new septic, along with the pricing for the pool repairs and the boiler replacement. The new kitchen cost is on you. It's a personal preference. Add up everything else, reduce your offer with the corresponding amount. Present the counter offer to seller.

The seller will either counter or walk away themselves.

I would prepare myself to walk. Don't lock yourself into a losing situation. That's a lot of money to toss away. Be prepared to walk. There is always another house. Remember rule #1.

Agree 100% with homechef. My ex and I did that many years ago with our second house. Our seller caved because they knew they'd have to disclose and/or fix the problems. (In our case it was asbestos and also a new septic system.) And it was also in a HCOLA area.

You made the right move. I'd be curious as to what the final selling price for this property will be. Got a link to the listing?

You absolutely did the right thing. Unfortunately, when buying a house, the prospective buyers need to rely on the integrity and reasonableness of the sellers to avoid problems and get to a Win-Win deal. Or, for there to be enough wiggle room in a bargain price (rare these days in hot markets) to deal with problems present or that soon arise.

Your initial descriptions of the seller said "run away fast". You found the deeper you got into the muck, the worse it got. Not surprising.

Good luck, you'll find another as good or better and without the heavy baggage and costs that this place and this seller would have made you deal with.

I agree you did the right thing, particularly with owners unwilling to accept any faults (even smaller ones).

Late to this post, but good for you! I think you made a wise decision. Just wanted to comment that for anybody to inspect the septic the tanks should be pumped so the seller offering to pump is just a joke. Maybe others can comment on this as the pumping part has been my experience with the septic in several purchases.

So do you want the house or not? Why would a new septic be three times what installers get here in Minnesota? The neighbor just got a new one for a three bedroom and was $20K. Our area required mound systems and 100's yards of washed sand must be trucked in to boot so they're more expense then normal in ground drain fields.

$50K to $60K is a joke even in NJ and suggest calling a few installers to find out before accepting the GC's guess. Walk away if you want, or burn some time and then demand a concession on a new septic, they'll negotiate and if not then walk away.

"Why would a new septic be three times what installers get here in Minnesota?"

The OP said they were in a high cost of living area, no surprise as Northern New Jersey is also mentioned. It's safe to assume that costs for most things (building/construction related and most other goods and services too) in that area are higher than any Midwest location, even an urban one.

Lol @lyfia, so the sellers got their septic pumped by way of our inspection? And then tried to say they will get it pumped for us as a concession. They were trying to pull a fast one.

"So do you want the house or not?"

We did want the house, we did not want the $75-100k of repairs that came with it, and were purposely not disclosed to us.

"Why would a new septic be three times what installers get here in Minnesota?"

Why would you not believe her? There are so many reasons a new septic system could be three times the cost of what installers get in Minnesota - not just overall costs of living, but also supply and demand, local regulations, or the specific geography of that location.

I wouldn't expect costs in these two areas to be comparable or even close.

I’m glad you walked away! Definitely not a good feel on this one.

If the septic field is failing, pumping the tank is COMPLETELY meaningless. That doesn’t even make sense. They are two separate things. You can pump the tank till the end of time, but that will have no bearing on a failing septic field (unless their thinking is that when the tank is emptied, you’ll get some time before it actually fills up again, at which time you will need a working septic field to flow into). That one thing alone would make every other problem with this house (and their responses to your concerns ) very scary and sketchy.

Toronto I didn't say I didn't believe her, I said I don't believe the GC and he may be wrong. I don't care what the reasons are for cost differences, and just like you making up excuses without a clue trying to look informed the GC may have did the same thing. But the first thing I'd do is call around and find out.

OK elmer, what is the price of a 3 bedroom septic system in northern N.J.? It's not safe to assume anything, it's a liability! Get the facts before assuming, you do this a lot.

I'm sorry Notnyc, but if you go into negotiations information is essential, so get some qualified estimates and not the assumption of a GC. I just read an article on northjersy.com that in 2012 NJ tightened regulations which requires a failed system must be replaced when a property is transferred. it also stated most lenders won't approve a mortgage in NJ with a failed system before it's replace, and if a failed system is discovered it must be reported to the municipal health department and becomes record. This is leverage in negotiations, because now the failed system is on record, must be disclosed and they're better off dealing with you than trying to re-list the house.

They're in a can of worms and you have the leverage, and IMO you will get them to pay for a new system if you have the information to throw at them to show they're screwed. Just for the record the article stated the cost is $20K to $30K in northern Jersey but to be fair it was the middle of 2016 when written.

