MUScoop

Interesting piece in the NYT about how so many American homeowners have such low mortgage rates that it is making them unwilling and/or unable to sell their houses. And that, as much as anything, has almost frozen the housing market in many parts of the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/upshot/mortgage-rates-homes-stuck.html?

These locked-in households haven't relocated for better jobs or higher pay, and haven't been able to downsize or acquire more space. They also haven't opened up homes for first-time buyers. And that's driven up prices and gummed up the market.

Another way to state how unusual this dynamic is: Between 1998 and 2020, there was never a time when more than 40 percent of American mortgage holders had locked-in rates more than one percentage point below market conditions. By the end of 2023, as the chart below shows, about 70 percent of all mortgage holders had rates more than three percentage points below what the market would offer them if they tried to take out a new loan.

There are a zillion things wrong with the US housing market.

Previous low mortgage rates are just a drop in the bucket.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 09:27:10 AM
There are a zillion things wrong with the US housing market.

Previous low mortgage rates are just a drop in the bucket.

My OP wasn't about "wrong" or "right." It simply offered a link to a fact-filled article on one of the main reasons the housing market is "gummed up."

This actually is one of the things affecting the housing situation for my daughter and SIL right now. They own a house in a Seattle suburb that they bought before they had their 2 kids. It's too small, and not in a walkable area, and they want to move. But they have a 3% mortgage and aren't wild about the idea of selling that to buy a more expensive house that also would come with a 7%+ mortgage. Also, partially because of this mortgage-rate situation, they are finding inventory to be very low where they want to buy; potential sellers in those areas also don't want to give up their low rates.

Mortgage rates are keyed to the 10-year Treasury rate. So long as the Federal Reserve uses higher interest rates to lock down inflation, mortgage interest rates will remain at current levels.

The irony in all of this is that those of us who came of age in the late 1970s and 1980s would have drooled at the current market interest rates. Many of us took out 30-year, fixed rate mortgage loans on our first homes that had an interest rate of between12 percent and 14 percent. We never dreamed that rates would get into the 2 percent to 4 percent range.

The difficulty with wide swings in mortgage interest rates is "consumer reach." When rates dropped to very low levels, homeowners had a couple of choices. The first is refinance downward, get a lower payment or pay off your home more quickly with the same payment on a shorter term loan. The second is to sell your house, buy up and keep your payment relatively flat on a much larger outstanding balance. Much of the country did the latter.

The housing market is locked up because young, first-time homebuyers who can afford homes at 4 percent can't afford the same home at 7 percent. They're either going to have to come up with a lot more down, which delays homebuying, or buy a much smaller property. For existing homeowners, many became aggressive assuming cheap mortgage money would always be out there. It's not and so the numbers don't work on a new home.

Incidentally, if rates do come down dramatically, expect housing prices to skyrocket. We made a fortune in the 1980s when we bought using a 12.75 percent mortgage and sold seven years later when mortgages were in the 6-8 percent range. I'd expect that as rates fall and demand recovers, prices will see double digit increases. My SIL and daughter are starting to look for a home in the Syracuse, NY market and as long as they can make the payment, the house would be a sterling investment.

82

You should cash out of some of your stocks and buy your daughter a home.

Quote from: Goose on April 15, 2024, 11:05:07 AM
82

You should cash out of some of your stocks and buy your daughter a home.

Pot-stirrer

All stocks are worthless now, what with the economy at its worst point since the nation was founded.

Quote from: Goose on April 15, 2024, 11:05:07 AM
82

You should cash out of some of your stocks and buy your daughter a home.

Kids. Always looking for a handout.

Quote from: Goose on April 15, 2024, 11:05:07 AM
82

You should cash out of some of your stocks and buy your daughter a home.

He's 100% invested in Truth Social. It will pay off soon I'm sure.

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 15, 2024, 10:58:43 AM
Mortgage rates are keyed to the 10-year Treasury rate. So long as the Federal Reserve uses higher interest rates to lock down inflation, mortgage interest rates will remain at current levels.

The irony in all of this is that those of us who came of age in the late 1970s and 1980s would have drooled at the current market interest rates. Many of us took out 30-year, fixed rate mortgage loans on our first homes that had an interest rate of between12 percent and 14 percent. We never dreamed that rates would get into the 2 percent to 4 percent range.

The difficulty with wide swings in mortgage interest rates is "consumer reach." When rates dropped to very low levels, homeowners had a couple of choices. The first is refinance downward, get a lower payment or pay off your home more quickly with the same payment on a shorter term loan. The second is to sell your house, buy up and keep your payment relatively flat on a much larger outstanding balance. Much of the country did the latter.

The housing market is locked up because young, first-time homebuyers who can afford homes at 4 percent can't afford the same home at 7 percent. They're either going to have to come up with a lot more down, which delays homebuying, or buy a much smaller property. For existing homeowners, many became aggressive assuming cheap mortgage money would always be out there. It's not and so the numbers don't work on a new home.

Incidentally, if rates do come down dramatically, expect housing prices to skyrocket. We made a fortune in the 1980s when we bought using a 12.75 percent mortgage and sold seven years later when mortgages were in the 6-8 percent range. I'd expect that as rates fall and demand recovers, prices will see double digit increases. My SIL and daughter are starting to look for a home in the Syracuse, NY market and as long as they can make the payment, the house would be a sterling investment.

Trying to get this topic back on track ...

You make some good points here, dg, and I agree with you that if rates start going back down and get under 5-6% again, it probably would ignite a significant bounce to the housing market.

It's not really an "irony" that us oldsters would have killed to have rates as low as they currently are. It's just the way it is. When we bought our first house in Minneapolis in 1985, rates were 13-14% and we felt fortunate to get a 1-year ARM at 8 7/8%. But we also paid $84K for that very nice house in a great neighborhood - today's buyers would kill for that. What's tough now is the confluence between relatively high house prices and relatively high (compared to the last many years) mortgage rates.

In many markets and time periods, owning a house has been an incredible investment. But for many others, it's not really been that great of an investment. A person can say, "I bought this in 2015 for $250K and now it's worth $425K, so I made a boatload!" But if that person put $75K into the house to update the kitchen and baths, all of a sudden the profit isn't so great. Add in maintenance, taxes, insurance, etc, and maybe it's been a pretty bad investment. That's why I look at a house as a place to live; if it happens to end up being a great investment, that's wonderful.

Quote from: MU82 on April 15, 2024, 11:23:47 AM
In many markets and time periods, owning a house has been an incredible investment. But for many others, it's not really been that great of an investment. A person can say, "I bought this in 2015 for $250K and now it's worth $425K, so I made a boatload!" But if that person put $75K into the house to update the kitchen and baths, all of a sudden the profit isn't so great. Add in maintenance, taxes, insurance, etc, and maybe it's been a pretty bad investment. That's why I look at a house as a place to live; if it happens to end up being a great investment, that's wonderful.

Welcome to my home in Suburban Chicago. We lived there for almost three decades and, because of our tax and residency circumstance, we had to pay capital gains on the home. Fortunately, my wife was a pack rat who kept every receipt on every cap-ex we made. We went back to our suppliers for the ones we didn't have and acquired them. We paid almost no capital gains on our house, when you figure what we did to it over the life of the ownership.

The problem we had was our home was in a stable region with modest economic growth. The next suburb over was an emerging Chicago suburb that built and built and built more houses. They'd approve anything! The result was far more supply than demand at a time when professional jobs in the area were shrinking. Hence, modest price growth.

You argument is an eloquent reason why we ended up selling Chicago. It was a lovely home in a nice community. We used it a few months a year to escape Florida's summers and I used it to come back during the winter periodically. Similar to the way folks used homes in Northern Wisconsin. The costs of paying taxes, insurance, heating and cooling, repairs and cap-ex were just not worth keeping it. 

House paid for.   No chance I am moving for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 15, 2024, 12:12:48 PM
Welcome to my home in Suburban Chicago. We lived there for almost three decades and, because of our tax and residency circumstance, we had to pay capital gains on the home. Fortunately, my wife was a pack rat who kept every receipt on every cap-ex we made. We went back to our suppliers for the ones we didn't have and acquired them. We paid almost no capital gains on our house, when you figure what we did to it over the life of the ownership.

The problem we had was our home was in a stable region with modest economic growth. The next suburb over was an emerging Chicago suburb that built and built and built more houses. They'd approve anything! The result was far more supply than demand at a time when professional jobs in the area were shrinking. Hence, modest price growth.

You argument is an eloquent reason why we ended up selling Chicago. It was a lovely home in a nice community. We used it a few months a year to escape Florida's summers and I used it to come back during the winter periodically. Similar to the way folks used homes in Northern Wisconsin. The costs of paying taxes, insurance, heating and cooling, repairs and cap-ex were just not worth keeping it.

We have friends in Chicago burbs just like the one you describe; counting everything they've done to their houses, they have seen little if any real profit. But they've still liked living in their houses/neighborhoods close to family and friends, so that's what really matters. We also have friends who live in ritzier burbs or the city who have seen tremendous price appreciation.

We got really lucky with our Chicago house - bought on the North Side in 1994 right when the market was just starting to heat up a little but nothing like it became less than a decade later. Even with the improvements we made, we did extremely well. We've also done well with our current Charlotte home - bought in early 2011 when effects of the recession were still out there. But with our 3 other houses we barely broke even, in part because we didn't live in any of them long enough.

There are buy-or-rent calculators out there, and lots of people would do better financially by renting. But for many folks, homeownership is an emotional decision so it's not all about the dough. We rented for our final 3+ years in Chicago and we actually liked the experience; it was a really well-managed building in a fantastic location and it had a lot of amenities. It was also the recession and house prices were plummeting, so we sure were glad that we sold before then - just dumb luck really. I'd consider renting again in a similar circumstance.

Unlike you, today's sellers benefit from updated tax laws that make the first $500K in home profit tax-free for couples ($250K for individuals). So no need to save every receipt except for those raking in big profits.

Quote from: MU82 on April 15, 2024, 10:28:28 AM
My OP wasn't about "wrong" or "right." It simply offered a link to a fact-filled article on one of the main reasons the housing market is "gummed up."

This actually is one of the things affecting the housing situation for my daughter and SIL right now. They own a house in a Seattle suburb that they bought before they had their 2 kids. It's too small, and not in a walkable area, and they want to move. But they have a 3% mortgage and aren't wild about the idea of selling that to buy a more expensive house that also would come with a 7%+ mortgage. Also, partially because of this mortgage-rate situation, they are finding inventory to be very low where they want to buy; potential sellers in those areas also don't want to give up their low rates.

For sure. My wife and I are in a similar situation. We could move, but don't NEED to. And we won't even consider it right now with rates being almost double PLUS home prices being super high.

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 15, 2024, 10:58:43 AM
Mortgage rates are keyed to the 10-year Treasury rate. So long as the Federal Reserve uses higher interest rates to lock down inflation, mortgage interest rates will remain at current levels.

The irony in all of this is that those of us who came of age in the late 1970s and 1980s would have drooled at the current market interest rates. Many of us took out 30-year, fixed rate mortgage loans on our first homes that had an interest rate of between12 percent and 14 percent. We never dreamed that rates would get into the 2 percent to 4 percent range.

The difficulty with wide swings in mortgage interest rates is "consumer reach." When rates dropped to very low levels, homeowners had a couple of choices. The first is refinance downward, get a lower payment or pay off your home more quickly with the same payment on a shorter term loan. The second is to sell your house, buy up and keep your payment relatively flat on a much larger outstanding balance. Much of the country did the latter.

The housing market is locked up because young, first-time homebuyers who can afford homes at 4 percent can't afford the same home at 7 percent. They're either going to have to come up with a lot more down, which delays homebuying, or buy a much smaller property. For existing homeowners, many became aggressive assuming cheap mortgage money would always be out there. It's not and so the numbers don't work on a new home.

Incidentally, if rates do come down dramatically, expect housing prices to skyrocket. We made a fortune in the 1980s when we bought using a 12.75 percent mortgage and sold seven years later when mortgages were in the 6-8 percent range. I'd expect that as rates fall and demand recovers, prices will see double digit increases. My SIL and daughter are starting to look for a home in the Syracuse, NY market and as long as they can make the payment, the house would be a sterling investment.

Okay. Now compare the prices of homes in the 70s and 80s to the average income at the time.

Further, the housing market is "locked up" because we have a terribly short supply.

We need significantly more public housing options. We need significantly less corporate/private equity ownership of housing. We need people to see housing as NOT an investment vehicle.

But houses are also much larger, and with more bells and whistles than the 70s and 80s though too.

Quote from: MU82 on April 15, 2024, 10:28:28 AM
My OP wasn't about "wrong" or "right." It simply offered a link to a fact-filled article on one of the main reasons the housing market is "gummed up."

This actually is one of the things affecting the housing situation for my daughter and SIL right now. They own a house in a Seattle suburb that they bought before they had their 2 kids. It's too small, and not in a walkable area, and they want to move. But they have a 3% mortgage and aren't wild about the idea of selling that to buy a more expensive house that also would come with a 7%+ mortgage. Also, partially because of this mortgage-rate situation, they are finding inventory to be very low where they want to buy; potential sellers in those areas also don't want to give up their low rates.

Same as one of my close friends.  Bought a few years ago in Roscoe Village in Chicago.  He got a job with a financial firm in Dallas about 18 months ago.  The plan was for him to be remote/fly in regularly for the first year, and then move down.  But they'd be giving up a 2.9% mortgage for one closer to 7%, not to mention it would be a step up in size and value even if mortgage rates were still at 2.9%.  Its made him drag out the move as long as possible and continues to negotiate/bargain to delay it.  I can only imagine it for people who would sell/upgrade out of want/desire and not pressing geographic need.

Quote from: MU82 on April 15, 2024, 01:03:50 PM
Unlike you, today's sellers benefit from updated tax laws that make the first $500K in home profit tax-free for couples ($250K for individuals). So no need to save every receipt except for those raking in big profits.

That's true for your primary residence. Chicago was NOT our primary residence when we sold it.

Several years ago, we were spending so much time in Florida that we became legal Florida residents. That enabled us to shield all of the income on our original home in Florida, which was an incredibly smart move from a tax standpoint. We had massive appreciation on our first Florida home, which was sold in 2022, largely because of location and Florida's desirability. We used almost all of the $500,000 tax exemption.

We're now in our forever home and, like Brother Tower, it's paid off! We paid off a five-year, 4 percent mortgage because we absolutely hate debt! Especially at our age.

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 15, 2024, 02:38:21 PM
That's true for your primary residence. Chicago was NOT our primary residence when we sold it.

Several years ago, we were spending so much time in Florida that we became legal Florida residents. That enabled us to shield all of the income on our original home in Florida, which was an incredibly smart move from a tax standpoint. We had massive appreciation on our first Florida home, which was sold in 2022, largely because of location and Florida's desirability. We used almost all of the $500,000 tax exemption.

We're now in our forever home and, like Brother Tower, it's paid off! We paid off a five-year, 4 percent mortgage because we absolutely hate debt! Especially at our age.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. Primary residence.

Congrats on the great price appreciation of your previous Fla place and finding your forever home.

Like you and tower, we own our house free and clear. One could argue that all of us made poor financial decisions, because 3-4% mortgages are "good" debt, and $$$ could have been used to invest.

But again, emotions factor in, and it sure is comforting to be debt-free.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 01:16:21 PM
Okay. Now compare the prices of homes in the 70s and 80s to the average income at the time.

Further, the housing market is "locked up" because we have a terribly short supply.

We need significantly more public housing options. We need significantly less corporate/private equity ownership of housing. We need people to see housing as NOT an investment vehicle.

Brother Jesmu:

You are the first person since my Metropolitan Government professor at Marquette in 1976 to advocate for MORE public housing.

I assume you are speaking of outright public ownership and not rent buydowns with such things as Section 8 or subsidies, such as the VA and FHA. That being the case, you need to closely study the history of public housing in the United States. It isn't good.

The federal government is subsidizing housing every day. From deposit insurance at savings institutions, which came with Reg Q for decades that restricted investor return, to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which set lending standards for single- and multi-family housing and federal infrastructure investment, housing has been government supported since the end of World War II. The last recession was triggered in no small measure because mortgage standards were relaxed on the theory that homeownership is the key to revitalizing neighborhoods.

The problem with public housing is ensuring a steady stream of construction and maintenance capital. If we want to live like my wife and I did in Ukraine, then by all means, push for the public option. But the place we lived was a disaster, because the government did the lowest amount of capital expenditure necessary to keep the building standing. I, for one, want to live better than that.

Case two against the public option is what happens whenever the government wades into the private sector. Back in 2009 to 2012, it took a massive capital infusion by the federal government to keep Fannie and Freddie alive. Both were insolvent. And then there's Amtrak, the worst excuse for a railroad this side of India. Amtrak is a rolling disaster because no one who works there is incented to take risk and break away from a 1950s transportation model. Plus, our Congress won't put capital into it in no small measure because Amtrak is so poorly run.

And we want to apply this model to housing?

I'll admit the private sector sometimes does a crappy job. The Sunrise condo collapse down here in Florida was one example of cheap people doing cheap things that ultimately killed many of them. But, to be candid, Sunrise is the exception rather than the rule.

Brother dgies, I understand your philosophical base.  And I am not in the mood to really go to the mats on this.   Suffice to say, for every example of government inefficiency or error, a corresponding example of corporate misconduct, carelessness, or malfeasance can be cited.

 No surprise that public projects like Amtrak and housing fail in the US.

Those things work darn well in western Europe.

The only public projects that succeed at all are the ones that benefit private capital.

NIMBYism also plays a role.

But, regardless, I'd be curious to hear folks' ideas about how to address the housing shortage. Or, if you don't consider housing supply a problem, how can we bring down housing costs?

Jesmu84, not to be morbid, but a decade from now the housing market will be saturated as a generation passes and is replaced by a smaller one.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 03:08:27 PM
No surprise that public projects like Amtrak and housing fail in the US.

Those things work darn well in western Europe.

The only public projects that succeed at all are the ones that benefit private capital.

NIMBYism also plays a role.

But, regardless, I'd be curious to hear folks' ideas about how to address the housing shortage. Or, if you don't consider housing supply a problem, how can we bring down housing costs?

Build dense market-rate housing in city centers, it drives down the cost of existing housing that just cant compete for consumer dollars with new construction. This is a solved problem. Build baby build.

Quote from: tower912 on April 15, 2024, 03:14:24 PM
Jesmu84, not to be morbid, but a decade from now the housing market will be saturated as a generation passes and is replaced by a smaller one.

That'll probably come to pass.

My fear is who buys those houses

That is a fair point.   

Bought our first home about 14 months ago after saving for 10+ years.  Put 20% down, bought the cheapest house in the best neighborhood we could get into in Bethesda, MD, top school district, NIH and Walter Reed only a stones throw away...will be the last place we ever buy.  Locked in 5.65% for the next 28 years, curious if we'll ever refinance (doubt it).

Amazingly happy

Quote from: tower912 on April 15, 2024, 03:14:24 PM
Jesmu84, not to be morbid, but a decade from now the housing market will be saturated as a generation passes and is replaced by a smaller one.

Net migration will more than make up for the net of deaths and births.

Quote from: reinko on April 15, 2024, 03:39:11 PM
Bought our first home about 14 months ago after saving for 10+ years.  Put 20% down, bought the cheapest house in the best neighborhood we could get into in Bethesda, MD, top school district, NIH and Walter Reed only a stones throw away...will be the last place we ever buy.  Locked in 5.65% for the next 28 years, curious if we'll ever refinance (doubt it).

