First time out of state investor looking for advice!
I'm a home owner in California and looking to invest in Seattle area for rental properties. Cashflow is relatively straight forward and easier to calculate, so I find myself mostly struggling with the evaluation on property appreciation potential.
I wonder whether some of the same play book items in CA still apply in WA and if not, why not and wo what extent.
For example:
1. Land appreciates and house generally depreciate. Therefore the larger land, the better.
2. School district comes first. It takes many years to build up a good school district and it stays relatively stable.
3. Commute comes next. Good school district appreciates first and most, then the neighborhood with great commute but worse schools (with families sending kids to private schools as an option).
Also, I happen to notice that the ratio on foreclosures seems to be a lot higher in Seattle than in North CA. Does it mean anything to investors?
Would love to hear your view on it!