I also just speed read through the N.J.A.C. 7:9A STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS for New Jersey and they are no different than here in Minnesota. So If you want the house get the information and present them with a reality check.

kevi9408

they walked! see post from four hours ago: Thanks everyone. We walked yesterday as we were still in the inspection window and the sellers were unwilling to address anything. In my original post I mentioned the septic and pool and boiler being expensive repairs, but there were also a lot of other repairs (that we were willing to take on ourselves). For example, the pool shed was completely destroyed due to termites. It needs to be knocked down and rebuilt. They denied this, saying it's impossible because they're contracted with a pest company. There were so many of these instances, probably ten, that it just left a bad taste for us. The denial and lying did not sit well. We also confirmed that the town would not even issue a certificate of occupancy given the septic condition and we do not want this problem.

@kevin9408….. Just looking at the cost of living, as an example, Jersey City, NJ is 56.8% higher than in Minneapolis, MN and Morristown, NJ is 28.5% higher. NJ is a completely different animal compared to MN.

It stands to reason that everything will cost a bunch more in NJ regardless of whether the septic system is the same or not. Where someone is located in the US will have a major impact on what things will cost.

kevin, it's what nidnay said. No need to repeat it. It's you that assumed that construction related pricing and project costs are the similar from place to place. It isn't the case and never has been. There's no information to have or find, it's common knowledge. I live in a very high real estate and cost of living area, one of dozens in the US. You can probably buy a house for less than I can buy a garage for. You don't want to know what hourly rates are for car mechanics or plumbers.

A friend of mine has an apartment in Manhattan and pays close to $1000 per month for parking for one car. I'll bet houses can be purchased in Minnesota for that amount. You also probably don't want to know what his one bedroom apartment cost, though it's very nice and has a great location. Probably equal to 5 houses or more in your area.

Your point Elmer? I assumed nothing and suggested getting the facts and I know very well the living costs in different cities. Scanning through Northern N.J. homes on Zillow home prices are comparable to where I live but you didn't know this, or did you assume all homes are a million plus in Jersey. I wouldn't live in your city or Manhattan if you paid me and a house in hell is worthless.

Thanks nidnay, I missed that comment wishing I hadn't, and feeling a little foolish right now. Good for her.

Migration patterns for decades have been FROM the Midwest, especially the Rust Belt, to the Sun Belt and to the coasts. Especially from places with long and snowy winters. People move to and retire to where I live, not to Minnesota. That's why prices and costs are high in so many desirably places around the US. Dozens and dozens, but not the upper Midwest.

Everyone can be where they want to be and thankfully tastes vary. Please do stay where you are.

"Migration patterns for decades have been FROM the Midwest, especially the Rust Belt, to the Sun Belt and to the coasts. Especially from places with long and snowy winters. People move to and retire to where I live, not to Minnesota."

Yes, but times are changing...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration#Net_domestic_migration

The Bay Area had a 2.2% exodus last year.

kevin9408

I definitely agree with getting more information. That's actually in my nature to do so. A septic can't truly be quoted until you get an engineer to come out and draw up plans. We did get another rough estimate of the cost from the owner of the inspection company, who knows the size of the house and his number was comparable to what we originally heard. However, since the seller showed no willingness to make this repair under their watch (they believed they didn't need to, even though the town will not issue a certificate of occupancy at closing) we didn't want to drag things out under contract - we were still under the 10 day inspection period so much easier to cancel now. We could have kept quoting the NJ articles, and the township rules, but they were steadfast in not needing to make this repair. It seems like they are misinformed, chose to not listen, but will be stuck with this problem with the next buyer.

I think if we really loved the house and all the other expensive problems weren't there, we might have kept pushing for the septic.

Sounds like you've already moved on.

bry911, migration stats are well publicized and old news. California, and the Bay Area in particular, have long been a destination for those seeking economic opportunities, good jobs/tech jobs and an incomparable lifestyle supported by great weather and diversity of terrain. Nationwide unemployment took a hit from the pandemic and is recovering. California and the Bay Area has fared much better than elsewhere. As far as white collar and professional jobs here are concerned, levels held steady and growing. Much of the outbound migration represents people whose employers have embraced working from home and telecommuting, so they can live in the Sierra, the Wine Country, or even other places and can leave their job-proximity housing behind. Rents have fallen in San Francisco but housing prices remain strong and continuing their upward trend. Unaffordable for first time buyers without high salaries, stock option windfalls or family help, all of which seem to continue to be available.

Times are not changing. Many of today's leavers were yesterday's arrivers. Similar things happened during the dot com boom and bust years of the late 1990s.