Amazingly happy

Why do you doubt that? If interest rates fall to where they were just a couple of years ago, you can knock years off - even refinancing at 30 but paying the same amount you do now will have a significant impact.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 03:25:04 PM
That'll probably come to pass.

My fear is who buys those houses

The Chinese? Canadians?

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on April 15, 2024, 03:41:30 PM
Why do you doubt that? If interest rates fall to where they were just a couple of years ago, you can knock years off - even refinancing at 30 but paying the same amount you do now will have a significant impact.

It's more of a bet to see if interest rates ever creep down again that low (in the foreseeable future)...if they do, absolutely I'll do it.  My knowledge of ReFi is admittedly limited, but a rule of thumb I read is it only starts making financial sense if rates are least a full point less than what you are locked in at (in this case I would need to wait until at least around 4.5%).

But probably a lot more expertise on this board, so I am all ears 😃

Quote from: reinko on April 15, 2024, 03:48:59 PM
It's more of a bet to see if interest rates ever creep down again that low (in the foreseeable future)...if they do, absolutely I'll do it.  My knowledge of ReFi is admittedly limited, but a rule of thumb I read is it only starts making financial sense if rates are least a full point less than what you are locked in at (in this case I would need to wait until at least around 4.5%).

But probably a lot more expertise on this board, so I am all ears 😃

Oh OK. I guess if you are just doubting that rates will fall that makes sense. But eventually you could refi into a 15 year mortgage that would have even lower rates and may keep your payments at an amount similar to what you have now.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 15, 2024, 03:22:12 PM
Build dense market-rate housing in city centers, it drives down the cost of existing housing that just cant compete for consumer dollars with new construction. This is a solved problem. Build baby build.

Is there an incentive to build if it brings down profit margins?

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 04:36:10 PM
Is there an incentive to build if it brings down profit margins?

Would you rather have a 20% profit margin on 100 million in inventory or a 10% profit margin on 300 million in inventory?

Bought lowest price house in the best neighborhood we could afford for first home. Had a lot of curb appeal.   Lived there for 6  years. Broke Even , after upgrades and selling costs. Total cost, was still far cheaper than rent.

Upgraded neighborhoods, to get better schools  and rinsed and repeat for second house with lowest house in Excellent Elite Level Community had less curb appeal was in private cul de sac.  Was the best thing we could have done for the kids, they prospered in Athletics and Academics made great life long connections . Lived there 24 years. Sold the home for 4x what we paid, had to actually pay capital gains on it. 

Third house paid up for Incredible Location and Views , so while not lowest priced, there was still many ridiculously priced in the neighborhood. Rolled all proceeds over from second home, Planning a renovation that will cost too much . Going in price was $580 a square foot. Comps are selling now for over a $1000 . This is the forever type home so it doesn't matter what it is worth. Frankly I wish it was worth less as the property taxes are ridiculous.
   
My best advice, is the old real estate slogan. Location, Location , Location.  Also to the younger folks just get yourself in the market.  Get a condo in a good building or development if the single priced homes are out of reach. You can always upgrade on house 2 and 3.

Biggest issue for housing market is Baby Boomers and now their Kids are inflating market. Throw in NIMBY which exists everywhere, and it is hard to get product built.

Quote from: jesmu84 on April 15, 2024, 03:08:27 PM
But, regardless, I'd be curious to hear folks' ideas about how to address the housing shortage. Or, if you don't consider housing supply a problem, how can we bring down housing costs?

First off, let's talk about what's causing housing prices to be "high":

Expectations -- Ever watch House Hunters or Property Virgins? While not scientific, those shows present a very interesting look at homebuying in the U.S. People who purchase homes aren't looking for the 1,600 square foot starter home we bought a generation ago. Nor are they clamoring for public housing! They want 3,000 square feet, quartz counters, hardwood floors, white kitchens, three car garages and enough bedrooms to start a small hotel. Oh, and open concept with an office.

Land -- Most if not all of the attractive cities in the United States are fully built out. And many, like Honolulu, San Francisco and New York, are on islands on peninsulas where building is limited to comparatively flat spaces.  If you want a home close to a major city in the United States, land costs are astronomical. Ditto for South Florida along the coasts. If you want affordable housing, go to a place like Superior, WI, with plenty of flat land and you can get a place that's mansion for less than $700,000. Of course, the climate is among the most robust in the continental United States and the economy has been on the downturn for about 80 years. But....

Building Codes -- Down here in Florida, we have some of the toughest building codes in America, if not the world. We have to if we're going to survive the next hurricane. Ditto for California and earthquakes. Adjusting to post-Homestead building needs is expensive. My home, for example, has foot-thick steel-reinforced concrete walls, quadruple strapped roofs to maintain structural integrity during hurricanes and windows capable of withstanding 160 mile per hour impacts. Add to that the requirement for energy efficiency in appliances, HVAC systems and insulation and the costs add up.

Materials Cost -- More than century ago, my forebears moved to Minnesota and Northern Wisconsin to clear-cut virgin timber in the woods. They and their peers did a pretty good job of it and the comparatively inexpensive lumber, iron and other materials have largely been exhausted. As a result, housing materials are more expensive, harder to get to market and, consequently, more expensive. Environmental laws that forbid clear cutting, open pit mining and require folks to restore the environment are great ideas but they come at a cost and they have to be passed on to someone.

Zoning -- Communities use zoning laws for lots of things that zoning wasn't intended. Originally, zoning was designed to keep a consistent feel to a neighborhood or community. It's evolved into everything from sales tax revenue protection to preventing affordable housing.

Of this group, the biggest "changeable" variables are revisions in zoning ordinances and changes in people's expectations. After Sunrise down here, I'm not sure we want to relax building codes and few of us want to see a change in the environmental laws to allow today's generations to do what my great grandparents did. And, land is land. Unless someone wants to live in Superior or West Bumfork, Texas etc., land prices aren't going anywhere.

Quote from: Herman Cain on April 15, 2024, 06:08:47 PM
My best advice, is the old real estate slogan. Location, Location , Location.  Also to the younger folks just get yourself in the market.  Get a condo in a good building or development if the single priced homes are out of reach. You can always upgrade on house 2 and 3.

Agree about location, of course, but younger folks (and older ones) should be careful not to make themselves "house rich and life poor" just to get into a house or condo (or to move up to their "dream house.") Having a house but not being able to afford to do anything fun or enriching, or to not be able to invest for the future, isn't a great way to go through life. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, houses/condos aren't necessarily great investments. Sometimes, they're even mediocre (or worse) investments.

Also, though it seems like house prices only go up, there have been many historic stretches in which that has not been the case.

Here in Charlotte, it took 5+ years for housing prices to recover after the Great Recession. It had been a hot market, but it cooled off fast and very painfully for many. It's a red-hot market now, and I hope some of those buying at what is a new top every day don't regret it. And there are many markets like Charlotte now.

Quote from: MU82 on April 16, 2024, 12:32:38 PM
Agree about location, of course, but younger folks (and older ones) should be careful not to make themselves "house rich and life poor" just to get into a house or condo (or to move up to their "dream house.") Having a house but not being able to afford to do anything fun or enriching, or to not be able to invest for the future, isn't a great way to go through life. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, houses/condos aren't necessarily great investments. Sometimes, they're even mediocre (or worse) investments.

Also, though it seems like house prices only go up, there have been many historic stretches in which that has not been the case.

Here in Charlotte, it took 5+ years for housing prices to recover after the Great Recession. It had been a hot market, but it cooled off fast and very painfully for many. It's a red-hot market now, and I hope some of those buying at what is a new top every day don't regret it. And there are many markets like Charlotte now.

Tell me about it!!! LOL.

One of my good friends in our old Chicago-area neighborhood took a new job in Arkansas and sold his home for $560,000 about 30 minutes before the recession of 2008 hit. Literally.

The people who bought that house sold it six years later for $440,000.

That house was one of the reasons why I NEVER lost a property tax appeal ;D .

Main problem with the housing market is three fold.

Lack of inventory, commercial investment, and commodification of housing.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on April 17, 2024, 12:53:13 PM
Main problem with the housing market is three fold.

Lack of inventory, commercial investment, and commodification of housing.

👆

Quote from: lawdog77 on April 15, 2024, 05:37:22 PM
Would you rather have a 20% profit margin on 100 million in inventory or a 10% profit margin on 300 million in inventory?

What about a 50% profit margin on 100 million in inventory but a 50% occupancy rate?

Quote from: Hards Alumni on April 17, 2024, 12:53:13 PM
Main problem with the housing market is three fold.

Lack of inventory, commercial investment, and commodification of housing.

Agreed. The OP contributes strongly to the lack-of-inventory problem.

Commercial investment was all the rage here in Charlotte - a few national (and even international) companies were buying up single-family homes like maniacs. Prices finally got so high, though, that most of that has stopped ... but the effects linger on. Many other markets experienced similar.

Quote from: reinko on April 15, 2024, 03:39:11 PMLocked in 5.65% for the next 28 years, curious if we'll ever refinance (doubt it).

Bro, u crazy?

Labor.  Lack of skilled construction workers, electricians etc. It's been a problem since the Great Recession. Supply won't get in line with demand until we solve this, maybe more factory built will help. True robots are way too far off. We know the solution to lack of Labor and skilled labor, but politically it doesn't work. So it is a chronic problem. Barring a recession or market collapse, the lack of supply will be a constant for the foreseeable future. 

Rates. My impression on the fed rate, mortgage rates, 10 year bond rates, is that we're historically normal. Normal is not a bad thing, except that we've come off a decade plus of crazy low rates. 

US housing has been cheap compared to other comparable countries. I bet we still get more house for less. Maybe the difference is less.

Demand for luxury as pointed out. Same with new apartments. Maybe it's instagram. Not sure. 

Quote from: Jay Bee on April 17, 2024, 08:40:34 PM
Bro, u crazy?

Comment above, obvi will refi if it makes financial sense, and rates drop in the next 5-7 years.  My original comment was I'm not so sure they will, but fingers crossed they do.

Different time, but I bought my house at 7.25%, refinanced down to a 15 year note at 5.5%, paid $20 more a month to knock 8 years off the back end.  I get what you are trying to do.

We're at 4.25, and it will take a powerful "push" force to make us move off of that rate. Could it happen? I guess. But I'm skeptical that something will come along powerfully motivating enough to make it happen.

Sitting on a 3.0% mortgage on a house we bought 5 years ago that would sell immediately for nearly twice what we paid, maybe a bit more. We did finish the basement so put close to $60k into that all in (I did a lot of the work) but we're still going to make out like bandits. We're not going anywhere until kids are all out on their own (youngest is 6th grader) so hoping we continue to see growth in value over the next several years. We are in number one school district in state with top 5 schools across the board and one of the fastest growing counties in the country.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on April 18, 2024, 05:15:47 PM
Sitting on a 3.0% mortgage on a house we bought 5 years ago that would sell immediately for nearly twice what we paid, maybe a bit more. We did finish the basement so put close to $60k into that all in (I did a lot of the work) but we're still going to make out like bandits. We're not going anywhere until kids are all out on their own (youngest is 6th grader) so hoping we continue to see growth in value over the next several years. We are in number one school district in state with top 5 schools across the board and one of the fastest growing counties in the country.

Well done! Continued good fortune to you.

Quote from: jficke13 on April 18, 2024, 09:24:04 AM
We're at 4.25, and it will take a powerful "push" force to make us move off of that rate. Could it happen? I guess. But I'm skeptical that something will come along powerfully motivating enough to make it happen.

whoops, not 4.25.

2.75.

Quote from: jficke13 on April 24, 2024, 09:15:37 AM
whoops, not 4.25.

2.75.

Bank error in your favor, lol.

Quote from: jficke13 on April 24, 2024, 09:15:37 AM
whoops, not 4.25.

2.75.

What's interesting about your mortgage and others in that category is something called duration convexity, or duration drift. It's the concept that as market mortgage rates change, existing mortgages extend or contract in estimated life. In your case, mortgage mortality would factor out most rate-based factors and use a baseline mortgage life of 100 PSA, or about a 6 percent constant prepayment rate ("CPR") when the loan is pooled with others.

A 6 percent CPR effectively assumes a mortgage life of seven years. To get at that rate of prepayment, the borrower dies, moves to a different home or becomes fortunate and pays off the mortgage. Anything short of dying isn't going to happen, which effectively means the mortgage you and many like you have will be a lot longer than anyone thinks. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that we'll ever see mortgage interest rates as low as your's again. That's going to have a huge effect on real estate agents, as supply and buyers will be fewer.

You will have a bank, insurance company, sovereign wealth fund or other investor screaming at you for a long time to come!!!!!!

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 24, 2024, 11:06:57 AM
What's interesting about your mortgage and others in that category is something called duration convexity, or duration drift. It's the concept that as market mortgage rates change, existing mortgages extend or contract in estimated life. In your case, mortgage mortality would factor out most rate-based factors and use a baseline mortgage life of 100 PSA, or about a 6 percent constant prepayment rate ("CPR") when the loan is pooled with others.

A 6 percent CPR effectively assumes a mortgage life of seven years. To get at that rate of prepayment, the borrower dies, moves to a different home or becomes fortunate and pays off the mortgage. Anything short of dying isn't going to happen, which effectively means the mortgage you and many like you have will be a lot longer than anyone thinks. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that we'll ever see mortgage interest rates as low as your's again. That's going to have a huge effect on real estate agents, as supply and buyers will be fewer.

You will have a bank, insurance company, sovereign wealth fund or other investor screaming at you for a long time to come!!!!!!

I'm happy for them to be mad at me. They wrote the loan on fixed rate terms. It's not like they can be surprised by the fact that when rates increase, low rate mortgagees with fixed rates are incentivized to maintain their existing loans.

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 24, 2024, 11:06:57 AM
What's interesting about your mortgage and others in that category is something called duration convexity, or duration drift. It's the concept that as market mortgage rates change, existing mortgages extend or contract in estimated life. In your case, mortgage mortality would factor out most rate-based factors and use a baseline mortgage life of 100 PSA, or about a 6 percent constant prepayment rate ("CPR") when the loan is pooled with others.

A 6 percent CPR effectively assumes a mortgage life of seven years. To get at that rate of prepayment, the borrower dies, moves to a different home or becomes fortunate and pays off the mortgage. Anything short of dying isn't going to happen, which effectively means the mortgage you and many like you have will be a lot longer than anyone thinks. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that we'll ever see mortgage interest rates as low as your's again. That's going to have a huge effect on real estate agents, as supply and buyers will be fewer.

You will have a bank, insurance company, sovereign wealth fund or other investor screaming at you for a long time to come!!!!!!

Hopefully RE agents will have much bigger things to worry about in the near future. They should be fixed fee instead of % of sale. What a bunch of jokers, adding so little value to the home buying process.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 24, 2024, 04:34:09 PM
Hopefully RE agents will have much bigger things to worry about in the near future. They should be fixed fee instead of % of sale. What a bunch of jokers, adding so little value to the home buying process.

Especially now given that all buyers' agents do is a tiny bit of form paperwork. It's not like there's some mystery to finding homes that are for sale.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 24, 2024, 04:34:09 PM
Hopefully RE agents will have much bigger things to worry about in the near future. They should be fixed fee instead of % of sale. What a bunch of jokers, adding so little value to the home buying process.

Much depends on the agent and the market you're in. I admit, I have a generally low regard for real estate agents but there are times when they're useful.

A Realtor(c) brings access to the MLS, for one thing. It's not the only way to sell a home, but it's a proprietary network and probably the best opportunity to get noticed.

Secondly, the adept real estate agent, stages, helps prepare things for sale and has a pool of potential buyers.

Two years ago, I sold two houses and bought one within six months. The selling agent in Florida helped stage our home, got everything "perfect" and attended every showing to ensure the features of the house were fully explained. The selling agent in Illinois on my home there was good at staging but once the house was listed, we never saw her again.

I'll agree the buy side in Florida had limited utility but I'll also admit, I know real estate finance better than most people. We found the house we live in now; we knew the neighborhoods where we wanted to live; and, we ultimately set the price. The agent was our messenger but their idea on structuring a deal helped us get the house we wanted.

It's interesting that in Illinois, the real estate agent presents the buyer and then lets counsel for both sides negotiate a transaction. In Florida, the agents do the negotiation and legal counsel drafts the definitive agreement.

Much of the value of real estate agents depends on the customs in a region and their "connections." In both communities, we already had access to financing, attorneys and anyone else we needed. My concern with most agents is why they are recommending certain folks and whether there's kickbacks between the referral and referral source. Maybe it's because I lived in Illinois too long and no one's hands are clean!

You don't need a realtor to have access to the MLS.

Way back in 2004, we sold our Chicago house using a "discount broker." For a flat fee of $500, we got an MLS listing (that we wrote, filling out an online form) and a kit to handle the transaction ourselves. We did our own photography for the listing. We secured a real estate attorney (for another $500 I believe) to make sure all the paperwork was filled out correctly and filed to the right places. To make sure buyers' agents would show their clients our house, we did offer a 2.5% commission on that end; the realtor who brought our buyer ended up handling all the paperwork because she "wanted it done right."

Back then, it was a novel concept. Discount brokers can be found easily now in any metro area.

They aren't ideal for everyone, especially those who need to move quickly and/or those who might be in a tough-to-sell market. But it was perfect for us in 2004 - we lived in a popular North Side neighborhood where properties were selling quickly at (or even above) list price, and we faced no pressure because we were staying in the city and hadn't bought our next house yet.

It saved us thousands upon thousands of dollars and went very smoothly. We'd consider doing the same here in Charlotte if the opportunity presents itself.

Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2024, 08:35:05 AM
You don't need a realtor to have access to the MLS.

Way back in 2004, we sold our Chicago house using a "discount broker." For a flat fee of $500, we got an MLS listing (that we wrote, filling out an online form) and a kit to handle the transaction ourselves. We did our own photography for the listing. We secured a real estate attorney (for another $500 I believe) to make sure all the paperwork was filled out correctly and filed to the right places. To make sure buyers' agents would show their clients our house, we did offer a 2.5% commission on that end; the realtor who brought our buyer ended up handling all the paperwork because she "wanted it done right."

Back then, it was a novel concept. Discount brokers can be found easily now in any metro area.

They aren't ideal for everyone, especially those who need to move quickly and/or those who might be in a tough-to-sell market. But it was perfect for us in 2004 - we lived in a popular North Side neighborhood where properties were selling quickly at (or even above) list price, and we faced no pressure because we were staying in the city and hadn't bought our next house yet.

It saved us thousands upon thousands of dollars and went very smoothly. We'd consider doing the same here in Charlotte if the opportunity presents itself.

Brother MU:

The problem with discount brokers comes from real estate agent behavior. In effect, if there isn't a satisfactory commission in it for the Realtor(c), they won't show the house. That, frankly, has been one of the reasons why the National Association of Realtors(c) was sued and ultimately lost!

You're a smart dude in a good neighborhood. That makes life a lot easier, I'll concede. But not everybody knows the market as well as you or has the time to assist in the set-up and sale.

A good real estate agent knows the market well and knows how to position a home to sell. The problem, in my mind, was commissions were not negotiable, agents were lazy and the set-up/marketing work sucked. I found the quick way to separate real from pretend real estate agents is to ask "who would buy my house?" and "how many clients do you and your agency have that you will show this house in the first week?"

Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2024, 08:35:05 AM
You don't need a realtor to have access to the MLS.

