Since we have been covering real estate, in general and in specific states, an increased amount of vacancies is one result of the housing crash in 2007 we have mentioned. Not only vacancies of old properties, however, but also of newly-constructed buildings, commercial or residential. Although vacancies have increased and cut into the construction industry in many parts of the country, especially in areas that experienced a large housing bubble, Connecticut’s rate has increased since 2000.

Over the past 10 years, more than 100,000 properties were built in the state and have turned into a surplus. As the Hartford Courant mentions, the state has 32,500 more vacant properties than it did 10 years ago, a 39-percent increase. Most are apartments and homes waiting for renters, as, the article explains, buyers purchased too many properties too quickly and have turned to renting in order to make mortgage payments. Additionally, finding renters is easier than looking for buyers in the present market.

At the same time, the demand for renting in the state has also decreased, as students, upon finishing school, aren’t going off to start independent lives.

But even older homes are going unsold on the market, and those who have since moved are stuck with their older properties.

Connecticut real estate is actually doing better than other markets across the country. In California, for instance, home vacancies increased from 1.4 percent in 2000 to 2.1 percent in 2010; for rentals, these figures changed from 3.7 percent to 6.3 percent. These figures may be the result of those looking for work out of state or the growing immigrant populations.

Las Vegas is in far worse condition. Prices dropped 58.1 percent since 2008, and more than 70 percent of homes are presently underwater. A boomtown over the past decade, Las Vegas is now considered the second-worst housing market, just above Detroit.

How much of an influence do you think the federal government should have in the real estate market? In anticipation of another housing crash, both Democrats and Republicans came to the conclusion last week that taxpayers should not be responsible for homes priced above the national average:

Michael S. Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities. “There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,” said Mr. Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. “But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.”

According to the article from Yahoo News, the federal government backed nine out of 10 mortgages last year, but not everyone is convinced about the lack of government backing. As mentioned in the article, this action might shrink the pool of buyers, could lead to higher-cost loans and a private mortgage market, and might bring in fewer buyers for higher-cost properties. Additionally, those in higher-priced neighborhoods feel as if they are being penalized and are afraid of not being able to sell their homes.

At the same time, legislation granting authority and guidance to federal and state banking regulators was proposed in the House this week. The Representatives behind this legislation believe that more authority can create a stable housing sector, especially as lower-priced homes ($150,000 and below) are popular with both cash buyers and investors. As we have mentioned on here, sales overall are rising, but prices are dropping. A better-regulated housing market, one that keeps pace with inflation, could bring up prices over time.

Buying a home is an already-risky investment, but what if this becomes part of your career, or at least a side job? Called “flipping,” this process of buying homes, rehabilitating them, and then selling them for a profit put many investors in hot water when the real estate market crashed in 2007. But, according to a recent Chicago Tribune piece, practices have changed since then, and buying houses – now often foreclosures – may not be as much of a risk. In fact, real estate professionals are even holding seminars about flipping houses.

What’s different now? As the Tribune reports, buyers six years ago would pre-purchase homes in some cases – the properties weren’t even built yet – and then sell them for a profit. Once the market collapsed, however, these buyers were left with properties that they neither could afford nor sell.

Flipping, in the present, is not as much of a risk, and investors appear to be more careful in their approach. Presently, foreclosures are the properties of choice, and after making some minor improvements to the property, the investor puts it up on the market and tries to sell it in a couple of months. Although, as the Tribune article explains, the profits are not as large, flippers sell more properties per year than before and pay with cash or have backing from investors.

Flipping with foreclosures is still a risk, however. As many properties are sold at auctions, the buyer does not have the opportunity to see the home beforehand. The buyer, in this case, could end up with a home only needing a paint job – or he could end up needing to repair foundation or cleaning out mold.

If you plan to start flipping properties, purchasing foreclosures is not something to be done on a whim. Instead, have a plan for selling the property as quickly as possible and understand that the home will seldom be in pristine condition.

In terms of Connecticut real estate, we have touched on a few major points: increasing prices in the western part, decreasing prices (and correlating economic growth) in the eastern counties, and failing commercial real estate in Hartford. Brownfields, additionally, are a significant part of Connecticut real estate, recently discussed by the Connecticut Law Tribune. Although fewer commercial and residential properties are being built, brownfield sites bring up another question: What do you do with semi-usable properties that need significant rehabbing?

Brownfield sites, as the Law Tribune piece explains, are underutilized because of potential contamination from previous onsite activities. “Onsite activities,” however, range from former brass factories in Waterbury to the former Meriden Hub, an urban mall that closed in the early 1990s. The challenge with any brownfield is making the area usable for future development, which can eventually bring more jobs and tax revenue to faltering cities like Meriden and Waterbury.

The cost to investigate the site’s contamination and to clean it up in order to meet state environmental laws may end up being higher than the final going price for the property, however.

Cleaning up brownfields in the state appears to be a long-underfunded endeavor, although cleanup is not impossible. Brownfield sites, according to a 2007 Hartford Courant article, can turn into positive and beneficial locations, such as Pfizer or the Norwalk Aquarium. Nevertheless, getting this piece of Connecticut real estate up to par is a significant hurdle, in funding, cleanup, and planning:

Most of the funds to implement a new brownfields remediation program have been stripped from the budget.

The money must be restored. The essence of smart growth is development in already built areas, such as town centers or transit corridors, to take the pressure off dwindling green space in the countryside. Many town centers once were the sites of mills or factories. Smart redevelopment can’t happen until these sites are cleaned up so they can be used again.