Blue collar and lower socioeconomic folks have been hit hard. California is becoming unaffordable for them without long commutes (which is also nothing new, neither in the Bay Area nor in SoCal). Far outlying communities continue to expand.

Unfortunately, it is a case of the haves and have nots. White collar, long term residents (and others with other sources of financial means) are going nowhere.

Except for Elon Musk.

The prevailing local sentiment about Musk is that people love the cars his company makes but think he's an immature buffoon.

Bill Gates has several fabulous homes in the southern part of the state. I suspect he must have something in this area too or in SF.

"sentiment about Musk is that people love the cars his company makes but think he's an immature buffoon."

Yeah, I had to get over my dislike (almost revulsion) of Musk before I bought a Tesla. The company makes great things and I'm sure he's an engineering genius, but he's also kinda crazy (often the flip side of genius) and "immature buffoon" is a good description too.

kevin9408

Good for you. What you haven't been able to factor into the entire purchase is the "unknowns". There are always "unknowns". You discover them usually within the first month of ownership or the first rainfall. They tend to be very expensive.

You did a good job finding the known issues. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are many more issues that would have cost you a lot more money.

Don't be surprised if they return to you a second and third time sweetening their counter. Only you can judge your risk tolerance.

The list of Silicon Valley business founders or execs who came along after company beginnings who have become fabulously wealthy while consistently acting in self-righteous and sociopathic ways is too long to casually list. Musk is one of dozens/hundreds. I suspect there are many other places with people with similar personality disorders who have been extremely successful, perhaps it's just that Silicon Valley has had such a concentration of both types together, people who have enjoyed phenomenal personal wealth creation but at the same time having often extreme social and personality disorders.

"California, and the Bay Area in particular, have long been a destination for those seeking economic opportunities" But Elmer we aren't living in the past and now it's a destination for the nations lazy, drug addicted and mentally deficient lowest class of inbound migration.

Last I checked unemployment numbers only count people LOOKING for employment and don't believe your new class of street people are signed up with the unemployment office.

And few undocumented immigrants are counted in employment surveys and neither are people on government sponsored assistance programs, classes which are abundant in California. So why are you slapping lipstick on this pig?

These classes are not counted in the unemployment numbers, but there is one class exploited to maintain the life style of the upper class white collar worker who could not take care of themselves or even exist without them, as long as they live elsewhere. How thick are your rose colored glasses anyway.

Some people try hard to ignore real information, lest they have to reconsider biases they prefer to have. Your comments are not well informed and have an obvious bias. It's not the first time you've made uninformed comments about things you assume but seem to know little about from a perspective of unfamiliarity and hundreds/thousands of miles away. You're welcome to your views, do stay in Minnesota.

PS - are you sure that none of your ancestors arrived in the US outside of then prevailing legal requirements, as is true for most of us? If so, do you realize whom you are criticizing?

Yes, some people have biased opinions masquerading as real information.

For example, speaking for the rest of the country, no one wants to retire in San Francisco other than people who were born in San Francisco or the one who moved to San Francisco for career. I can further assure you that San Francisco's high cost of living is not really related to its popularity as a premiere living destination.

San Francisco is populated, for the same reason that New York City is, because it has always been populated. It was the starting point of the Western side of the Transcontinental Railroad and eventually the terminus. It was an ideal port for Southern sailing ships bringing goods and workers from Asia, while still being ideal for the Alaskan whalers. San Francisco is 2.5 times larger than Minneapolis, but 100 years ago it was 4 times larger.

San Francisco really hasn't grown extraordinarily fast over the last 100 years. The average U.S. city growth rate is between 3% and 5%. San Francisco has grown at a hair over 2%. It is a major economic hub, because it was founded as a major economic hub.

----

The cost of living in San Francisco has little to do with popularity and a lot to do with the fact that the geography, limited access to natural resources, and difficulty developing infrastructure make it a terrible location for a populated area.

This is actually true for the entire California coast. In the South, Southeast, and Midwest metro areas tend to be smaller but also closer together as there are simply more places with access to great natural resources (navigable waterways). They are also cheaper because infrastructure is cheaper. Dallas-Ft. Worth has about the same population as San Francisco and it is a lovely area with plenty of things to do (evidenced by its high growth rate), it also has a reasonably low cost of living.

----

I know this is a gross generalization, but in my experience people in San Francisco tend to be touchy about their high cost of living. They need to feel that their city is somehow worth it because it is better than other areas, like we are plebs for living in our smaller cities and areas...