Way back in 2004, we sold our Chicago house using a "discount broker." For a flat fee of $500, we got an MLS listing (that we wrote, filling out an online form) and a kit to handle the transaction ourselves. We did our own photography for the listing. We secured a real estate attorney (for another $500 I believe) to make sure all the paperwork was filled out correctly and filed to the right places. To make sure buyers' agents would show their clients our house, we did offer a 2.5% commission on that end; the realtor who brought our buyer ended up handling all the paperwork because she "wanted it done right."

Back then, it was a novel concept. Discount brokers can be found easily now in any metro area.

They aren't ideal for everyone, especially those who need to move quickly and/or those who might be in a tough-to-sell market. But it was perfect for us in 2004 - we lived in a popular North Side neighborhood where properties were selling quickly at (or even above) list price, and we faced no pressure because we were staying in the city and hadn't bought our next house yet.

It saved us thousands upon thousands of dollars and went very smoothly. We'd consider doing the same here in Charlotte if the opportunity presents itself.

We did the same in 2012.  It was very easy.  Sure there wasn't a ton of showings, but we were in no hurry to leave or sell below what we thought our property was worth.

Also, I wouldn't for a moment consider using an agent to sell in 2024.  The market is still red hot and you're giving up a ton of money for someone who is a glorified pencil pusher.  People are buying homes sight unseen, and without contingency or inspections. 

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 25, 2024, 08:43:03 AM
Brother MU:

The problem with discount brokers comes from real estate agent behavior. In effect, if there isn't a satisfactory commission in it for the Realtor(c), they won't show the house. That, frankly, has been one of the reasons why the National Association of Realtors(c) was sued and ultimately lost!

You're a smart dude in a good neighborhood. That makes life a lot easier, I'll concede. But not everybody knows the market as well as you or has the time to assist in the set-up and sale.

A good real estate agent knows the market well and knows how to position a home to sell. The problem, in my mind, was commissions were not negotiable, agents were lazy and the set-up/marketing work sucked. I found the quick way to separate real from pretend real estate agents is to ask "who would buy my house?" and "how many clients do you and your agency have that you will show this house in the first week?"

Well, buying agents definitely WILL show the house if offered 2-3% (using local norms).

Quote from: dgies9156 on April 25, 2024, 08:22:50 AM
Much depends on the agent and the market you're in. I admit, I have a generally low regard for real estate agents but there are times when they're useful.

A Realtor(c) brings access to the MLS, for one thing. It's not the only way to sell a home, but it's a proprietary network and probably the best opportunity to get noticed.

Secondly, the adept real estate agent, stages, helps prepare things for sale and has a pool of potential buyers.

Two years ago, I sold two houses and bought one within six months. The selling agent in Florida helped stage our home, got everything "perfect" and attended every showing to ensure the features of the house were fully explained. The selling agent in Illinois on my home there was good at staging but once the house was listed, we never saw her again.

I'll agree the buy side in Florida had limited utility but I'll also admit, I know real estate finance better than most people. We found the house we live in now; we knew the neighborhoods where we wanted to live; and, we ultimately set the price. The agent was our messenger but their idea on structuring a deal helped us get the house we wanted.

It's interesting that in Illinois, the real estate agent presents the buyer and then lets counsel for both sides negotiate a transaction. In Florida, the agents do the negotiation and legal counsel drafts the definitive agreement.

Much of the value of real estate agents depends on the customs in a region and their "connections." In both communities, we already had access to financing, attorneys and anyone else we needed. My concern with most agents is why they are recommending certain folks and whether there's kickbacks between the referral and referral source. Maybe it's because I lived in Illinois too long and no one's hands are clean!

In my experience real estate agents are business tools that have utility in certain conditions. The key is identifying the conditions.

My experience is the selling agents can help a lot if your home is in any way unusual or offbeat for its local market. Or if there  are issues that come up in inspections. Many times they can help work through the common problems facing older homes. Often they will cut their commission to "subsidize" a buyer issue.

Or if there is a limited potential market. The selling agents who are willing to hustle and market to the family who is the perfect buyer are worth  a lot. One of our homes fit that description . It was the lowest house in a great neighborhood and school system, not of the predominant style. So finding a family willing ,and able ,to fork over 7 figures for the place was not easily done. Basically the agent had to find someone who had enough equity and earnings to buy our home but not enough for the homes the next level up. Also had to have little kids who were young enough that the house was a good size , but the kids were old enough for the parents to get the value of the school district and not have to shell out 36 k a kid for private school. The agent found the one and only buyer at our price range. Took over a year to find the right buyer.

I have found buyers agents are valuable in settings where there are competitive market conditions . In our case both on our primary and secondary home the buyers agent created the deals for non listed properties . In each case we got premium properties without getting into bidding wars . They then helped negotiate for items that came up in inspections. We got lucky and bought current home for high 500s per foot and current market is over 1,000 a foot if you can even find a property to buy as most people keep in their family.

In some states the real estate agents controlled the process in a process working through the title companies that eliminated the need for lawyers . There is a lot of value in that.

Good synopsis of the housing market in today's NYT The Morning e-newsletter:

Buying your first home has long been a milestone of adulthood. So has selling your first home and moving into something bigger. But in the last few years, many Americans have gotten stuck in their starter house.

That's because the U.S. housing economy is being hammered by three forces: the highest interest rates in around two decades, record home prices and near rock-bottom inventory. "Home affordability is the worst I've ever seen it," Daryl Fairweather, Redfin's chief economist, told me.

Many of those who bought their homes in recent years are unable to trade up, hampering the ability of the group behind them to purchase its own starter homes. In today's newsletter, we'll look at how the housing market trapped both groups.

Twice as expensive
In the past, the starter home served as a bridge: Families just starting out would squeeze into a smaller home and build equity. With time, as their careers grew and their incomes increased, they cashed in the equity and moved to something bigger.

But now that process has hit a wall. "The trade-up buyer has just disappeared," Sam Khater, chief economist of Freddie Mac, said.

A majority of homeowners — six out of 10 — have mortgages with interest rates that are locked at 4 percent or lower. With rates now hovering around 7 percent, most people who buy a home today will pay much more interest on their new mortgage.

Economists put it to me like this: If you were to sell your house today and buy an identical one across the street, your payment would double — and that's before you factor in how much the house across the street has gone up in value. (Which is a lot: According to Redfin, home prices are at a record high.)

In Chicago, Chris and Alison Wentland told me about the predicament in which they found themselves. Last year, they decided to sell their townhouse in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Their children, at 2 and 6, were sharing a room not much bigger than a walk-in closet, with their daughter's bed pressing up against their toddler's crib. They began looking for a four-bedroom.

They had purchased their townhouse in the low $500,000s, and would likely be able to sell it for $700,000. But getting that one extra bedroom in the popular Lincoln Park neighborhood would put their next home in the $1 million range. Despite having a sizable equity from their starter home, the higher rates and higher cost meant that their monthly payments would go from around $3,000 to at least $7,500, their real estate agent warned.

Now, the professional photographs that their broker had taken of the townhouse — including a snazzy 3-D video — are languishing on a hard drive, out of the public's view. Their home is one of 50 properties that the brokerage has photographed but has not been able to list.

Nothing to buy
It has also become harder to buy your first home. Starter homes — defined as those that cost 75 percent or less of the median home price in a given market — have gone up faster in value than any other category of home.

The problem is being exacerbated not just by rising prices and high interest rates, which affect every tier of the housing market, but also by something more fundamental: The number of new entry-level homes being built has fallen off a cliff.

In the 1970s, more than 400,000 entry-level homes were built every year. By 2020, only 65,000 were built. One reason for the drop is the rising cost of materials; smaller homes just don't pencil out for builders.

So the supply of starter homes is not being replenished — by builders or by the last generation moving out and selling. The first rung of the ladder of homeownership, long a key part of the American dream, has become especially hard to climb.

As just one example: I spoke to a pair of sisters in Oakland who decided to pool their resources to buy a duplex, each sibling taking one unit. Before the pandemic, they were approved for $850,000. But even in that price range, they couldn't find anything in a city with famously high property values; one house had a rat infestation, another had fungus, the sisters told me.

Their banker recently told them that they were now qualified for only a $750,000 loan — $100,000 had evaporated because of rising interest rates. If they couldn't find anything at the higher amount, they wonder, how will they find anything at this lower price point?

Here's a gift link to the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/02/realestate/housing-market-rates-prices-slow.html?u2g=i&unlocked_article_code=1.wk0.XB74.ZbTFqGDIh56n&smid=url-share

We are shopping for interest rates... anyone got any good recent fixed rates lately?

(yes I know circumstances are different for everyone - still think there might be something to be learned!)

Quote from: WarriorFan on June 02, 2024, 02:23:45 PM
We are shopping for interest rates... anyone got any good recent fixed rates lately?

(yes I know circumstances are different for everyone - still think there might be something to be learned!)

Right around 7 right now...lots of fed talk last week that a rate cut could still be in the cards for 2024 so rates are trending a little better right now.

Quote from: WarriorFan on June 02, 2024, 02:23:45 PM
We are shopping for interest rates... anyone got any good recent fixed rates lately?

(yes I know circumstances are different for everyone - still think there might be something to be learned!)

My only advice is to play companies against each other. Last summer I talked to at least 15 different companies for fixed and adjustable rates. Best rate was some online-only company I had never heard of, couldn't find a lot about, and so didn't completely trust. But I took that offer to a local bank who matched their rate.

Quote from: drewm88 on June 03, 2024, 10:05:34 AM
My only advice is to play companies against each other. Last summer I talked to at least 15 different companies for fixed and adjustable rates. Best rate was some online-only company I had never heard of, couldn't find a lot about, and so didn't completely trust. But I took that offer to a local bank who matched their rate.

Huh, I didn't know you could negotiate your rate down. Good to know.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 03, 2024, 01:43:51 PM
Huh, I didn't know you could negotiate your rate down. Good to know.

It's not as if you're gonna get someone to go from 7 1/4% to 5 1/2%. But if you show one local lender proof that another is 1/4 or 3/8 point lower, there will be times a lender will beat a rate to win business. At least I had success doing that in the mid-aughts.

Quote from: CreightonWarrior on June 03, 2024, 08:06:03 AM
Right around 7 right now...lots of fed talk last week that a rate cut could still be in the cards for 2024 so rates are trending a little better right now.

We locked one company at 6.325 (no points) but I'm still shopping.  Another promises 6.25...Honestly never thought of my local bank - will try them too!

With home prices up more than 50%, some states try to contain property taxes

https://apnews.com/article/property-taxes-home-values-assessments-780631c8a0d3dce9f5c56249cc0e3ab9?

For retirees Tom and Beverly McAdam, the good news is the value of their two-bedroom home in suburban Denver has risen 45% since they purchased it more than six years ago.

That's also the bad news, costing them thousands more in real estate taxes and leaving less for discretionary spending.

"To pay the higher property taxes, it just means we've got to take more money out of our investments when it comes time to hit those big bills," Beverly McAdam said.

She backs a Colorado ballot proposal that could cap the growth of property tax revenue. It's one of several measures in states this year to limit, cut or offset escalating property taxes in response to complaints.

Over the past five years, single-family home prices have risen about 54% nationally, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

That means higher tax bills for homeowners when governments don't offset higher real estate values by reducing tax rates. And with offices seeing higher vacancies as people still work from home after the coronavirus pandemic, some commercial property values are declining, putting even more pressure on residential properties to deliver revenues.

"With assessed values skyrocketing over the past few years," said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the nonprofit Tax Foundation, "homeowners are clamoring for relief, and state policymakers are increasingly exploring ways to provide it."

Colorado, like Alabama and Wyoming, also has a new law that will limit the growth in tax-assessed values for homeowners. Property tax relief will be part of a special legislative session beginning June 18 in Kansas, while Nebraska also could hold a special session to cut property taxes.

Georgia voters will decide in November whether to authorize a new law limiting increases in assessed home values for tax purposes to the rate of inflation, unless local governments or school boards opt out.

I did not think about this factor MU 82:


"And with offices seeing higher vacancies as people still work from home after the coronavirus pandemic, some commercial property values are declining, putting even more pressure on residential properties to deliver revenues."

Wow!

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on June 04, 2024, 07:22:21 AM
I did not think about this factor MU 82:


"And with offices seeing higher vacancies as people still work from home after the coronavirus pandemic, some commercial property values are declining, putting even more pressure on residential properties to deliver revenues."

Wow!

I hadn't thought about it, either, but it makes sense.

Triple-whammy, especially for new buyers: Higher interest rates, higher property taxes, higher insurance costs (substantially higher in some states).

Quote from: MU82 on June 04, 2024, 07:08:32 AM
With home prices up more than 50%, some states try to contain property taxes

https://apnews.com/article/property-taxes-home-values-assessments-780631c8a0d3dce9f5c56249cc0e3ab9?

Hell will freeze over and Satan will be wearing ear muffs before that EVER happens in Illinois. The Suburban Chicago school districts live off assessed value increases and will fight tooth and nail, even when the economics badly disfavor them.

In our community here in Florida, we're revalued when the house is sold. It means over the long-haul, taxes are low. But you better be prepared when you buy a home here. Cape Canaveral isn't the only launch pads in our state. Even then though, our taxes are a fraction of what they were up north.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 04, 2024, 01:15:51 PM
Hell will freeze over and Satan will be wearing ear muffs before that EVER happens in Illinois. The Suburban Chicago school districts live off assessed value increases and will fight tooth and nail, even when the economics badly disfavor them.

Guess Beelzebub needs ice skates.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/new-illinois-law-provides-property-tax-relief-to-some-residents-heres-what-it-includes/2838129/

Quote from: Pakuni on June 04, 2024, 01:22:08 PM
Guess Beelzebub needs ice skates.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/new-illinois-law-provides-property-tax-relief-to-some-residents-heres-what-it-includes/2838129/

Brother Pakuni:

For a home with a fair cash value of $500,000, the Homestead exemption increase of $2,000 to $4,000 represents a reduction in value of 0.4 percent to 0.8 percent. Assuming your tax bill is 3 percent of Fair Cash Value, the benefit is $60.00 to $120.00.

Under these circumstances, Satan is still looking for a cold drink and a good air conditioner.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 04, 2024, 02:35:21 PM
Brother Pakuni:

For a home with a fair cash value of $500,000, the Homestead exemption increase of $2,000 to $4,000 represents a reduction in value of 0.4 percent to 0.8 percent. Assuming your tax bill is 3 percent of Fair Cash Value, the benefit is $60.00 to $120.00.

Under these circumstances, Satan is still looking for a cold drink and a good air conditioner.

Not sure where you're getting your figures, but the homestead exemption went up to $8,000 in the collar counties and $10,000 in Cook County, not $4,000.
The senior exemption went up to $8,000 in Cook and the collar counties.
It's all right there in the story.

Regardless, you're shifting goalposts. You wrote that "Hell will freeze over and Satan will be wearing ear muffs before that EVER happens in Illinois."
I pointed out that it happened in Illinois just last year, to which your response was "Well, yeah, but ..."

Quote from: Pakuni on June 04, 2024, 02:45:04 PM
Not sure where you're getting your figures, but the homestead exemption went up to $8,000 in the collar counties and $10,000 in Cook County, not $4,000.
The senior exemption went up to $8,000 in Cook and the collar counties.
It's all right there in the story.

Regardless, you're shifting goalposts. You wrote that "Hell will freeze over and Satan will be wearing ear muffs before that EVER happens in Illinois."
I pointed out that it happened in Illinois just last year, to which your response was "Well, yeah, but ..."

My point is that the adjustment is a very small adjustment to value on which the home is taxed. The amount of tax savings is de minimus to most Chicago area taxpayers.

On my old $17,000 tax bill, the savings would be worth a whopping $75.00 if I was in Cook County. Nothing in Lake. If you want to celebrate that, be my guest. For me, it might cover about a third of the cost of one prescription before I met my annual deductible.

If the goalpost moved, it's because the wind was blowing the vertical posts about an inch.

Need to jack up property taxes so we can continue to support illegals!!

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/srTYyZ1BjBtGU/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9526tgw3i7eheweefat1xa0yza6b0wfnxqg4jtnqr41&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 04, 2024, 05:06:30 PM
My point is that the adjustment is a very small adjustment to value on which the home is taxed. The amount of tax savings is de minimus to most Chicago area taxpayers.

On my old $17,000 tax bill, the savings would be worth a whopping $75.00 if I was in Cook County. Nothing in Lake. If you want to celebrate that, be my guest. For me, it might cover about a third of the cost of one prescription before I met my annual deductible.

If the goalpost moved, it's because the wind was blowing the vertical posts about an inch.

Yep agreed, I live in the city so I have lower property tax rates than the burbs. Our tax rate is just under 2% of assessed value. $10k off of my assessed value is both not a noticeable impact on my tax bill, and it's also staying the same with the new bill because cook county isn't impacted.

Property tax rates in Chicago aren't as bad as in Milwaukee, though. I pay the same rate here in the city as I did with my home in Waukesha County, and in Chicago I get sidewalks and street lights and choo choo trains.

Sad But True Dept.? A friend sent me this:

(https://scontent.fmkc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/447292490_2632403216940991_3164843592741291535_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=ecKN4hO3oLAQ7kNvgHwracF&_nc_ht=scontent.fmkc1-1.fna&oh=00_AYBg0SZtoLNF8p_BRII3qeQQzS-sMPjA-aND239z0Vk7Jw&oe=666BCBF3)

Has anyone been following the housing market in FL closely? It looks like the inventory of homes for sale is growing at a pretty clip and some areas are seeing nice sized price reductions. It will be interesting to watch if other parts of the country see similar patterns. I realize FL saw a once in a lifetime housing boon, but virtually the whole country saw a rapid increase in pricing. I am watching FL closely because many felt the home prices in FL were immune to any real declines and there definitely is some downward movement in parts of the state.

Quote from: Goose on June 10, 2024, 02:04:17 PM
Has anyone been following the housing market in FL closely? It looks like the inventory of homes for sale is growing at a pretty clip and some areas are seeing nice sized price reductions. It will be interesting to watch if other parts of the country see similar patterns. I realize FL saw a once in a lifetime housing boon, but virtually the whole country saw a rapid increase in pricing. I am watching FL closely because many felt the home prices in FL were immune to any real declines and there definitely is some downward movement in parts of the state.

I think homeowners insurance rates have a lot to do with that. Florida has become a pretty expensive place to live from that perspective.

Quote from: Goose on June 10, 2024, 02:04:17 PM
Has anyone been following the housing market in FL closely? It looks like the inventory of homes for sale is growing at a pretty clip and some areas are seeing nice sized price reductions. It will be interesting to watch if other parts of the country see similar patterns. I realize FL saw a once in a lifetime housing boon, but virtually the whole country saw a rapid increase in pricing. I am watching FL closely because many felt the home prices in FL were immune to any real declines and there definitely is some downward movement in parts of the state.

History has shown that FL housing prices are the opposite of immune.  There's a lot of second homes there.

34% of boomers are dead already and that will continue to accelerate. Florida has one of the oldest populations in the united states, they will not have a stable population even if climate change wasn't a thing.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 10, 2024, 05:20:33 PM
34% of boomers are dead already and that will continue to accelerate. Florida has one of the oldest populations in the united states, they will not have a stable population even if climate change wasn't a thing.

Actually,  Florida had the largest growth in child/teen population.

Quote from: lawdog77 on June 10, 2024, 05:41:35 PM
Actually,  Florida had the largest growth in child/teen population.

And top 3 in deaths per year.

Florida remains one of the oldest average pop states despite the elderly dying off and all of those kids.

And Florida's average age is increasing.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 10, 2024, 06:56:02 PM
And top 3 in deaths per year.

Florida remains one of the oldest average pop states despite the elderly dying off and all of those kids.

And Florida's average age is increasing.

