| Summary | National Percentile | Rank vs Metro |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 18th | Poor |
| Demographics | 57th | Best |
| Amenities | 15th | Good |
Multifamily Valuation
| Property Details | |
|---|---|
| Address | 211 Woolsey St, Sackets Harbor, NY, 13685, US |
| Region / Metro | Sackets Harbor |
| Year of Construction | 1984 |
| Units | 24 |
| Transaction Date | --- |
| Transaction Price | --- |
| Buyer | --- |
| Seller | --- |
211 Woolsey St, Sackets Harbor Multifamily Investment
Positioned in a rural Jefferson County submarket, this 1984 garden-style asset competes against older local stock and serves a stable renter base, according to WDSuite’s CRE market data. Neighborhood metrics point to balanced rent-versus-own dynamics that can support steady leasing while requiring disciplined asset management.
Sackets Harbor sits within the Watertown–Fort Drum, NY metro and functions as a quiet, rural neighborhood with limited amenity density. Grocery access is moderate for the area, but cafes, pharmacies, parks, and childcare are sparse compared with national norms, so residents typically rely on nearby communities for services. School quality trends above national midline (average rating near 3 out of 5), suggesting basic education coverage without being a primary draw.
The property’s 1984 vintage is newer than the neighborhood’s older housing base (average year 1949), which gives this asset a relative competitiveness edge versus legacy stock. Investors should still plan for system updates typical of 1980s construction, but the vintage positioning can help on curb appeal and unit functionality when thoughtfully maintained.
Tenure patterns within a 3-mile radius show approximately two-fifths of housing units are renter-occupied, indicating a meaningful tenant base for multifamily. Household size has trended smaller over the past five years, and WDSuite’s data shows households are projected to increase even if population growth softens, which can sustain leasing velocity by expanding the number of households competing for units.
Home values in the neighborhood sit in a moderate range for the region, and value-to-income ratios are low compared with many U.S. areas. For investors, this means ownership is relatively accessible locally, which can limit pricing power at the margin. At the same time, a portion of households within the 3-mile radius maintain higher incomes, supporting demand for quality rentals and potential retention when units are well-maintained and appropriately positioned.
Safety trends are mixed but generally favorable in regional context. The neighborhood’s overall crime standing is above the metro median among 68 neighborhoods, indicating comparatively lower incident levels in the Watertown–Fort Drum area. Nationally, violent offense indicators track in the top quartile for safety, while property offense metrics are better than average. Recent year-over-year shifts show volatility, so investors should underwrite to current conditions and monitor trends over time rather than a single snapshot.
Local renter demand is supported by a regional employment base spanning government, defense, healthcare, and services in the broader Watertown–Fort Drum area, providing a practical commute shed for workforce tenants.
This 24-unit, 1984-vintage community offers relative competitiveness versus older neighborhood stock and serves a renter base that remains meaningful within a 3-mile radius. Household counts and incomes have strengthened in recent years, and even as population growth moderates, smaller household sizes can expand the active renter pool, supporting occupancy and renewal potential when units are well maintained. Based on commercial real estate analysis from WDSuite, local home values and value-to-income ratios are moderate, which can temper rent growth but also support steady leasing for well-positioned product.
The setting is rural with limited amenity density, so performance is tied to basic housing needs and commute convenience to regional employers. Underwriting should account for prudent capital planning for 1980s systems, measured rent assumptions, and attention to retention practices if ownership alternatives are attractive.
- Newer-than-local-vintage 1984 asset can out-compete older neighborhood stock with targeted upgrades
- Meaningful renter-occupied share within 3 miles supports tenant depth and leasing stability
- Moderate home values and higher-income households create balanced rent-versus-own dynamics
- Rural location with lean amenities rewards operational focus and maintenance-driven retention
- Risks: small-market demand, potential rent softness versus ownership, and capital needs for 1980s systems