If your friends and family live in San Francisco or maybe in New Jersey it worth the high cost of living to stay near them and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't mean the rest of us are jealous of you... we have our friends and our family here with us where we live and we don't need you telling us why we are wrong and you are certainly not better.

P.S. I lived in L.A. for a bit, it was fine, but I don't feel like my life is any less complete because I left it.

Sorry but I'm not sure where any of these fantasies come from. A few quick responses, you don't seem to be interested in real information so I'll just point out a few things:

San Francisco is at the end of a 35+ mile long peninsula. It's about 5 miles by 5 miles, water on three sides. What unbuilt land existed in the 20th century was fully built out with post-WW2 house building. There's nowhere to go, nowhere to grow. Other than up and a few small areas of former port and railroad land along the eastern side that has been repurposed - Oracle Park for the Giants, Chase Center arena for the Warriors, and the UCSF Mission Bay development. All mostly contiguous, former docklands. Population has certainly peaked and may decrease. The city is vital and thriving and that will continue. The Bay Area's population growth in the last 50 years has mostly been in the inland East Bay and the South Bay, where a principally agricultural area (the US's major stone fruit producing area) was transformed into thriving Silicon Valley. With water in the center and hills surrounding the bay flats, there's nowhere to grow but outward beyond the hills.

The western terminus of the transcontinental railroad is not in SF but in Sacramento, about 2 hours away from SF and in the Central Valley (not considered part of the Bay Area). There is Amtrak service to the Bay Area. You can go north to Seattle, south to San Diego, or east to Chicago and points along the way. But you can't take Amtrak to San Francisco. As before, it's at the end of a 35 mile long peninsula and there are no railroad bridges across the bay.

My work and social circles are normal people, only a sprinkling of people of above average financial means, but don't include folks who live paycheck to paycheck. "Touchy about cost of living", is this a joke? I NEVER ever ever hear people talking about cost of living issues. Never. Real estate prices? Yes, usually about how well they're doing personally and how much prices in their neighborhoods have increased

I thought you were an academic? Cost of living is affected by supply and demand. The populated metro centers in my state (and elsewhere) continue to thrive and all have higher prices because of high demand for goods and services. It's where people live because of the availability of jobs and urban amenities. Low cost of living areas also tend to be less appealing areas.

Yes, people who live in California don't tend to leave. They spend their retirement years in place. I'm retired, many of my lifelong work colleagues and clients are retired, no one has moved away. Why? Same reason why California has had so much population growth through migration. Vital and diverse economy, great lifestyle and the best weather in the US, great beaches, diverse and interesting population, lots to do and varied geography to visit and enjoy.

Anyone taking bets on which one of them will persevere and get the last word in?

Haha. I'm done. I'm not sure what motivates people to speculate about real things they're unfamiliar with.

The fantasy is comparing San Francisco/Bay Area to Dallas/Ft. Worth.

San Francisco is one city in the larger Bay Area. There is still room to grow in the Bay Area. You seem obsessed with comparing the city/county of San Francisco with other metro areas, ignoring the balance of the SF area outside SF. Have you ever been there?

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/historical/largecity.htm

San Francisco's population is over twice what Minneapolis is per square mile and both cities are cesspool toilets. but I'm not pumping Mpls as a great place to live, the school system's are horrible for one. I don't live in Mpls and would never consider it and the same for SF. Far away from both is where I prefer in a less populated area.

USDA crop report for 2021 compared to 2020. Dry editable beans - down 29%. Oats - down 37% and lowest production on record. Barely down 37% and lowest production since 1900. Durum wheat - down 50%. Spring wheat down 41%. Rice down 13%. Corn only down 3%. This is just the grains and beans, and don't rely on Canada or Brazil for anything, toast. With the rest of the world buying up everything they can get who knows how much of our grains will be exported without any foresight.

Back to you Elmer, I'm sure you'll have some comments on this real thing you're totally unfamiliar with after a little googling. yep, just another summer isn't it. But if you end up seeing 14,000 people per square mile fighting to get a loaf of bread lets see how your winter and spring ends up.

I thought this thread was about problems with a septic system?

@sushipup1 - Here is the crux of this, and I don't even understand why we are debating this... Elmer said, "Migration patterns for decades have been FROM the Midwest, especially the Rust Belt, to the Sun Belt and to the coasts. Especially from places with long and snowy winters. People move to and retire to where I live, not to Minnesota. That's why prices and costs are high in so many desirably places around the US. Dozens and dozens, but not the upper Midwest."