The average age is increasing everywhere. Florida is the state doing best to replace the dying.boomers.

Quote from: lawdog77 on June 10, 2024, 05:41:35 PM
Actually,  Florida had the largest growth in child/teen population.

But the governors want lots and lots of those kids on buses and planes north.

Quote from: lawdog77 on June 10, 2024, 07:00:57 PM
The average age is increasing everywhere.

Is that accurate?

Quote from: Goose on June 10, 2024, 02:04:17 PM
Has anyone been following the housing market in FL closely? It looks like the inventory of homes for sale is growing at a pretty clip and some areas are seeing nice sized price reductions. It will be interesting to watch if other parts of the country see similar patterns. I realize FL saw a once in a lifetime housing boon, but virtually the whole country saw a rapid increase in pricing. I am watching FL closely because many felt the home prices in FL were immune to any real declines and there definitely is some downward movement in parts of the state.

Goose
No area is immune from price declines in its real estate. Florida's recent boom is due for (and already in the early stages) of a correction. Florida is a big state, though, and some areas are less vulnerable. Places where all cash/no mortgage are the rule won't (imo) suffer as much as others.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 10, 2024, 07:04:16 PM
Is that accurate?

only North Dakota saw its average age decline since 2010.

Boomers have dipped to ~20% of the population but still account for 38% (!!!) of this country's home ownership, so their impending demise will free up a lot of real estate.

Due do the death rate, Gen X is expected surpass the boomers as a % of US pop in ~2028. We'll see if that model holds up, though. Over 65 died to covid a lot, and most of those who died to covid are the unvaccindated, obese, sick, etc. Basically the intersection of the physically infirm and the stupid. That might actually reduce the death rate of those over 65 since the herd has already been thinned.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 10, 2024, 07:28:07 PM
Goose
No area is immune from price declines in its real estate. Florida's recent boom is due for (and already in the early stages) of a correction. Florida is a big state, though, and some areas are less vulnerable. Places where all cash/no mortgage are the rule won't (imo) suffer as much as others.

The areas with the largest increases in housing on the market though has been in areas like Naples, Cape Coral and Sarasota. I'm not sure this proves or disproves your point but I think there are a lot of people with second homes that are exiting the market.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 10, 2024, 08:35:53 PM
The areas with the largest increases in housing on the market though has been in areas like Naples, Cape Coral and Sarasota. I'm not sure this proves or disproves your point but I think there are a lot of people with second homes that are exiting the market.

Naples metro is 30% seniors
Cape Coral metro is 27% seniors
Sarasota is 30% seniors

Significantly higher than the state's already very high 19% of population over 65.

I don't know if I'm right, I just think Florida is an interesting animal in real estate with the old folks churn.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 10, 2024, 08:35:53 PM
The areas with the largest increases in housing on the market though has been in areas like Naples, Cape Coral and Sarasota. I'm not sure this proves or disproves your point but I think there are a lot of people with second homes that are exiting the market.

We're actually looking to make the move to Sarasota in the next 18-24 months, so we've been watching the market closely.  And the increase was absolutely insane.  TONS of places that sold for for 5-600K a few years ago that are listed/recently sold in the $1.5-2MM range.  I selfishly hope for a solid correction there, but even rationally, nothing about the run up in prices seemed normal or sustainable.

Goose:

Florida has some of the most cyclical real estate prices in the known universe. Period.

At the last real estate bust, 2008, our county (Indian River, located 70 miles north of Palm Beach and 60 miles south of the Space Center) had enough bankrupt real estate developments to make any self-respecting developer blush. Everywhere, there was vacant land that had been prepped for development but stopped cold as prices fell and demand went non-existent. We bought at the end of that cycle on a barrier island 1/4 mile from the Atlantic Ocean.

At the time, we bought a 2,800 square foot house, which we sold at nearly 2.5x what we paid for it after eight years. We sold our Illinois home and consolidated in Indian River County. We rent when we go back to Chicago.

Now, all of those 2008 bankruptcies have been acquired and filled in. Houses that sold in the $300,000s ten years ago are now selling for $1 million or more. And those have not cooled off yet because, as one poster noted, much of our market is cash purchases. New construction on our island in some cases is going for as much as $60 million if you're on the ocean. Off the island, prices are comparatively modest ($350,000 and up). Our community benefits from having a large number of millionaires here and heavy philanthropy. It also benefits from not being Miami, Palm Beach or Orlando.

If you're close to the ocean, the price for a home is at a premium. Further inland and things are more modest. Get out near Interstate 95 and things are downright affordable.

Finally, for those of you who ridicule us, so what if our state has a lot of boomers? We are growing like mad down here and that's not ALL old people. Folks of all ages come here because the climate is really nice eight months of the year and tolerable 10 months. Our state fosters economic growth, even if our governor, in his rodent control effort, took on the state's largest private sector employer. Our taxes are reasonable and our government services actually aren't bad. Now, if we could do something about our crappy healthcare in Indian River County!

I don't think that reality is ridicule. Florida's population is more elderly than most of the united states, and the real estate is largely held by the elderly, so Florida should see outsized effects of the boomers aging.

The boomers aren't interesting because they're old, but because there are so many of them compared to other generations that their inevitable die-off will be really interesting to watch. Specifically in Florida.

Or I'm wrong.

Nothing against boomers, but it's an interesting market effect in the next 20-25 years.

Quote from: JWags85 on June 10, 2024, 09:09:01 PM
We're actually looking to make the move to Sarasota in the next 18-24 months, so we've been watching the market closely.  And the increase was absolutely insane.  TONS of places that sold for for 5-600K a few years ago that are listed/recently sold in the $1.5-2MM range.  I selfishly hope for a solid correction there, but even rationally, nothing about the run up in prices seemed normal or sustainable.

During the Great Recession, we were looking at some areas of Florida and you could get nice 2 BR condos in Sarasota for under $200K. I wish I had the foresight (and cash) back then to have bought a few of those!

Brother Skatastrophy:

I get it and while I think there will be an interesting dynamic as we die off, somehow I think Florida will survive. The Xers are much small but the millennials will start to age and come on down too!

This is a state that thrives on growth. That's why I'm less worried than if we were, say, Iowa, which also is old.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 10, 2024, 10:05:31 PM
The Xers are much small

Bro, projection. lol.

I've got some millennial friends moving from a "fancy" neighborhood in Portland (OR) going to (Memphis) Tennessee.  They're about to sell a $800-900k (small) place that I helped fix up.  Will buy much bigger or lower (price) in Memphis.  Smart folks and all.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 10, 2024, 08:35:53 PM
The areas with the largest increases in housing on the market though has been in areas like Naples, Cape Coral and Sarasota. I'm not sure this proves or disproves your point but I think there are a lot of people with second homes that are exiting the market.

Purely anecdotal, but my community (Naples, 296 doors, mix of condos, villas and single family homes) has seen prices rise 150 - 200% in the last 6 years. Still a senior demographic, but the average age has actually fell from 75 to 67.5 in that time. Not more than a handful carry mortgages. 6-12 months ago places were selling 50 - 150,000 over asking price in a week. Now, 95 -100% of asking price usually within 30 days. I expect further softening but nothing radical. 2nd homes are a luxury in down markets but are less risky when the community as a whole is not leveraged.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 10, 2024, 10:51:17 PM
I expect further softening but nothing radical.

This I agree with.  With an asterisk before softening. 

Charmin ain't coming.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 10, 2024, 09:18:24 PM
Goose:

Florida has some of the most cyclical real estate prices in the known universe. Period.

At the last real estate bust, 2008, our county (Indian River, located 70 miles north of Palm Beach and 60 miles south of the Space Center) had enough bankrupt real estate developments to make any self-respecting developer blush. Everywhere, there was vacant land that had been prepped for development but stopped cold as prices fell and demand went non-existent. We bought at the end of that cycle on a barrier island 1/4 mile from the Atlantic Ocean.

At the time, we bought a 2,800 square foot house, which we sold at nearly 2.5x what we paid for it after eight years. We sold our Illinois home and consolidated in Indian River County. We rent when we go back to Chicago.

Now, all of those 2008 bankruptcies have been acquired and filled in. Houses that sold in the $300,000s ten years ago are now selling for $1 million or more. And those have not cooled off yet because, as one poster noted, much of our market is cash purchases. New construction on our island in some cases is going for as much as $60 million if you're on the ocean. Off the island, prices are comparatively modest ($350,000 and up). Our community benefits from having a large number of millionaires here and heavy philanthropy. It also benefits from not being Miami, Palm Beach or Orlando.

If you're close to the ocean, the price for a home is at a premium. Further inland and things are more modest. Get out near Interstate 95 and things are downright affordable.

Finally, for those of you who ridicule us, so what if our state has a lot of boomers? We are growing like mad down here and that's not ALL old people. Folks of all ages come here because the climate is really nice eight months of the year and tolerable 10 months. Our state fosters economic growth, even if our governor, in his rodent control effort, took on the state's largest private sector employer. Our taxes are reasonable and our government services actually aren't bad. Now, if we could do something about our crappy healthcare in Indian River County!

We are on the Ocean on a barrier island in Florida . The home values are strong, Insurance is hard to find and expensive and property taxes are high. Demand is still strong for these properties . As the most desirable ones rarely trade and stay in their families .

Property Taxes and insurance combined 50 K . Maintenance high, had to buy three new HVAC units over the course of last year which cost another 40 K and they will last maybe 8 years due to salt air

Not too many retirees where we live . Neighbors know each other and its a lot of fun .

Came from an oppressive tax situation in NY. Annual Income tax savings are about  750 K which helps the cause .

Inland values definitely are more cyclical . The better Country club gates communities tens to hold their values well, they dip for sure , but rebound quick

"Annual Income tax savings are about  750 K which helps the cause ."


Wow, saving 750K in annual income tax, surprised you spend so much time posting Hauser's stat lines every game. I assume you have a servant posting Hauser stat lines for you?

Quote from: PointWarrior on June 11, 2024, 12:46:42 AM
Wow, saving 750K in annual income tax, surprised you spend so much time posting Hauser's stat lines every game. I assume you have a servant posting Hauser stat lines for you?

Please refer to him as papa Hauser.  Or papapaghzxcbflhhhhhgh.   Either one is fine.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 10, 2024, 10:51:17 PM
Purely anecdotal, but my community (Naples, 296 doors, mix of condos, villas and single family homes) has seen prices rise 150 - 200% in the last 6 years. Still a senior demographic, but the average age has actually fell from 75 to 67.5 in that time. Not more than a handful carry mortgages. 6-12 months ago places were selling 50 - 150,000 over asking price in a week. Now, 95 -100% of asking price usually within 30 days. I expect further softening but nothing radical. 2nd homes are a luxury in down markets but are less risky when the community as a whole is not leveraged.

What Wags and you are saying makes sense.

Quote from: PointWarrior on June 11, 2024, 12:46:42 AM
"Annual Income tax savings are about  750 K which helps the cause ."


Wow, saving 750K in annual income tax, surprised you spend so much time posting Hauser's stat lines every game. I assume you have a servant posting Hauser stat lines for you?

My buddies have a similar take when their biz went public and they each had a 9 figure net worth, suddenly. They each bought "primary" homes in Miami Beach and spend enough time down there for tax reasons, but they still mostly live in NYC because they're in their 40s and Florida isn't their speed.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 11, 2024, 06:55:34 AM
My buddies have a similar take when their biz went public and they each had a 9 figure net worth, suddenly. They each bought "primary" homes in Miami Beach and spend enough time down there for tax reasons, but they still mostly live in NYC because they're in their 40s and Florida isn't their speed.

That's why I own multiple places in Florida.  I never visit them but rent them out to immigrant families.

Since there's a lot of talk about buying in Florida, some thoughts about Florida living and homebuying:

1) Construction -- If you are looking at a Florida house, consider when it was built. In 1995, Hurricane Andrew reduced Homestead to rubble. Our legislature got serious and went from some of the softest building codes in the first world to some of the toughest. Look for reinforced concrete walls and impact resistant windows. Oh, and make sure the roof is tightly strapped to the house. This will help ensure you aren't homeless if a hurricane visits and your insurance rates will be lower. This is one of the things our legislature did well.

One construction issue in Florida today relates to condos. After Sunrise (notice a pattern here?), the legislature got tough on condos. Almost every condo building more than 30 years of age in Florida has been required to do an engineering study. Engineers are finding billions of dollars of deferred maintenance, sacrificed on the altar of low HOA fees. Make sure the maintenance has been addressed. Otherwise, expect either a massive one-time assessment or a big increase in fees.

2) Taxes -- Yes, Brother Herm was right. They're a lot lower. Everyone knows we have no state income taxes. Our state constitution calls for summary capital punishment for any politician who ever utters the words "state income tax." Our sales taxes are less than or on par with the Chicago area and our property taxes are reasonable and increases capped. We live off tourism and our government comparatively is efficient. It will be interesting to see what happens when and if Florida ever stops growing and whether our state can avoid income taxes -- but that's down the road a generation, or two, or six.

3) Home Maintenance -- Be prepared for some surprises. Like Herm, we've replaced two compressors in 10 years. In Illinois, I expect a compressor to last 20 years. In Florida, if the compressor does 12, you've lottoed. Also, many Florida homes have pools. Pool pumps, leaks and equipment replacement are very expensive. We've also had to do $17,000 in roof repairs in the last two years. This is not uncommon in our state because of salt near the ocean, heavy rains and extreme heat. Replace a roof? Yeah, count on a ridiculous cost!

4) Insurance -- OK, it's expensive too. We're not as bad as Brother Herm is -- about $5,000 -- but we don't live directly on the ocean either. We're 1/4 mile away. We looked at a frame home without hurricane shutters or impact resistant windows when we bought our current home two years ago. We were told the cost for insurance would be $15,000. We looked elsewhere. Florida saying: What do they call frame houses after a hurricane? Answer: kindling!

5) Alligators -- Florida's raccoons. Don't bother them. They won't bother you. But watch your dog if you live on the mainland near a retention pond (what our swarmey developers call "lakes").

6) HOAs -- Yeup, a very big part of Florida living. Count on your neighbor telling you what's wrong with your house. Or your lifestyle. Seriously, HOAs can either be helpful, as in maintaining yards, ensuring things in the community work and keeping the swimming pool up, or they can be like Cynthia on the Geico commercial a few years ago. HOAs are all but mandatory for condos and gated communities. We have had two. One was awful. The one we have now is reasonable.

7) Politics -- Once upon a time, Florida was a swing state that decided elections. Not any more. Much to the chagrin of our local media, we now have 900,000 more Republicans than Democrats. That means politicians bypass Florida and don't spend money here. Just like New York, or Illinois, we have some wackos here! But our's are conservative, like book banning and think fluoride in the water is a plot by Fidel Castro's successors. Oh, and don't ever bring up Castro around our state's Cuban expatriate population. They believe Justin Trudeau is Margaret Trudeau's and Fidel Castro's love child. Yeup, some do!!!!!! We try avoid to political discussions whenever we can (like Scoop), but it's awfully hard sometimes (like Scoop). My moderately liberal wife thinks the whole state is wacky. She's part of an underground organization called "Florida Democrats."

Quote from: PointWarrior on June 11, 2024, 12:46:42 AM
"Annual Income tax savings are about  750 K which helps the cause ."


Wow, saving 750K in annual income tax, surprised you spend so much time posting Hauser's stat lines every game. I assume you have a servant posting Hauser stat lines for you?

Yeah, that's good make-believe income for a make-believe guy.

Quote from: MU82 on June 11, 2024, 08:54:11 AM
Yeah, that's good make-believe income for a make-believe guy.

Much of what Brother Herm says about his home in Florida rings true. Our combined taxes, HOA and insurance are about $25,000, so I can see his point. His thoughts about high-end housing in Florida are spot-on.

He may be referring to his business taxes. If he's got decent pre-tax income on his business, that tax savings is possible compared to New York. Ya never know.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 10, 2024, 07:28:07 PM
Goose
No area is immune from price declines in its real estate. Florida's recent boom is due for (and already in the early stages) of a correction. Florida is a big state, though, and some areas are less vulnerable. Places where all cash/no mortgage are the rule won't (imo) suffer as much as others.

Lenny, do you think that so few of these properties are mortgaged has anything to do with insurance rates? (Nod to Sultan who mentioned that a bit earlier in the thread).  I've heard from some folks that flood and hurricane insurance has gotten so insanely expensive - and is obviously required if a buyer is taking out a mortgage - that it is starting to shrink the market, especially for larger properties.  Or is volume of no mortgage properties just a function of the average age of buyers being so relatively high, and just having the cash available?

Wags

I get weekly updates from a real estate agent in Sarasota and there definitely is a big uptick in inventory and price reduction. Not exactly sure how I got on her list, but I get weekly updates on condos between $300-400k. A year ago, I would get about ten listings and now well over twenty.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 11, 2024, 08:30:34 AM
Since there's a lot of talk about buying in Florida, some thoughts about Florida living and homebuying:

1) Construction -- If you are looking at a Florida house, consider when it was built. In 1995, Hurricane Andrew reduced Homestead to rubble. Our legislature got serious and went from some of the softest building codes in the first world to some of the toughest. Look for reinforced concrete walls and impact resistant windows. Oh, and make sure the roof is tightly strapped to the house. This will help ensure you aren't homeless if a hurricane visits and your insurance rates will be lower. This is one of the things our legislature did well.

One construction issue in Florida today relates to condos. After Sunrise (notice a pattern here?), the legislature got tough on condos. Almost every condo building more than 30 years of age in Florida has been required to do an engineering study. Engineers are finding billions of dollars of deferred maintenance, sacrificed on the altar of low HOA fees. Make sure the maintenance has been addressed. Otherwise, expect either a massive one-time assessment or a big increase in fees.

2) Taxes -- Yes, Brother Herm was right. They're a lot lower. Everyone knows we have no state income taxes. Our state constitution calls for summary capital punishment for any politician who ever utters the words "state income tax." Our sales taxes are less than or on par with the Chicago area and our property taxes are reasonable and increases capped. We live off tourism and our government comparatively is efficient. It will be interesting to see what happens when and if Florida ever stops growing and whether our state can avoid income taxes -- but that's down the road a generation, or two, or six.

3) Home Maintenance -- Be prepared for some surprises. Like Herm, we've replaced two compressors in 10 years. In Illinois, I expect a compressor to last 20 years. In Florida, if the compressor does 12, you've lottoed. Also, many Florida homes have pools. Pool pumps, leaks and equipment replacement are very expensive. We've also had to do $17,000 in roof repairs in the last two years. This is not uncommon in our state because of salt near the ocean, heavy rains and extreme heat. Replace a roof? Yeah, count on a ridiculous cost!

4) Insurance -- OK, it's expensive too. We're not as bad as Brother Herm is -- about $5,000 -- but we don't live directly on the ocean either. We're 1/4 mile away. We looked at a frame home without hurricane shutters or impact resistant windows when we bought our current home two years ago. We were told the cost for insurance would be $15,000. We looked elsewhere. Florida saying: What do they call frame houses after a hurricane? Answer: kindling!

5) Alligators -- Florida's raccoons. Don't bother them. They won't bother you. But watch your dog if you live on the mainland near a retention pond (what our swarmey developers call "lakes").

6) HOAs -- Yeup, a very big part of Florida living. Count on your neighbor telling you what's wrong with your house. Or your lifestyle. Seriously, HOAs can either be helpful, as in maintaining yards, ensuring things in the community work and keeping the swimming pool up, or they can be like Cynthia on the Geico commercial a few years ago. HOAs are all but mandatory for condos and gated communities. We have had two. One was awful. The one we have now is reasonable.

7) Politics -- Once upon a time, Florida was a swing state that decided elections. Not any more. Much to the chagrin of our local media, we now have 900,000 more Republicans than Democrats. That means politicians bypass Florida and don't spend money here. Just like New York, or Illinois, we have some wackos here! But our's are conservative, like book banning and think fluoride in the water is a plot by Fidel Castro's successors. Oh, and don't ever bring up Castro around our state's Cuban expatriate population. They believe Justin Trudeau is Margaret Trudeau's and Fidel Castro's love child. Yeup, some do!!!!!! We try avoid to political discussions whenever we can (like Scoop), but it's awfully hard sometimes (like Scoop). My moderately liberal wife thinks the whole state is wacky. She's part of an underground organization called "Florida Democrats."

Brother dgies956:
Relative to point 1, we invested in a supplemental home on the inland side of the Intercoastal. They frequently close the bridges after the hurricanes hit sometimes for extended times. Because of that we have encountered point 5 and 6 above. Can't let the dog near the pond and HOA mandated improvements within 60 days. 

Quote from: MUBurrow on June 11, 2024, 09:09:48 AM
Lenny, do you think that so few of these properties are mortgaged has anything to do with insurance rates? (Nod to Sultan who mentioned that a bit earlier in the thread).  I've heard from some folks that flood and hurricane insurance has gotten so insanely expensive - and is obviously required if a buyer is taking out a mortgage - that it is starting to shrink the market, especially for larger properties.  Or is volume of no mortgage properties just a function of the average age of buyers being so relatively high, and just having the cash available?

Burrow

I think for properties already bought that age and cash on hand have been the driving factors, especially for relatively moderately priced ones. Going forward, skyrocketing insurance costs will make self insurance a legitimate (preferred?) option for those who can avoid a mortgage. The double edged sword - higher prices plus expensive insurance will imo shrink and therefore soften the market some in at least the near term.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 11, 2024, 11:10:11 AM
Burrow

I think for properties already bought that age and cash on hand have been the driving factors, especially for relatively moderately priced ones. Going forward, skyrocketing insurance costs will make self insurance a legitimate (preferred?) option for those who can avoid a mortgage. The double edged sword - higher prices plus expensive insurance will imo shrink and therefore soften the market some in at least the near term.

I'm going to be optimistic. I think insurance rates have peaked.

Most of the homes built in the last 20 years in Florida were built to post-Andrew hurricane standards. Go back and see what happened in Ft. Myers in some of the newer neighborhoods, where homes were built like nuclear bunkers. Damage was minimal.

Second, insurance underwriters are getting smarter. They're inspecting homes BEFORE they insure them. On my home, they required a new water heater. On the home we sold, they required that trees be trimmed away from the house. We've heard of stories where homeowners have had to install new roofs for homes to be insured. They check everything and require proof of compliance before their policies go effective.

I think they're reducing risk and with it, a reduction in premiums are coming. Now, if I have a frame house with ordinary windows.... OUCHHH!!!!!

Not sure why you think rates have peaked. If you look at that link MUFiC posted in the US Economy thread, you'll see that not just Florida but numerous states have trended higher and higher for home insurance (and car insurance). Florida's a sneaky-expensive state for one that doesn't have a state income tax, and there's no sign that's coming down - except maybe the actual cost of buying houses. Those prices seem to be coming down.

(I'll repost here )

Money magazine must read Scoop.  This came up in my Google news feed from today.
I didn't want to put in the EV thread and drift it further away.


https://money.com/no-income-tax-states-expensive/

Why States With No Income Tax Aren't as Affordable as They Seem
By: Brad Tuttle
Editor: Julia Glum
Published: May 30, 2024 | 9 min read

There are nine states that don't tax workers' wages. But just because a state doesn't have income taxes doesn't necessarily mean it's an affordable place to live.

If a state doesn't charge income tax, it must find revenues elsewhere, which explains why other tax rates tend to be high in these locations. What's more, the cost of living in some states with no income tax has soared in recent years, often as a result of skyrocketing home insurance prices related to climate change, as well as higher housing prices in general.

The point is: Moving to a state with no income tax is not a slam-dunk strategy to save money. In fact, if you don't do the math to factor in other local living expenses, it can seriously backfire. (FYI, the states with no ordinary income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.)

"The correlation between the cost of living and the absence of income tax in a state is relatively weak," Andrey Yushkov, a senior policy analyst with the Center for State Tax Policy at the nonpartisan nonprofit Tax Foundation, explains to Money via email. "Many other factors affect the cost of living, including property and sales taxes, excise taxes and home insurance. Therefore, the absence of income tax does not necessarily imply that it is cheaper for everyone to live there."

(See link for rest of article.)

Quote from: Uncle Rico on June 11, 2024, 07:22:13 AM
That's why I own multiple places in Florida.  I never visit them but rent them out to immigrant families.

You, obviously, still enjoy playin' Monopoly, aina?

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 11, 2024, 08:30:34 AM
Since there's a lot of talk about buying in Florida, some thoughts about Florida living and homebuying:

One construction issue in Florida today relates to condos. After Sunrise (notice a pattern here?), the legislature got tough on condos. Almost every condo building more than 30 years of age in Florida has been required to do an engineering study. Engineers are finding billions of dollars of deferred maintenance, sacrificed on the altar of low HOA fees. Make sure the maintenance has been addressed. Otherwise, expect either a massive one-time assessment or a big increase in fees.

This is a stone cold fact. Bought my condo in New Smyrna Beach in 2019, HOA a month was $400. Grew to $700 this past year always with a "pay as you go" for any and all additional assessments while not funding reserves. Largest additional annual assessment had been about $6K.

With the new FL laws, we have to fully fund our reserve on an annual basis which now might be in the $300-500K range spread out over 35 units. It is a substantial change. We have done a good job keeping up on the building, so our engineering study came back in pretty good shape. I think the law goes into effect in 2025, maybe there will be a change in the final rules.

Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on June 11, 2024, 08:26:47 PM
This is a stone cold fact. Bought my condo in New Smyrna Beach in 2019, HOA a month was $400. Grew to $700 this past year always with a "pay as you go" for any and all additional assessments while not funding reserves. Largest additional annual assessment had been about $6K.

With the new FL laws, we have to fully fund our reserve on an annual basis which now might be in the $300-500K range spread out over 35 units. It is a substantial change. We have done a good job keeping up on the building, so our engineering study came back in pretty good shape. I think the law goes into effect in 2025, maybe there will be a change in the final rules.

Gov. DeSantis taking care of his peeps.

Quote from: Goose on April 15, 2024, 11:05:07 AM
82

You should cash out of some of your stocks and buy your daughter a home.

They wouldn't appreciate it. No skin in the game

Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on June 11, 2024, 08:26:47 PM


With the new FL laws, we have to fully fund our reserve on an annual basis which now might be in the $300-500K range spread out over 35 units. It is a substantial change. We have done a good job keeping up on the building, so our engineering study came back in pretty good shape. I think the law goes into effect in 2025, maybe there will be a change in the final rules.

Do you think fully funding your reserves is a bad thing?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 12, 2024, 09:44:58 AM
Do you think fully funding your reserves is a bad thing?

As a former appointed financial officer for an HOA, that's the direction I pushed our HOA to go. With Board approval, I ordered a replacement cost study and engineering analysis of our major infrastructure. We were underfunded but don't fall under the new law because we were a single-family residence community.

I'm a big believer in full funding of reserves and of an "emergency fund," that would cover clean-up from such things as hurricanes, other bad storms and unexpected calamities (like a meteor strike). Special assessments are really, really bad!

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 12, 2024, 10:29:14 AM
As a former appointed financial officer for an HOA, that's the direction I pushed our HOA to go. With Board approval, I ordered a replacement cost study and engineering analysis of our major infrastructure. We were underfunded but don't fall under the new law because we were a single-family residence community.

I'm a big believer in full funding of reserves and of an "emergency fund," that would cover clean-up from such things as hurricanes, other bad storms and unexpected calamities (like a meteor strike). Special assessments are really, really bad!

100% agree

I'm fine with meteor strikes being a special assessment.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 12, 2024, 09:44:58 AM
Do you think fully funding your reserves is a bad thing?

Every year I voted to fully fund the reserve, every year the HOA voted to defer and pay as we went. Generally, I think it should be up to the individual condo associations.

Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on June 12, 2024, 11:12:30 AM
Every year I voted to fully fund the reserve, every year the HOA voted to defer and pay as we went. Generally, I think it should be up to the individual condo associations.

That's what the residents of Sunrise thought too!

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 12, 2024, 01:20:44 PM
That's what the residents of Sunrise thought too!

Additionally, I think Sunrise was negligent in their maintenance and planning. Perhaps that was a function of reserve, perhaps it was potentially criminal conduct by the board.

Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on June 12, 2024, 05:54:49 PM
Additionally, I think Sunrise was negligent in their maintenance and planning. Perhaps that was a function of reserve, perhaps it was potentially criminal conduct by the board.

Based on the reporting down here, the Sunrise Board was negligent primarily because the HOA Board was working to keep the annual assessments down. In Florida, particularly with "past their prime" buildings, there is much pressure on Board members to keep the assessment low. The first thing out of most people's mouth on the issue is, "I'm on a fixed income..."

Was the Sunrise Board criminally negligent? Probably not.

Was the Sunrise Board naïve about the risk they were taking? Most likely! I doubt anyone, including the engineers, thought the structural weaknesses and deficiencies would lead to a collapse. But they knew there were problems that needed to be addressed and those problems weren't, again largely because of managing assessments.

Several countries, including Canada, Australia and some in Europe, have something called "mortgage assumability," where new owners of a house "assume" the mortgage terms of the seller (with full coverage of existing equity). It happens in the U.S. on a limited scale with FHA and VA loans, but some are wondering if the practice can be broadened to help solve one of the problems that are making houses less affordable now.

Another proposed remedy is "mortgage portability," which lets buyers or sellers simply "port" their existing mortgage terms to a new location. It could really make a dent for both buyers and sellers of a transaction.

However, in America, most of the record-keeping and taxation is done on a county-wide level, which would complicate any attempt to use either of those solutions nationwide. Additionally, something pretty unique to the U.S. is the way mortgage holders sell mortgages. One house's mortgage could get sold a dozen times in a 30-year period.

The idea of mortgage portability makes sense to me, but my guess is the lenders would be concerned about interest rate risk so the rates wouldn't be super low. Also this may make it difficult of a mortgage holder needs to bridge between two purchases.  But I like the concept

The real question is if there is any financial incentive for the lending companies to do it.  If not, it won't happen.

I'd think there's incentive to write new mortgages for each transaction, that way brokers can exact their rents for being middlemen in the transaction. Not sure they'd be able to do so if I just maintained my mortgage terms on New House.

One incentive could be that lenders would be able to hold onto customers, by offering some sort of transaction fee that would be lower than the traditional closing cost. These are probably your typical banks who aren't inclined to sell your mortgage or use outside brokers.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on June 21, 2024, 07:41:56 AM
The idea of mortgage portability makes sense to me, but my guess is the lenders would be concerned about interest rate risk so the rates wouldn't be super low. Also this may make it difficult of a mortgage holder needs to bridge between two purchases.  But I like the concept

Brother Hippie is right on the money for part of this one.

No lender in their right mind is going to permit portability of a 3.25 percent, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage in a 6.75 percent to 7.50 percent mortgage market. Not going to happen. Plus, originators lose out on the origination fee. Only way I ever could see it happen if the fee was a "mark to market" fee that effectively gives a holder a fair market value or fair value yield.

Portability also doesn't work because the loan is secured by a specific collateral property. Loan documents, especially secondary mortgage market-qualified documents, have due on sale clauses. They are there for a reason.

Years ago, before the savings institutions crisis that began in 1979, many mortgages had an assumability feature that allowed a new buyer to "assume" the existing mortgage on a home, subject to a fee. That went out the window when mortgages were in the 5.00 percent range and the market was in the 14 percent range.

Interest rate risk is a nasty bi__h.

By the way, Brother Hippie, very few commercial banks except for the large money center banks, actually hold residential mortgages in portfolio. They sell them because they don't want the interest rate risk.

Quote from: dgies9156 on June 24, 2024, 10:11:17 AM
By the way, Brother Hippie, very few commercial banks except for the large money center banks, actually hold residential mortgages in portfolio. They sell them because they don't want the interest rate risk.

Yeah, the regional FI an in-law works for can only close on a few properties in Chicago each year. Their FI doesn't sell their mortgages, and they are legally not allowed to concentrate their lending in a region that is not of their stated focus.

FIs have a lot of rules and regulations.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 24, 2024, 10:29:13 AM
FIs have a lot of rules and regulations.

I know!

I've worked in the business since the 1980s. Given what a bank failure can do to a regional or even national economy, there has to be extensive regulation.

Interest rate risk is what drove the savings institution business into an ill-planned, poorly executed commercial real estate diversification in the 1980s. That in turn, killed the thrift industry. The credit union business is going down the same path now, hopefully with better results.

Because we had such a long period of very low market interest rates, there is enormous interest rate risk in the banking system today. What's worse, some of that interest rate risk will become credit risk when balloon loans mature and borrowers can't afford new credit.

The Number in this afternoon's WSJ e-newsletter:

$19,000+

The starting point for monthly rent for a luxury 1,100-square foot property in Monaco, making it the world's most expensive residential rental market, according to real-estate company Knight Frank's May analysis of the top 1% of properties in different cities. That's 36% higher than in Hong Kong, which came in second; New York prime rentals start around $9,200 a month. International renters like Monaco's favorable tax policies and access to the high life.

Quote from: MU82 on June 27, 2024, 06:36:29 PM
The Number in this afternoon's WSJ e-newsletter:

$19,000+

The starting point for monthly rent for a luxury 1,100-square foot property in Monaco, making it the world's most expensive residential rental market, according to real-estate company Knight Frank's May analysis of the top 1% of properties in different cities. That's 36% higher than in Hong Kong, which came in second; New York prime rentals start around $9,200 a month. International renters like Monaco's favorable tax policies and access to the high life.

That's alot of rent to pay for access to a sh!tty beer.

According to Freddie Mac, 30-year mortgage rates are under 6.5% for the first time in more than a year. (6.47%)

Rates don't always follow Fed cuts and hikes, but they often do. So if the Fed cuts twice this year, as expected, and then several times next year, maybe mortgages could get back down to 5%?

Here's hoping, because that would help a lot of people and maybe would light a fire under a stagnant housing market.

Quote from: MU82 on August 09, 2024, 07:18:13 AM
According to Freddie Mac, 30-year mortgage rates are under 6.5% for the first time in more than a year. (6.47%)

Rates don't always follow Fed cuts and hikes, but they often do. So if the Fed cuts twice this year, as expected, and then several times next year, maybe mortgages could get back down to 5%?

Here's hoping, because that would help a lot of people and maybe would light a fire under a stagnant housing market.

Rates precede rate cuts/hikes and are basically reactionary to what we expect the fed to do.

We saw big rate movement last week after jobs because the sentiment changed from .25 in sept to possibly .50 in sept and more in oct or dec.

Any movement the day of the cut ties to their dot plots or where they expect to move at future meetings.

Quote from: MU82 on August 09, 2024, 07:18:13 AM
According to Freddie Mac, 30-year mortgage rates are under 6.5% for the first time in more than a year. (6.47%)

Rates don't always follow Fed cuts and hikes, but they often do. So if the Fed cuts twice this year, as expected, and then several times next year, maybe mortgages could get back down to 5%?

Here's hoping, because that would help a lot of people and maybe would light a fire under a stagnant housing market.

Housin' market ain't stagnant here, hey?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 09, 2024, 01:18:11 PM


Housin' market ain't stagnant here, hey?

There is a large inventory of housing stock available in the Mequon market in a variety of price ranges? That's great to hear!

Quote from: MU82 on August 09, 2024, 06:42:21 PM
There is a large inventory of housing stock available in the Mequon market in a variety of price ranges? That's great to hear!

You'll have to forgive doc.  I'm sure many houses are selling below market in his hood due this horrible economy.   

My hood is approaching record numbers of listings.  But not below market.

Quote from: MU82 on August 09, 2024, 06:42:21 PM
There is a large inventory of housing stock available in the Mequon market in a variety of price ranges? That's great to hear!

Was curious so I looked. 44 houses for sale in the Quon. A whole 3 of them are cheaper than 455,000! The cheapest one at 325,000 was built in the 1930s is described as "having potential for your ideas". The second cheapest at 399,000 is 1500 sq ft and described as "Lots of potential and an opportunity to be a beautiful home again".

So, one ready to live in home under the price of 455,000

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 10, 2024, 11:44:53 PM
Was curious so I looked. 44 houses for sale in the Quon. A whole 3 of them are cheaper than 455,000! The cheapest one at 325,000 was built in the 1930s is described as "having potential for your ideas". The second cheapest at 399,000 is 1500 sq ft and described as "Lots of potential and an opportunity to be a beautiful home again".

So, one ready to live in home under the price of 455,000

Mequon sucks

My property taxes increased $2500 and are now just under 16K (while they laid off 10% of the teachers in our school district), utilities increased 6%, just went to Costco for our regular run of stuff, $680.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 11, 2024, 06:02:40 AM
My property taxes increased $2500 and are now just under 16K (while they laid off 10% of the teachers in our school district), utilities increased 6%, just went to Costco for our regular run of stuff, $680.

Thanks!

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 11, 2024, 07:26:13 AM
Thanks!

You're Welcome!

How often do you go to Costco?   My monthly bill is generally in the low $200s.  Unless I take my wife along.   Then it is higher.

$680? Dang.

Loading up on brisket?

Quote from: jficke13 on August 11, 2024, 07:51:03 AM
$680? Dang.

Loading up on brisket?

New tires.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 09, 2024, 01:18:11 PM


Housin' market ain't stagnant here, hey?

home off my backyard-waukesha county, sold for asking price(low 7 figs)) within 3 days of posting to ophthalmologist and engineer peoples.  put the sign up with SOLD on it

Quote from: tower912 on August 11, 2024, 07:44:21 AM
How often do you go to Costco?   My monthly bill is generally in the low $200s.  Unless I take my wife along.   Then it is higher.

We go every 6-8 weeks. We live with my daughter and son-in-law so when they're at work we're home to mind our granddaughter; so, we are buying for 5. K-cups were $60, and paper towel was $50. It adds up quickly.

$680 every 6-8 weeks for a family of five? That doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Quote from: tower912 on August 11, 2024, 07:44:21 AM
How often do you go to Costco?   My monthly bill is generally in the low $200s.  Unless I take my wife along.   Then it is higher.

About twice a month of it's just me. Sometimes I make the mistake of letting the Missus go alone and
take the credit card .....🤓

Quote from: Herman Cain on August 11, 2024, 10:00:31 AM
About twice a month of it's just me. Sometimes I make the mistake of letting the Missus go alone and
take the credit card .....🤓

Some years ago, a granddaughter rushed up to her Grampa at a mall where he was sitting while his wife and granddaughter went shopping. The girl said, "we need more money!" Her Grampa smiled and said, "but I gave your Grandma money already,"  The girl replied "I know, but Gramma went and spent it all!".

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 11, 2024, 08:59:09 AM
$680 every 6-8 weeks for a family of five? That doesn't seem outrageous to me.

I'm about 800 a month for a family of 4

TAMU, did you get that steak that serves as your avatar at Costco? They have great steaks, but they come in 3- or 4-packs so we won't buy them there unless we have someone over for a cookout.