The bolded parts are factually incorrect.

1. Both, San Francisco and the Bay Area, have seen less than average population increases over the last 50 years. I don't care how you spin this, it is factually wrong. You can come up with every qualifying thing that you want, but it just hasn't grown as fast as the AVERAGE U.S. city.

2. Prices are not high in so many desirable places around the U.S. dozens and dozens. In fact, this statement is actually the opposite of correct. If we look at every U.S. city that meets a rational definition of desirable (positive immigration) then we can conclude that Americans value lower cost of living. As areas with low to reasonable cost of living are the ones with positive net immigration.

Both of these are objective observations and easily testable and I am absolutely correct on both of these.

----

What is only a bit more subjective is my discussion on why cities that are not particularly desirable are expensive. I posit that the reason that many high cost of living areas are expensive and crowded today is because they were expensive and crowded yesterday. It really isn't an earthshattering or particularly controversial observation.

I am not going to continue the back and forth, I attempted to shed some light on why cities don't need to be particularly desirable to be expensive, there is no reason to get wounded about it.

"I attempted to shed some light....."

Good thing I wasn't holding coffee or water when I read this. I've been here for over 40 years and am a native of the state. sushipup lived in the general area for quite some time too. Your pretense that you can add anything insightful with no personal experience and from thousands of miles away can be assessed by readers who want to waste 10 seconds of their time to reach a conclusion more obvious to others than apparently to you.

The latter part of this conversation is relevant to septic systems but some things aren't flushable.

"USDA crop report for 2021 compared to 2020. Dry editable beans - down 29%. Oats - down 37% and lowest production on record. Barely down 37% and lowest production since 1900. Durum wheat - down 50%. Spring wheat down 41%. Rice down 13%. Corn only down 3%."

Now I'm just confused how we got to commodity prices

"Good thing I wasn't holding coffee or water when I read this. I've been here for over 40 years and am a native of the state. sushipup lived in the general area for quite some time too. Your pretense that you can add anything insightful with no personal experience and from thousands of miles away can be assessed by readers who want to waste 10 seconds of their time to reach a conclusion more obvious to others than apparently to you."

This your typical ad hominem attack. You don't argue against my position, you just pretend that I am unqualified to make it. Fortunately I am not alone in making this claim. Several economists have written on this exact same thing recently. In fact, in October of 2020 there was an entire episode of the Freakonomics podcast with economists and others (including San Francisco mayor London Breed) talking about this same thing.

This isn't new ground. We have had a pretty good idea why prices rise in cities despite immigration losses for a long time now.

ETA: Just to be clear, when I post economic theory, I am usually summarizing not theorizing.

@jrb451, Obviously the septic field at the OP's potential purchase failed and a lot of its output has found it here...

@bry911 and @Elmer J Fudd are doing a great job of entertaining us!

Exactly.

My comments concerning bry were about his comments and were not about him personally, which is what ad hominem means. On several occasions when questioned about things he'd said that seemed wrong, he admitted to making up items he had said were "facts". Pure fiction, misrepresented.

This forum doesn't have an ignore feature but it's something I will do in the future.

My comments concerning bry were about his comments and were not about him personally, which is what ad hominem means.

No. It doesn't mean that. It simply discrediting an argument by discrediting the right of the person to make it or delegitimizing the person. You can't be right about my city because you don't live here, is an ad hominem. Whether or not I am correct is independent of whether or not I live in your city.

On several occasions when questioned about things he'd said that seemed wrong, he admitted to making up items he had said were "facts". Pure fiction, misrepresented.

This is just a lie. But it is also a great example of an ad hominem and proof that you just can't help yourself. Its OK, in the years we have been doing this you have never been able to stop.

----

POP QUIZ! (its multiple choice).

QUESTION: If bry911 says something about populations of large cities that you believe is incorrect, you should:

(A) Say bry911 is wrong because he is talking about a city he doesn't live in (ignore the fact that you are in California talking about the cost of living in New Jersey).

(B) Call bry911 a liar, because we are still in 3rd grade.

(C) Find facts that discredit his position.

(D) Both A and B.

ETA: I don't want to bump this thread, but the post from @sushipup1 below is pure hypocrisy. If you are going to pick a side and offer encouragement by participating in the discussion and slamming the like button, then stop pretending to be an innocent bystander. Crawl down off your cross.

Enough already, the "argument" is boring. Just stop it. Please. Just call me the schoolyard monitor.

I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but the OP might be better served by having us show some restraint here and take this argument somewhere else rather than hijack their entire thread.