When the family was young and growing, we used to buy a ton at Costco. Now that it's mostly just 2 of us, we still go, but the trips are quicker and less expensive. There's still always the risk of going in for some half-and-half and lettuce but leaving with a three-pack of kayaks and a couple dozen croissants the size of mailboxes. Oh, and also a two-pack of mailboxes.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on August 10, 2024, 10:49:33 PM
You'll have to forgive doc.  I'm sure many houses are selling below market in his hood due this horrible economy.   

My hood is approaching record numbers of listings.  But not below market.

Nope, bidding wars if ya got somethin' perceived desirable ta sell, hey?

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 10, 2024, 11:44:53 PM
Was curious so I looked. 44 houses for sale in the Quon. A whole 3 of them are cheaper than 455,000! The cheapest one at 325,000 was built in the 1930s is described as "having potential for your ideas". The second cheapest at 399,000 is 1500 sq ft and described as "Lots of potential and an opportunity to be a beautiful home again".

So, one ready to live in home under the price of 455,000

So what? I can find ya much more upscale 'hoods than The Quon, hey?

Quote from: MurphysTillClose on August 11, 2024, 12:10:23 AM
Mequon sucks

Sum like chickens, some like feathers, aina?

Quote from: MU82 on August 11, 2024, 11:57:35 AM
TAMU, did you get that steak that serves as your avatar at Costco? They have great steaks, but they come in 3- or 4-packs so we won't buy them there unless we have someone over for a cookout.

When the family was young and growing, we used to buy a ton at Costco. Now that it's mostly just 2 of us, we still go, but the trips are quicker and less expensive. There's still always the risk of going in for some half-and-half and lettuce but leaving with a three-pack of kayaks and a couple dozen croissants the size of mailboxes. Oh, and also a two-pack of mailboxes.

Nads, ya got a freezer at yo crib, hey?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2024, 12:39:56 PM

Nope, bidding wars if ya got somethin' perceived desirable ta sell, hey?

My wife and I are thinking of moving from Virginia to Mequon. Can we stay with you while we look around for a home that meets our very high standards and is dirt cheap to boot?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2024, 12:49:48 PM


Nads, ya got a freezer at yo crib, hey?

Freezing steak is for the plebs.

(https://i.imgflip.com/54vdvk.jpg)

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2024, 12:49:48 PM


Nads, ya got a freezer at yo crib, hey?

Aside from the one that came with our humongous refrigerator/freezer, no, we've never needed one. Besides, steaks taste best when fresh, not defrosted after having been in the freezer for weeks or months.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 11, 2024, 01:15:40 PM
My wife and I are thinking of moving from Virginia to Mequon. Can we stay with you while we look around for a home that meets our very high standards and is dirt cheap to boot?

Nah, borders aren't allowed in The Quon, hey?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2024, 04:17:29 PM

Nah, borders aren't allowed in The Quon, hey?

Boarders? Hell, we weren't planning on paying you anything. We would pick up the tab for pizza once in a while and maybe a couple of 6 packs. Where did you get the idea we were going to pay you?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2024, 04:17:29 PM

Nah, borders aren't allowed in The Quon, hey?

Amazingly progressive.    Just imagine a world without borders.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 11, 2024, 04:59:30 PM
Boarders? Hell, we weren't planning on paying you anything. We would pick up the tab for pizza once in a while and maybe a couple of 6 packs. Where did you get the idea we were going to pay you?

See, this is why MU's endowment sucks ass. Graduated a bunch of cheap schmucks, hey?

Quote from: tower912 on August 11, 2024, 05:03:07 PM
Amazingly progressive.    Just imagine a world without borders.

Progressive? This is what I follow...so uplifting, hey?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NDWTM1in_uM

I just assumed....
Doctors without borders...
Dentists without borders...
Mequon without borders...

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 11, 2024, 06:02:40 AM
My property taxes increased $2500 and are now just under 16K (while they laid off 10% of the teachers in our school district), utilities increased 6%, just went to Costco for our regular run of stuff, $680.

You're in New Jersey if I recall.  My cousin moved up to Connecticut from New Jersey 4 years ago after his youngest finished high school.  The main reason was his property taxes dropped 50% and he has siblings and cousins here to boot.

Quote from: MU82 on August 11, 2024, 11:57:35 AM
TAMU, did you get that steak that serves as your avatar at Costco? They have great steaks, but they come in 3- or 4-packs so we won't buy them there unless we have someone over for a cookout.

When the family was young and growing, we used to buy a ton at Costco. Now that it's mostly just 2 of us, we still go, but the trips are quicker and less expensive. There's still always the risk of going in for some half-and-half and lettuce but leaving with a three-pack of kayaks and a couple dozen croissants the size of mailboxes. Oh, and also a two-pack of mailboxes.

No Costcos near us. We're a Kroger/Aldi family

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 11, 2024, 09:41:43 PM
No Costcos near us. We're a Kroger/Aldi family

Can't win 'em all!

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 11, 2024, 08:59:09 AM
$680 every 6-8 weeks for a family of five? That doesn't seem outrageous to me.

That is on top of our usual grocery bill where we average about $350/week. We eat fish 2-3 times a week so the fish can cost $80-$100 per week. Don't get me started, living here on the east coast, on the cost of scallops at $25/pound. Not too long ago a can of Campbell soup was a 1.99 now its 2.29 and a gallon of 2% milk can cost from 3.60 to 4.29 depending on the store we shop at.

Complaining about the cost of condensed soup, while also lamenting the cost of scallops, is something.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 08:41:01 AM
That is on top of our usual grocery bill where we average about $350/week. We eat fish 2-3 times a week so the fish can cost $80-$100 per week. Don't get me started, living here on the east coast, on the cost of scallops at $25/pound. Not too long ago a can of Campbell soup was a 1.99 now its 2.29 and a gallon of 2% milk can cost from 3.60 to 4.29 depending on the store we shop at.

Sounds like you've made the choice to have a relatively expensive lifestyle in a relatively expensive part of the country. Please do not read this as a criticism at all - like the rest of us, you have the option to live where you want to live, eat what you want to eat, etc. There are undoubtedly all kinds of great reasons you've made this choice - family, friends, love of the area, etc. But those are all choices, ones we all have to make.

Just saw this on the news. Six figure special assessments and falling values hitting some Florida condo owners hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/reckoning-coming-floridas-condo-owners-buildings-face-millions-repairs-rcna165764

I am inspired.   Summers in New Jersey and winters in an older Florida condo.

Reason number 3,846 not to live in Florida.

Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on August 12, 2024, 12:23:58 PM
Just saw this on the news. Six figure special assessments and falling values hitting some Florida condo owners hard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/reckoning-coming-floridas-condo-owners-buildings-face-millions-repairs-rcna165764

We've talked abut this before. After Sunrise, our state government took a hard line on condominium deferred maintenance. The State had to or else we would have had more and more Sunrises.

The problem is condo owners often are retired people who live on an alleged "fixed income." HOAs set the annual assessment based on the will and desire off the community they serve. Some idiots would sacrifice maintenance at the altar of low assessments, as the folks at Sunrise did. Most condo boards are volunteers and unpaid, so you can't really sue them for malfeasance.

The state acted in the best interest of the People of Florida. Dare I say that if the "other" party had control of our government, they'd do exactly the same thing.

Brother Hippie: You don't know what your missing. Florida is a real cool place, except in July, August and September.

Quote from: MU82 on August 12, 2024, 10:31:44 AM
Sounds like you've made the choice to have a relatively expensive lifestyle in a relatively expensive part of the country. Please do not read this as a criticism at all - like the rest of us, you have the option to live where you want to live, eat what you want to eat, etc. There are undoubtedly all kinds of great reasons you've made this choice - family, friends, love of the area, etc. But those are all choices, ones we all have to make.

Since when is buying paper towel, facial tissue, toilet paper, fresh fish, milk, etc. a relatively expensive lifestyle?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 01:30:20 PM
Since when is buying paper towel, facial tissue, toilet paper, fresh fish, milk, etc. a relatively expensive lifestyle?

Your monthly figures for 5 people are above average.  No harm in that, but you can't claim to be eating "thrifty".  That's all.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on August 12, 2024, 01:59:05 PM
Your monthly figures for 5 people are above average.  No harm in that, but you can't claim to be eating "thrifty".  That's all.

Never claimed to be "thrifty" however, according to Forbes and onefrugalgirl I am within the average. According to tag.vault.org using data from the bureau of Labor statistics, even TAMU at 800/month would be above average.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/grocery-costs-monthly-average/

https://www.onefrugalgirl.com/how-much-should-i-spend-on-groceries/

https://tagvault.org/blog/average-grocery-bill-for-family-of-4/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways%3A%201%20The%20average%20cost%20of%20groceries,are%20key%20considerations%20when%20determining%20a%20grocery%20budget.

I have no idea on our monthly food bill and did not want to know. Only two of us and crazy high I am guessing.

Our formula for many years has been:

Costco -to get items we use frequently . Their Kirkland Organic  selection is growing and still have the largest and best value for Avocados etc

Trader Joes -Certain speciality items like Organic Lettuces , Cold Brew Coffee Concentrate etc

Publix- is our convenience store of sorts

Local Health Food Store- has specials we take advantage of like fresh shrimp and hand made sushi the Missus likes

When the kids are in town we load triple the Costco

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 01:30:20 PM
Since when is buying paper towel, facial tissue, toilet paper, fresh fish, milk, etc. a relatively expensive lifestyle?

I guess it was your scallop and seafood budget that made me think it. Again, I'm not criticizing.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 01:30:20 PM
Since when is buying paper towel, facial tissue, toilet paper, fresh fish, milk, etc. a relatively expensive lifestyle?

Fresh fish is something a lot of people can't afford regularly, especially when the fish is scallops. Same with K Cups. And like others have said, this isn't a criticism. You can choose to spend as much as you want on your grocery budget,  you've earned it! As you pointed out my daily is well above average too

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 05:17:40 PM
I am within the average.

You detailed $2080/month with weekly trips at $350 + $680 Costco trip.  That's above average.

Like Goose, I don't really track my groceries that closely, and I'm probably above average too.  But there are several things I could / should cut out before I complain about my grocery budget as a percentage of spending.

3 of us, one a 17 year old.  $500 a month at Meijer.  $250 at Costco.   Supplemental trips for things like milk and bananas.  Weekly restaurant visit.

Quote from: Herman Cain on August 12, 2024, 07:05:33 PM
Our formula for many years has been:

Costco -to get items we use frequently . Their Kirkland Organic  selection is growing and still have the largest and best value for Avocados etc

Trader Joes -Certain speciality items like Organic Lettuces , Cold Brew Coffee Concentrate etc

Publix- is our convenience store of sorts

Local Health Food Store- has specials we take advantage of like fresh shrimp and hand made sushi the Missus likes

When the kids are in town we load triple the Costco

Our formula is Aldi first, get everything we can there. Kroger next to fill in what Aldi didn't have and a few select name brands (I may have a slight coke zero addiction). Trader Joes for a few specific items (most of their asian offerings are pretty good and way cheaper than takeout). Finally amazon for cleaning products

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 01:30:20 PM
Since when is buying paper towel, facial tissue, toilet paper, fresh fish, milk, etc. a relatively expensive lifestyle?

Do you think food/groceries should be cheaper? Why?

Quote from: rocky_warrior on August 12, 2024, 08:06:20 PM
You detailed $2080/month with weekly trips at $350 + $680 Costco trip.  That's above average.

Like Goose, I don't really track my groceries that closely, and I'm probably above average too.  But there are several things I could / should cut out before I complain about my grocery budget as a percentage of spending.

When we go to Costco we don't do our regular grocery run.

Quote from: Goose on August 12, 2024, 05:41:17 PM
I have no idea on our monthly food bill and did not want to know. Only two of us and crazy high I am guessing.

Which is the point of this thread. It does not matter if you are the thrift shopper or not everything is up.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 12, 2024, 09:09:31 PM
Which is the point of this thread. It does not matter if you are the thrift shopper or not everything is up.

Actually, the point of this thread is to discuss mortgage rates and the housing market.

My wife's car burns premium so we get to a Costco every week or two just to take advantage of the gas prices.

Quote from: MU82 on August 12, 2024, 09:23:05 PM
Actually, the point of this thread is to discuss mortgage rates and the housing market.

...and like everything else are too high.

Supply, need demand.  Macro-economics 101.   Fed, slow inflation with interest rate hikes without cratering it.   Good talk.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 13, 2024, 07:30:28 AM
...and like everything else are too high.

Someone doesn't understand how the economy works.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 13, 2024, 07:47:38 AM
Someone doesn't understand how the economy works.

You would think if interest rates are high the price of a home would go down, but that has not happened.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 13, 2024, 07:59:09 AM
You would think if interest rates are high the price of a home would go down, but that has not happened.

Because there is a lack of supply.

Home prices have materially gone down what, once in the past 75 years?  2008 has folks thinking that downward price pressure will actually lower prices, but that was almost unprecedented, and supply is even lower than it was then. Other economic factors may suppress price growth, but folks expecting price drops have another thing coming.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 13, 2024, 08:10:34 AM
Because there is a lack of supply.

...why is that? High interest rates.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 13, 2024, 10:12:12 AM
...why is that? High interest rates.

Partially yes.

But we also don't have enough housing units. After 2008, new home construction went way down, and we haven't caught up.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 13, 2024, 10:15:10 AM
Partially yes.

But we also don't have enough housing units. After 2008, new home construction went way down, and we haven't caught up.

Increased life spans, increased availability of hone care, increases in companies buying up SFH as investments,  and increases in homeowners buying a second property to rent out also contribute.

My daughter and her husband have been looking for a year for a new home in the Syracuse, NY market.

Houses in that market consistently price above ask. Sometimes by more than 15% above ask. The sellers are rejecting offers with inspection contingencies and getting away with it. Like many markets, there has been limited new housing built in Syracuse in the neighborhoods where people want to live.

The inspection clause issue is interesting. For years, inspections were a binary decision. You inspect a home and then if there's something major, you have an option to walk. But we found when we sold two homes in 2022, the inspection report was used to try to nickel and dime us to death. The buyers used it as leverage. Sellers get angry and in this market, elect not to engage in the inspection negotiation nonsense.

In our market in Florida, buyers with cash deals have a decided advantage. There are many accepted contracts without financing contingencies. That's how we won the bid on our current house. We financed the house (temporarily) but the deal was going through whether we had financing or not. We had to prove we could pay cash from some assets we had.

The last house we sold had an inspection contingency, but the buyer agreed ahead of time to cover the first $10,000 of any defects. In other words, they were just looking at the major stuff.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 13, 2024, 10:38:40 AM
Increased life spans, increased availability of hone care, increases in companies buying up SFH as investments,  and increases in homeowners buying a second property to rent out also contribute.

In the Charlotte area, from about 2013-19, there was an insane amount of corporate buying going on of single-family homes. There was so much that many HOAs enacted rules to limit or even eliminate it, and a few suburbs did, too. It hurt supply and and pushed up prices. Then came the pandemic, and that, combined with the area's rapid growth, made supply even tighter and pushed up prices even higher.

B'gosh.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/midwestern-city-hottest-real-estate-163038539.html

Got our Florida assessment under the new laws, it's about $10K. Our building/board has done a very good job maintaining and assessing year over year. I have heard a couple buildings near us are between $90-130K per unit.

I have been looking for a home in Colorado (Denver) and have seen inventory go up and prices come down, even if the prices are already very high. I am leery of buying now as it feels like the top, but then again, home prices have traditionally gone up over time. I know I'm a little late to the Denver boom, perhaps there is a little more to come as parts of the city redevelop.

Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on August 14, 2024, 07:56:42 AM
Got our Florida assessment under the new laws, it's about $10K. Our building/board has done a very good job maintaining and assessing year over year. I have heard a couple buildings near us are between $90-130K per unit.

There's a condo building along the water in Jensen Beach that has been declared uninhabitable by Martin County over a really bad foundation that was discovered during the state's new building inspection requirements. The view of the engineers and county building department is the building is about to fall down.

State officials took one of the local television stations in Palm Beach through the condo building and it was bad. Concrete was falling off a wall like paint chips on a weathered wall. The rebar was rusted and falling out as well. Had Florida not acted, this condo building may well have fallen in with catastrophic results.

Not sure how many of these have been found statewide, but, like you, we're aware of big special assessments by HOAs to address state mandated improvements.

Quote from: dgies9156 on August 14, 2024, 08:51:11 AM
There's a condo building along the water in Jensen Beach that has been declared uninhabitable by Martin County over a really bad foundation that was discovered during the state's new building inspection requirements. The view of the engineers and county building department is the building is about to fall down.

State officials took one of the local television stations in Palm Beach through the condo building and it was bad. Concrete was falling off a wall like paint chips on a weathered wall. The rebar was rusted and falling out as well. Had Florida not acted, this condo building may well have fallen in with catastrophic results.

Not sure how many of these have been found statewide, but, like you, we're aware of big special assessments by HOAs to address state mandated improvements.

Should the state really be interfering in these matters?

Quote from: jesmu84 on August 14, 2024, 10:49:11 AM
Should the state really be interfering in these matters?

Nothing new for Florida. The State has been through multiple building code revisions over the years.

Has a big one after Hurricane Andrew that periodically gets updated , think the Code is on version 8. Also things like New Window specification mandates to protect sea turtles for homeowners facing the ocean etc .

Condo boards now having to fall in line

Quote from: jesmu84 on August 14, 2024, 10:49:11 AM
Should the state really be interfering in these matters?

Focusing only on the state's involvement in determining whether a building is inhabitable, I think the answer is yes. Your question is very fair though. It is important that the decisions are only technically political. Structural engineers, architects, etc. are the ones who should be the decision makers. Peoples' lives may be at stake if a building's maintenance has been neglected.

The next question is... if the condos were built to the then current codes approved in Florida and are now declared uninhabitable, should the state (aka taxpayers) compensate the condo unit owners?

Quote from: jesmu84 on August 14, 2024, 10:49:11 AM
Should the state really be interfering in these matters?

Are you serious?

The state has a responsibility to protect its citizenry. Ensuring buildings don't fall in on people and kill people is definitely a state's responsibility. Liberals and conservatives can debate how far a state should go (and they do), but this is the obligation of a government. Period. We're trying to prevent house fires, electric shock, disease from bad plumbing or having a home blown over in a hurricane.

Brother Herm is right about our state's building codes. Once upon a time, Florida was relatively lax in its building codes. Hurricane Andrew blew through in 1995 and leveled the City of Homestead. Almost nothing was left. Today, our state has some of the toughest building codes anywhere. My house, for example, has foot thick, steel reinforced concrete walls and a roof that could not blow off the house if God himself came calling. The windows we have are impact resistant to 160 miles per hour.

When you see hurricane damage on television, it's usually to older, pre-Andrew buildings or homes that were built in places where they should not be built.

Brother Snoop, when ordinances change, or laws change, older structures that don't comply usually are grandfathered, unless there is a serious life safety issue. Sprinklers are a good example. Large buildings that didn't have sprinklers were grandfathered so long as other fire suppression systems were available. When those buildings sought permits for new construction or changes, sprinklers were a requirement for the permit.

But when the concrete falls away on the foundation and the rebar is rusted out, something has to happen. In Jensen Beach, the issue has less to do with regulatory conformance and more to do with HOAs being unwilling to spend money to properly maintain a property. So, no, the state should NOT reimburse the homeowner.

Quote from: dgies9156 on August 14, 2024, 01:51:07 PM

But when the concrete falls away on the foundation and the rebar is rusted out, something has to happen. In Jensen Beach, the issue has less to do with regulatory conformance and more to do with HOAs being unwilling to spend money to properly maintain a property. So, no, the state should NOT reimburse the homeowner.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, but I was just tossing the question out. The first property I bought in my twenties was a townhouse/condo unit. The wood siding began to be delaminate and the association struggled to get approval to replace the bad panels. The manufacturer went bankrupt, so we were on our own. Only the damaged panels were replaced, even though anyone with 2 brain cells operating at the same time could see the others would soon delaminate. My unit and all the others needed to eventually be rewired, because briefly (when the place was built) aluminum wire was considered safe.

One of the problems back then (and maybe now) is that the state required 3/4 approval for "capital improvements". It made it easy for a relatively small group of condo owners to refuse to approve the expenditures. I sold shortly before the wiring had to be replaced and the road dug up and rebuilt properly. I will never buy another condo!

Quote from: muwarrior69 on August 13, 2024, 07:30:28 AM
...and like everything else are too high.

Get used to it, because nothing ever goes back down... unless really bad things happen.

In Las Vegas, there are several large companies that are buying up thousands of single family homes.  In many neighborhoods it is nearly impossible for an individual to buy a home because these companies swoop in and put in an all-cash offer above list with no contingencies.

Then they rent them out to the people who are unable to buy their own home because of this practice.

Quote from: warriorchick on August 15, 2024, 10:33:28 AM
In Las Vegas, there are several large companies that are buying up thousands of single family homes.  In many neighborhoods it is nearly impossible for an individual to buy a home because these companies swoop in and put in an all-cash offer above list with no contingencies.

Then they rent them out to the people who are unable to buy their own home because of this practice.

It's happening all over the country.

The ultra-rich destroy everything they touch.

Quote from: Jockey on August 15, 2024, 10:36:57 AM
It's happening all over the country.

The ultra-rich destroy everything they touch.

It turns out that using housing as an investment tool is a terrible idea.

Also, for the record, these are investment firms, not ultra rich individuals.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 15, 2024, 10:38:32 AM
It turns out that using housing as an investment tool is a terrible idea.

Also, for the record, these are investment firms, not ultra rich individuals.

It makes sense. Corporations have a profit timeline of many generations. No matter what price/rate they purchase homes, the asset will pay off in spades. They just need to manage their cashflow now and they will inevitably reap huge profits because of their ownership of a limited resource.

It needs to be regulated at the federal level. Many of the firms buying homes are not US-based, so at the very least, they should be regulated out of the market.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 15, 2024, 10:45:37 AM
It makes sense. Corporations have a profit timeline of many generations. No matter what price/rate they purchase homes, the asset will pay off in spades. They just need to manage their cashflow now and they will inevitably reap huge profits because of their ownership of a limited resource.

It needs to be regulated at the federal level. Many of the firms buying homes are not US-based, so at the very least, they should be regulated out of the market.

Plus about 10 other things we could do to bring housing prices down.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 15, 2024, 10:59:59 AM
Plus about 10 other things we could do to bring housing prices down.

I don't care very much if housing prices come down or if buying a home feels unaffordable; people will get used to it as they always have.

But, capitalism needs to be regulated in certain circumstances. Mass corporate buying is putting unnecessary pressure on both the buy side and the sell side of the market because they will likely never sell those properties. That's unhealthy for the market. If removing them from the market causes prices to dip, so be it. If prices stay high, great.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some remedies being tried on the local level.

For example, it's legal for HOAs to limit or even forbid rental properties in a community, and some have, effectively ending corporations' interest in buying homes in those communities. Some HOAs also require that new buyers live in the house they are buying or leave it vacant for 6-12 months before they are allowed to rent it out.

I believe I've also read that it's legal for a state to pass a law limiting the practice, though I'm not sure if any do.

There have been a few bipartisan bills introduced in Congress, but like so many bills they haven't gotten out of committee. A lot of moneyed interests send in their lobbyi$t$ to keep such laws from seeing the light of day.

Quote from: MU82 on August 15, 2024, 11:41:55 AM
As I mentioned earlier, there are some remedies being tried on the local level.

For example, it's legal for HOAs to limit or even forbid rental properties in a community, and some have, effectively ending corporations' interest in buying homes in those communities. Some HOAs also require that new buyers live in the house they are buying or leave it vacant for 6-12 months before they are allowed to rent it out.

I believe I've also read that it's legal for a state to pass a law limiting the practice, though I'm not sure if any do.

There have been a few bipartisan bills introduced in Congress, but like so many bills they haven't gotten out of committee. A lot of moneyed interests send in their lobbyi$t$ to keep such laws from seeing the light of day.

Okay, but those are very inefficient ways at achieving the goal.  Basically lip service.  And retail investment isn't the only thing driving home prices.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 15, 2024, 12:18:33 PM
Okay, but those are very inefficient ways at achieving the goal.  Basically lip service.  And retail investment isn't the only thing driving home prices.

I don't know of anybody here who said or even suggested that it is the only thing driving home prices. In many areas of the country, it is one of several factors.

If more and more HOAs effectively ban the practice, I don't see how that is lip service on their part. Congress pretending to get serious about it, sure, that's pretty typical lip service.

A couple of thoughts on corporate purchasing of residential homes:

1) I've seen a lot of these in my work. My group will review commercial loan relationships in which 15 to 20 loans are secured by 15-20 residences. Most of these I've seen are to entrepreneurs, many of whom are comparatively small investors with most of their assets tied up in real estate. Their investments are in middle class and blue collar communities.

2) I'm wondering if anyone keeps statistics on corporate ownership of 1-4 family residences. You can get there through several ways, including NASICs, collateral analyses or records from the registrar of deeds. All I've seen is anecdotal data.

3) To Sister Chick's point, when we bought our current house, we had only an inspection contingency. No financing contingency. That doesn't mean someone isn't using debt. That means they have a stand-by commitment to lend money subject to a real estate appraisal, clean title and standard closing terms. We used quite a bit of debt at close to bridge the sale of our two homes at the time we bought our last house. At worst, you have to prove you have the money on hand to close in case the financing does not come through.

4) Corporations have far more financing options than do individuals. Blame the fall-out from the 2008 financial crisis for that.

5) Keep in mind that most homes in the United States are NOT covered by HOAs. In the places we have lived with HOAs, the Board has to approve rental agreements and there's a $250 processing fee for each lease. The rental term has to be at least one month. Our county has a one-month minimum rental requirement but with AirBnB and Vrbo, that's hard to enforce.

I admit I'm not too thrilled at the thought of Congress telling me to whom I can't sell my house to, or whether I can rent it.

Final thought: Most qualified mortgages have provisions governing a home's use. Technically, if you claim a 1-4 family residence as a principal residence and then rent it out, you're in violation of your loan covenants and the lender can immediately call the loan. But enforcement is virtually impossible unless borrowers are required (they aren't) to provide annual financial statements EVERY YEAR.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/harris-to-call-for-construction-of-3-million-new-housing-units-tax-incentives-to-build-homes-for-first-time-buyers-9e057b83?mod=politics_lead_story

Quote from: Pakuni on August 15, 2024, 04:25:47 PM
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/harris-to-call-for-construction-of-3-million-new-housing-units-tax-incentives-to-build-homes-for-first-time-buyers-9e057b83?mod=politics_lead_story

Great.  :-\

Another handout. Our economy will collapse even further.

Quote from: Jockey on August 15, 2024, 10:36:57 AM
It's happening all over the country.

The ultra-rich destroy everything they touch.

Please define ultra-rich as well as rich.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 15, 2024, 08:37:38 PM
Please define ultra-rich as well as rich.

Ultra-rich = Rico
Rich = me

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on August 15, 2024, 08:57:12 PM
Ultra-rich = Rico
Rich = me

Rich - Muscoop users
Wealthy - Muscoop moderators

You might be a rich guy if...


...you're complaining about the price of scallops

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 15, 2024, 08:37:38 PM
Please define ultra-rich as well as rich.

Ruch = Ricky Stratton
Ultra = Richie Rich

Rich = Someone with $1.00 more than I have.

Ultra Rich = Someone with $10.00 more than I have.

Quote from: Jockey on August 15, 2024, 10:36:57 AM
It's happening all over the country.

The ultra-rich destroy everything they touch.

Especially the megadonors who are funding the presidential campaigns of America's two magnificent political parties.

Quote from: dgies9156 on August 15, 2024, 03:41:03 PM
A couple of thoughts on corporate purchasing of residential homes:

1) I've seen a lot of these in my work. My group will review commercial loan relationships in which 15 to 20 loans are secured by 15-20 residences. Most of these I've seen are to entrepreneurs, many of whom are comparatively small investors with most of their assets tied up in real estate. Their investments are in middle class and blue collar communities.

2) I'm wondering if anyone keeps statistics on corporate ownership of 1-4 family residences. You can get there through several ways, including NASICs, collateral analyses or records from the registrar of deeds. All I've seen is anecdotal data.

3) To Sister Chick's point, when we bought our current house, we had only an inspection contingency. No financing contingency. That doesn't mean someone isn't using debt. That means they have a stand-by commitment to lend money subject to a real estate appraisal, clean title and standard closing terms. We used quite a bit of debt at close to bridge the sale of our two homes at the time we bought our last house. At worst, you have to prove you have the money on hand to close in case the financing does not come through.

4) Corporations have far more financing options than do individuals. Blame the fall-out from the 2008 financial crisis for that.

5) Keep in mind that most homes in the United States are NOT covered by HOAs. In the places we have lived with HOAs, the Board has to approve rental agreements and there's a $250 processing fee for each lease. The rental term has to be at least one month. Our county has a one-month minimum rental requirement but with AirBnB and Vrbo, that's hard to enforce.

I admit I'm not too thrilled at the thought of Congress telling me to whom I can't sell my house to, or whether I can rent it.

Final thought: Most qualified mortgages have provisions governing a home's use. Technically, if you claim a 1-4 family residence as a principal residence and then rent it out, you're in violation of your loan covenants and the lender can immediately call the loan. But enforcement is virtually impossible unless borrowers are required (they aren't) to provide annual financial statements EVERY YEAR.

Any politician who puts forward a concrete plan to outlaw HOAs gets my vote. Bonus votes if they put forth a plan to eject all existing HOA board members into the Oort Cloud.

Quote from: jficke13 on August 16, 2024, 12:13:09 PM
Any politician who puts forward a concrete plan to outlaw HOAs gets my vote. Bonus votes if they put forth a plan to eject all existing HOA board members into the Oort Cloud.

For neighborhoods, sure.  But for condo buildings there's not really any way to avoid them, unless you pay for a giant management & maintenance contract.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on August 16, 2024, 12:27:12 PM
For neighborhoods, sure.  But for condo buildings there's not really any way to avoid them, unless you pay for a giant management & maintenance contract.

Yep. Even in neighborhoods it makes sense when you have shared park/nature/retention-pond property. HOAs should be to care for community-managed property, not for busybody business.

Yeah HOAs are voluntary organizations. They should not be outlawed. If you don't like one, don't join one.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 16, 2024, 08:44:41 AM
Especially the megadonors who are funding the presidential campaigns of America's two magnificent political parties.

As the Roberts court intended

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 16, 2024, 12:34:13 PM
Yeah HOAs are voluntary organizations. They should not be outlawed. If you don't like one, don't join one.

uh, not so easy. Many neighborhoods have mandatory HOA's. If one wants to live there, one can't simply say "No, thanks" to the HOA.

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 16, 2024, 02:17:00 PM
uh, not so easy. Many neighborhoods have mandatory HOA's. If one wants to live there, one can't simply say "No, thanks" to the HOA.

Then live somewhere else.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 16, 2024, 02:42:13 PM
Then live somewhere else.

dumb answer. not that easy

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 16, 2024, 02:44:01 PM
dumb answer. not that easy

It isn't a dumb answer. There are all sorts of ways laces that don't have HOAs. Live there if you don't want to live with one. Outlawing them, when many function for relatively minor reasons, is an overreaction.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 16, 2024, 02:46:49 PM

It isn't a dumb answer. There are all sorts of ways laces that don't have HOAs. Live there if you don't want to live with one. Outlawing them, when many function for relatively minor reasons, is an overreaction.

I never said outlaw them. I am saying hoas arent really voluntary. If one finds a house in their price range and area they like but there is an HOA, they cant just say F it, we'll find something else. Espcially not in the current market

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 16, 2024, 02:49:48 PM
I never said outlaw them. I am saying hoas arent really voluntary. If one finds a house in their price range and area they like but there is an HOA, they cant just say F it, we'll find something else. Espcially not in the current market

Sure you can. Why are you being so obstinate about this?

Still waitin' on why startin' pitchin' isn't dat important, hey?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 16, 2024, 03:12:07 PM
Still waitin' on why startin' pitchin' isn't dat important, hey?

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=65951.msg1672594#msg1672594

Nearly eight hours ago...

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 16, 2024, 03:02:57 PM
Sure you can. Why are you being so obstinate about this?

Why are you being so flippant? 80% of new homes in subdivisions have HOA's. It's not that easy to find affordable housing that doesn't have an HOA

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 16, 2024, 03:19:23 PM
Why are you being so flippant? 80% of new homes in subdivisions have HOA's. It's not that easy to find affordable housing that doesn't have an HOA

Why do you have to live in a new house in a subdivision?

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 16, 2024, 03:21:04 PM
Why do you have to live in a new house in a subdivision?

never said the house one buys has to be new, just that new homes being built have HOAs. So, if  one buys that home 5 years from now, there will be an HOA.  Thats what suburbia is turning into. Most people live in the suburbs now, according to the last census.

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 16, 2024, 04:09:05 PM
never said the house one buys has to be new, just that new homes being built have HOAs. So, if  one buys that home 5 years from now, there will be an HOA.  Thats what suburbia is turning into. Most people live in the suburbs now, according to the last census.

🙄🙄🙄

Isn't it just part of the equation when finding a house? Maybe I'm not understanding because of not having an HOA, but as long as you know up front, I don't see how you don't have a choice.

Lucked out on mine. $60 a year and enough reasonable covenants to keep the neighborhood clean and quiet.

Every Saturday, the NYT e-newsletter has a feature showing three houses that can be bought at a certain price point in different parts of the country. Sometimes they are $3 million estates, sometimes $750,000 condos, etc etc etc. They rarely show what I would call "affordable" homes, though.

Well, this week featured houses in the $280K range in Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Hagerstown Md. They were super-cute and in great shape, and I'd have been happy to live in any of them. I don't know anything about the neighborhoods the Pittsburgh and Hagerstown houses were in. But the Minneapolis house was in what was a nice little area near the Golden Valley border back when I lived in Minneapolis from 1985-94; I obviously have no idea if it's still a nice area.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/realestate/280000-dollar-homes-minnesota-pennsylvania-maryland.html?

Just goes to show how local real estate is. Nice houses in or near big cities for under $300K are a dying breed, but they do still exist.

Quote from: MU82 on August 17, 2024, 07:56:35 AM
Well, this week featured houses in the $280K range in Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Hagerstown Md. They were super-cute and in great shape, and I'd have been happy to live in any of them. I don't know anything about the neighborhoods the Pittsburgh and Hagerstown houses were in. But the Minneapolis house was in what was a nice little area near the Golden Valley border back when I lived in Minneapolis from 1985-94; I obviously have no idea if it's still a nice area.

If you love crime, it's a fantastic area.

https://youtu.be/dkg6d0gwlc0

In addition to high crime areas, there are a number of reasons for homes in some areas to be priced so low. Small cities/town where the primary employer has left are a major reason, I think. Cities like Youngstown Ohio are touted as having bargain priced homes. Why is that? The media often neglects to even mention the local economies and other factors, focusing only on the low prices.

What I wrote certainly does not preclude finding bargains. It's just far more likely that "there's a catch". Sometimes it is as simple as outrageous property taxes in relation to the home's cost. Other possibilities are failing school systems, decaying infrastructure, poor financial condition of the municipality, lack of business/employer investment, etc.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on August 15, 2024, 08:57:12 PM
Ultra-rich = Rico
Rich = me

That's rich.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 17, 2024, 12:33:22 PM
If you love crime, it's a fantastic area.

You'd know way better than I would because I haven't been there in a looooong time. When we lived in the Twin Cities, the area around Wirth Park was pretty nice.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 17, 2024, 05:16:49 PM
In addition to high crime areas, there are a number of reasons for homes in some areas to be priced so low. Small cities/town where the primary employer has left are a major reason, I think. Cities like Youngstown Ohio are touted as having bargain priced homes. Why is that? The media often neglects to even mention the local economies and other factors, focusing only on the low prices.

What I wrote certainly does not preclude finding bargains. It's just far more likely that "there's a catch". Sometimes it is as simple as outrageous property taxes in relation to the home's cost. Other possibilities are failing school systems, decaying infrastructure, poor financial condition of the municipality, lack of business/employer investment, etc.

Yep.  I have multiple friends from the Youngstown/Canton/Akron triangle whose parents moved out of nicer, fairly large houses to smaller places in Cleveland or Columbus adjacent cause the areas fell off so hard.

My "favorite" example is Springfield, OH.  3 of my closest friends from college grew up there.  Classic former blue collar manufacturing town that lost most of it over the last 30-40 years.  Right in between Columbus and Dayton so anything positive would go to the fringes of either.

Remember visiting in 2009-2010ish for a friend's wedding.  We drove through the nicest area in town that had legitimate mansions.  Not McMansions, but 10,000-12,000 SQF houses on large lots or windy drives.  A couple were for sale...not a single one had a listed price over $650,000.  These are houses that, at the time, would have easily been $1.5-$2MM houses in the notoriously reasonable priced suburbs of Cleveland or Cincinnati.   But the town was in a downward spiral, the schools stunk, and there was nothing to suggest things could get better.  I remember my friend telling me the nicest newer house we passed was a family who the father owned a company in the west suburbs of Columbus, but the wife was from Springfield and wanted to be close to her family...and the kids all went to private school 30 min west in Dayton.

Thanks for expanding on what I posted Wags. The key often is that there is little. if any, chance that the homes will increase in value in the foreseeable future (other than possibly inflation, but even then...). Good luck on selling your bargain home.

On the southern boundary of Virginia/NC, a casino is being built, so the homes in the area are rebounding in value. Before that, they were "real bargains". They are still pretty cheap, but not as much as they were. My point obviously is that there simply has to be a solid economic base.

One other factor hurting small towns- the local hospitals are closing at a high rate. They are too expensive to keep open.

Quote from: JWags85 on August 17, 2024, 10:06:51 PM
My "favorite" example is Springfield, OH.  3 of my closest friends from college grew up there.  Classic former blue collar manufacturing town that lost most of it over the last 30-40 years.  Right in between Columbus and Dayton so anything positive would go to the fringes of either.

Remember visiting in 2009-2010ish for a friend's wedding.  We drove through the nicest area in town that had legitimate mansions.  Not McMansions, but 10,000-12,000 SQF houses on large lots or windy drives.  A couple were for sale...not a single one had a listed price over $650,000.  These are houses that, at the time, would have easily been $1.5-$2MM houses in the notoriously reasonable priced suburbs of Cleveland or Cincinnati.   

Superior, WI is the same way. The long-time home of the local publisher in a fantastic neighborhood was for sale. Priced at $650,000. Would have been a $4 million or more home in Chicago.

Superior was my late parents hometown. It's everything Duluth isn't. It's been in economic recession since the end of World War II and the drivers of the local economy -- iron ore and timber -- have been declining since 1950. It's sad but unless a whole bunch of remote workers think Northwestern Wisconsin is nirvana, the area will continue to suffer. And, pricing for new homes will be well below national averages.

The lead item in today's NYT The Morning e-newsletter was about the lack of housing:

The housing crunch has been well documented in high-cost big cities, where rents and mortgages break the bank. Now it has moved into the rest of the country.

The culprit is too little housing, and it began two decades ago. In the three years leading up to the Great Recession, homebuilders started about two million homes a year. That number plunged during the crisis and never fully rebounded. Since 2010, builders have started about 1.1 million new homes a year on average — far below the 1.6 million needed to keep up with population growth. America is millions of homes behind, and it gets worse each year.

I spent a week this summer reporting in Kalamazoo, Mich., which isn't an obvious candidate for a housing crisis. But prices exploded as the supply of homes fell behind the need. Now even middle-class families earning six figures struggle to make ends meet there, and Michigan lawmakers are subsidizing developers who build for those residents. The Times published my article about it this morning.

In today's newsletter, I'll explain how this happened nationwide, why it could take a long time to fix and what policymakers are doing about it.

Skittish builders

Cities and states understand they have a housing problem. To increase the pace of construction, many have cut back regulatory barriers — like zoning and environmental rules — that make housing slow and expensive to build. Since 2018, for instance, states including California, Oregon, Montana and Arizona have passed laws to allow duplexes and small apartment buildings in neighborhoods that once contained only single-family homes.

But the nation's housing shortage isn't only about zoning in cities. For one thing, developers everywhere find it harder to raise money, and homeowners find it harder to get loans. That's because banks and the government, in a quest to prevent another housing bubble, have raised lending standards and made mortgages harder to get.

For another, builders simply aren't putting up subdivisions at the rate they once did. They're cautious about overbuilding after the losses they incurred in the 2008 crisis, and they've become reluctant to invest and expand before they know they have a winning hand.

For instance, many homebuilders moved away from off-the-shelf ("on spec") homes; now they prefer customers to prepay for properties before they're built. Land developers — companies that take a piece of dirt and add basic infrastructure like streets, plumbing and power, creating the lots where new homes are built — have also cut back. The number of vacant developed lots, or places where a homebuilder could start construction tomorrow, is still 40 percent below its pre-Great Recession level, said Ali Wolf, chief economist at Zonda, a data and consulting firm.

A generational problem

Most people aren't going to live in new houses. But the entire housing market still benefits from them.

That's because new homes tend to get cheaper as they age. Over time, this creates what housing wonks call "naturally occurring affordable housing," which is a polite way of saying places that are older and less nice. They're a huge piece of the affordability puzzle; they helped Kalamazoo remain affordable for middle-class households.

What's happened in Kalamazoo and around the country is that older, cheaper units have either fallen into uninhabitable disrepair or been sold to investors who rehab them and raise the rents. Rehabs like that are necessary, but without a constant pipeline of new construction, there aren't "new old" buildings for the millions of families who need lower rents.

To combat this, both Kalamazoo County and Michigan have expanded housing aid to middle-income households that used to be ineligible. The hope is that this and other subsidies will encourage builders to expand if they believe they'll find buyers and renters who can afford the homes they make.

It's part of a nationwide shift. Housing assistance used to focus on poverty. Now it's also becoming a middle-class support program. Shades of the same idea are in Vice President Kamala Harris's housing plan, which calls for assistance for both first-time home buyers and developers who build housing for them.

Cities and states are changing where and how housing is built; Republicans and Democrats agree on the urgency, and housing was a theme at both political conventions this summer. (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton mentioned it in their speeches this week.) But those changes will be measured in decades because we fell so far behind. In the meantime, millions of Americans are stuck.

Quote from: dgies9156 on August 18, 2024, 06:20:10 PM
Superior, WI is the same way. The long-time home of the local publisher in a fantastic neighborhood was for sale. Priced at $650,000. Would have been a $4 million or more home in Chicago.

Superior was my late parents hometown. It's everything Duluth isn't. It's been in economic recession since the end of World War II and the drivers of the local economy -- iron ore and timber -- have been declining since 1950. It's sad but unless a whole bunch of remote workers think Northwestern Wisconsin is nirvana, the area will continue to suffer. And, pricing for new homes will be well below national averages.

Think Duluth and Superior are simply reflections of state governments in St. Paul and Madison?

No more so than Springfield or Youngstown Ohio.

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 22, 2024, 08:25:44 PM
Think Duluth and Superior are simply reflections of state governments in St. Paul and Madison?

Uh...no.

Thanks for posting the NYT article, 82.

A few comments/opinions:

The allowing duplexes or small apartment buildings in areas that were zoned single family years earlier is, in my opinion, stealing equity from the owners of single family homes adjacent or nearby. I saw the results of this (an old "solution"-not a new one) in some nice neighborhoods Richmond that had beautiful, modestly priced older homes where the zoning rules were changed. The rezoning does NOT benefit the single family homeowners at all.

Regarding older homes-there was a program in Chicago way back in the '70s that I learned about that involved total rehabbing of older homes by contractors who agreed to take on a lot of building trade apprentices. Whether the state, feds, or city subsidized the program (maybe it was a combination of them) I do not know. The idea was to train Chicago residents in good paying jobs while reviving the homes. Often, the rehab was a "total gut job" so there was a lot of labor and training. The balance between materials and labor was very different than new construction. What was not to like about this idea?

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 22, 2024, 08:35:00 PM
Uh...no.

Wouldn't put much stock in what a clown that goes by Hippie Satan would say.
I had lived in Wisconsin for 28 and Minnesota 11.  Only thing I can say about Wisconsin is that I wish I had lived there less and in Minnesota more.

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 22, 2024, 09:20:46 PM
Wouldn't put much stock in what a clown that goes by Hippie Satan would say.
I had lived in Wisconsin for 28 and Minnesota 11.  Only thing I can say about Wisconsin is that I wish I had lived there less and in Minnesota more.

Having lived in both (Minnesota 7, Wisconsin 15 and counting), I think you're crazy but to each their own

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 22, 2024, 09:01:15 PM
Thanks for posting the NYT article, 82.

A few comments/opinions:

The allowing duplexes or small apartment buildings in areas that were zoned single family years earlier is, in my opinion, stealing equity from the owners of single family homes adjacent or nearby. I saw the results of this (an old "solution"-not a new one) in some nice neighborhoods Richmond that had beautiful, modestly priced older homes where the zoning rules were changed. The rezoning does NOT benefit the single family homeowners at all.

NIMBYism

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 22, 2024, 09:01:15 PM
Thanks for posting the NYT article, 82.

A few comments/opinions:

The allowing duplexes or small apartment buildings in areas that were zoned single family years earlier is, in my opinion, stealing equity from the owners of single family homes adjacent or nearby. I saw the results of this (an old "solution"-not a new one) in some nice neighborhoods Richmond that had beautiful, modestly priced older homes where the zoning rules were changed. The rezoning does NOT benefit the single family homeowners at all.

Regarding older homes-there was a program in Chicago way back in the '70s that I learned about that involved total rehabbing of older homes by contractors who agreed to take on a lot of building trade apprentices. Whether the state, feds, or city subsidized the program (maybe it was a combination of them) I do not know. The idea was to train Chicago residents in good paying jobs while reviving the homes. Often, the rehab was a "total gut job" so there was a lot of labor and training. The balance between materials and labor was very different than new construction. What was not to like about this idea?

So?  Cities can't be built without adding density.  Times change.  Folks can sell their homes and move elsewhere if it upset them.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 22, 2024, 09:56:56 PM
Having lived in both (Minnesota 7, Wisconsin 15 and counting), I think you're crazy but to each their own

Nah, Wisconsin way to inbred.  For Minnesota you have the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin also moving there.  A little midwest melting pot.  What was Wisconsin's motto a few years ago?  "Escape from Wisconsin".  Lots of businesses and residences took the advice.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 22, 2024, 09:01:15 PM
Thanks for posting the NYT article, 82.

A few comments/opinions:

The allowing duplexes or small apartment buildings in areas that were zoned single family years earlier is, in my opinion, stealing equity from the owners of single family homes adjacent or nearby. I saw the results of this (an old "solution"-not a new one) in some nice neighborhoods Richmond that had beautiful, modestly priced older homes where the zoning rules were changed. The rezoning does NOT benefit the single family homeowners at all.

Regarding older homes-there was a program in Chicago way back in the '70s that I learned about that involved total rehabbing of older homes by contractors who agreed to take on a lot of building trade apprentices. Whether the state, feds, or city subsidized the program (maybe it was a combination of them) I do not know. The idea was to train Chicago residents in good paying jobs while reviving the homes. Often, the rehab was a "total gut job" so there was a lot of labor and training. The balance between materials and labor was very different than new construction. What was not to like about this idea?

Not to pile on, but just to observe, I think it's really interesting that the one asset class where people seem to view the steady and uninterrupted appreciation of value as a right is in home ownership. In pretty much everything else that I can think of society accepts that circumstances change to the benefit of some and detriment of others. But for homeownership people can assert, people will agree with, and policy makers will protect the idea that the class of home owners should have a say in directing nearby land use for no other reason than to "protect the value of their homes."

Interesting contrast to, for example, Japan, where homes are viewed as *depreciating* assets, and are built to be used for a few decades before being replaced. Nobody there seeks to protect the value of their home, because it's not an asset. It's a thing that eventually wears out. I suppose this is probably an artifact of our society basically letting home ownership be the store of value that funds end of life housing and care.

Quote from: jficke13 on August 23, 2024, 08:22:24 AM
Not to pile on, but just to observe, I think it's really interesting that the one asset class where people seem to view the steady and uninterrupted appreciation of value as a right is in home ownership. In pretty much everything else that I can think of society accepts that circumstances change to the benefit of some and detriment of others. But for homeownership people can assert, people will agree with, and policy makers will protect the idea that the class of home owners should have a say in directing nearby land use for no other reason than to "protect the value of their homes."

Interesting contrast to, for example, Japan, where homes are viewed as *depreciating* assets, and are built to be used for a few decades before being replaced. Nobody there seeks to protect the value of their home, because it's not an asset. It's a thing that eventually wears out. I suppose this is probably an artifact of our society basically letting home ownership be the store of value that funds end of life housing and care.

Couldn't have said it better

I don't have a problem with zoning laws being used to "preserve equity," but that can't be their only purpose. The creation of additional, affordable housing is a societal good as well. Not to mention I think many times the idea that someone's property values are substantially impacted when an apartment complex is built a few blocks away is overblown.

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 23, 2024, 08:12:09 AM
Nah, Wisconsin way to inbred.  For Minnesota you have the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin also moving there.  A little midwest melting pot.  What was Wisconsin's motto a few years ago?  "Escape from Wisconsin".  Lots of businesses and residences took the advice.

Funny,  inbred was one of my complaints about Minnesota.  My priest in Minnesota used to joke about the "651 disease". Is what he called the pattern of kids being born in st paul, going to college at St Thomas/U of M/St. Cats/Macalister/Etc. Getting a job in st paul. Then buying their childhood home off their parents before repeating the cycle. All my friends in Minnesota except one followed that pattern (minus buying their childhood home but one actually did do that).

Meanwhile my current social group features two people originally from wisconsin (both of whom lived elsewhere for years and chose to move back), one from Michigan,  one from new York,  three from Illinois, and one from Arizona.

It's almost like that no matter where you live,  you'll find pockets of "inbred" people and people who moved there from elsewhere. And that reasonable people can disagree on which state they prefer

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 23, 2024, 08:12:09 AM
Nah, Wisconsin way to inbred.  For Minnesota you have the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin also moving there.  A little midwest melting pot.  What was Wisconsin's motto a few years ago?  "Escape from Wisconsin".  Lots of businesses and residences took the advice.

The motto was Escape TO Wisconsin not from.

Quote from: jficke13 on August 23, 2024, 08:22:24 AM
Not to pile on, but just to observe, I think it's really interesting that the one asset class where people seem to view the steady and uninterrupted appreciation of value as a right is in home ownership. In pretty much everything else that I can think of society accepts that circumstances change to the benefit of some and detriment of others. But for homeownership people can assert, people will agree with, and policy makers will protect the idea that the class of home owners should have a say in directing nearby land use for no other reason than to "protect the value of their homes."

Interesting contrast to, for example, Japan, where homes are viewed as *depreciating* assets, and are built to be used for a few decades before being replaced. Nobody there seeks to protect the value of their home, because it's not an asset. It's a thing that eventually wears out. I suppose this is probably an artifact of our society basically letting home ownership be the store of value that funds end of life housing and care.

Reasonable, thoughtful post.

Meanwhile, in housing/mortgage-related news ...

Fed rate cuts don't automatically bring lower mortgage rates, but they often do. Here's hoping that the impending cuts, signaled today in Jackson Hole by Powell, will lead to mortgage rates closer to 5% by the end of this year or early next year.

5% could be kind of a goldilocks number for sellers and buyers. That could help boost home-sale inventory, which is badly needed.

Lots of "coulds" in there - wishful thinking. But I'm an optimist, and I'm hopeful.

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 22, 2024, 08:25:44 PM
Think Duluth and Superior are simply reflections of state governments in St. Paul and Madison?

Absolutely not.

That's a fashionable view among a lot of people but the economic health of the area has less to do with state government and more to do with natural resources and access to national and global markets.

Both Duluth and Superior were created as waypoints to transship natural resources. Stuff came off the trains in the Duluth or Superior harbor and went on to boats. Or, they were blocked with other rail shipments and sent to major urban centers.

The timber that was a major regional natural resource (think pine trees) was largely harvested by the 1930s. It takes 60 years to regrow a toilet paper farm and even then you don't get the yields and uses of the timber that had been growing there for centuries. The high grade iron ore from the Hibbing/Virginia area that went to Duluth and Superior was gone by the end of World War II, replaced with taconite. Plus, as global iron ore supplies increased dramatically in the 1950s, Iron Range ore was at a competitive disadvantage. It's why one of my uncles ended up dispatching trains in Liberia.

Few people wanted to live in the Duluth-Superior area (my parents excepted) because of the robust winters and mosquito-centric summers. It's a gorgeous area but it is remote for a reason. Unless government can warm the winters and tame quadrillions of blood thirsty mosquitos, that's not going to change!

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 23, 2024, 08:36:45 AM
I don't have a problem with zoning laws being used to "preserve equity," but that can't be their only purpose. The creation of additional, affordable housing is a societal good as well. Not to mention I think many times the idea that someone's property values are substantially impacted when an apartment complex is built a few blocks away is overblown.

NIMBY-ism drives me crazy.

For example, New Haven has a nice small easy to get to airport.  Unfortunately, only 25% of the airport is physically in New Haven and 75% is in East Haven so New Haven can do very little without cooperation.  East Haven, which is not known as a great town, has been fighting any expansion for decades.  New airline, Avelo, made New Haven one of their hubs and has full non-stop flights all day and week and Breeze airline will begin flying out of New Haven in the fall.  There is a plan for a new (small) terminal and parking lots, etc (because the available land is there) and it's funded and East Haven would be the majority beneficiary of new tax revenue.  And they are still fighting in.  The airport was there before all the houses in the area were built.  So people move near an airport and then complain loudly of airport noise. 

End of rant..........

Quote from: NCMUFan on August 23, 2024, 08:12:09 AM
Nah, Wisconsin way to inbred.  For Minnesota you have the Dakotas, Iowa and Wisconsin also moving there.  A little midwest melting pot.  What was Wisconsin's motto a few years ago?  "Escape from Wisconsin".  Lots of businesses and residences took the advice.

Someone hasn't been to Wisconsin for awhile. Just drive across the Illinois border and you will see miles of businesses that have relocated there recently.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on August 23, 2024, 09:50:50 AM
The airport was there before all the houses in the area were built.  So people move near an airport and then complain loudly of airport noise.

This happens in a lot of areas, and it always ticks me off. YOU chose to live near the airport. Quit yer goddam whinin'!

I will also say that, if anything, the State of Wisconsin has over-subsidized the Superior area. Two examples. First, UW-Superior is heavily subsidized by the State. Last I saw, the GPR (tax revenue) per student at Superior was over $10,000. That's more than double any other school in the system. They almost closed the place 50 years ago, but political pressure kept it open. And Superior is smaller now than it was then.  It would be less expensive to have those students go to UM-Duluth and subsidize the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota in-state tuition.

Second is the expansion of Highway 53 to four lanes. Having driven that route many times, including on summer weekends, there was no need for 53 to be four lanes. But WIDOT had invested so much in the southern part of the state that political pressure was put on the department to invest more up north.

I anticipated the knee jerk nimbyism replies. If I bought a home in an area zoned single family, I would expect that the rules would not be changed in the middle of the game. Although I have not experienced this myself, I find it interesting that there is never a shortage of people who self righteously accuse the protesting homeowners of nimbyism.

I think it is naive to believe that the zoning changes were made to help with housing. The beneficiaries are mostly the contractors who managed to get the changes through. Of course, they also really, really wanted to help with providing apartments for rent, right?  ;D

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 10:49:30 AM
I anticipated the knee jerk nimbyism replies. If I bought a home in an area zoned single family, I would expect that the rules would not be changed in the middle of the game. Although I have not experienced this myself, I find it interesting that there is never a shortage of people who self righteously accuse the protesting homeowners of nimbyism.

I think it is naive to believe that the zoning changes were made to help with housing. The beneficiaries are mostly the contractors who managed to get the changes through. Of course, they also really, really wanted to help with providing apartments for rent, right?  ;D

But not adding density creates the suburban sprawl and all of the problems that come along with it.  What is the solution?

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 10:49:30 AM
I anticipated the knee jerk nimbyism replies. If I bought a home in an area zoned single family, I would expect that the rules would not be changed in the middle of the game. Although I have not experienced this myself, I find it interesting that there is never a shortage of people who self righteously accuse the protesting homeowners of nimbyism.

I think it is naive to believe that the zoning changes were made to help with housing. The beneficiaries are mostly the contractors who managed to get the changes through. Of course, they also really, really wanted to help with providing apartments for rent, right?  ;D

It can be in the best interests of the local government and the contractors to build apartments.

But I also want to know what you mean by "in an area." If it is in your immediate neighborhood? Sure, I would expect zoning to be consistent. But in the old strip mall on the busier road a couple blocks away? Undeveloped land next to your subdivision? I have oftentimes seen people get up in arms about zoning changes in those instances, using property values as a reason, when there doesn't seem to be much reason to think your property values would be much at all impacted.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 23, 2024, 10:37:10 AM
I will also say that, if anything, the State of Wisconsin has over-subsidized the Superior area. Two examples. First, UW-Superior is heavily subsidized by the State. Last I saw, the GPR (tax revenue) per student at Superior was over $10,000. That's more than double any other school in the system. They almost closed the place 50 years ago, but political pressure kept it open. And Superior is smaller now than it was then.  It would be less expensive to have those students go to UM-Duluth and subsidize the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota in-state tuition.

Second is the expansion of Highway 53 to four lanes. Having driven that route many times, including on summer weekends, there was no need for 53 to be four lanes. But WIDOT had invested so much in the southern part of the state that political pressure was put on the department to invest more up north.

Brother Hippie:

Blame my parents, in part, for the bolded highlighted part of your comments. My late Dad was Chairman of the Development authority in Douglas County and he and my Mom, who was a school board president in Solon Springs, worked to get the four lanes through to Superior. I believe Tommy Thompson once said that extending that road past Spooner would occur "over his dead body." Well, Tommy didn't die and both my parents were at the ceremony where Tommy cut the ribbon opening the highway west of Solon Springs.

I thought my Dad was going to kill me when I argued the Eau Claire bypass of U.S. 53 was a complete waste of money.

I don't think any of this has increased development, housing prices or opportunities in Northern Wisconsin. As to Superior, you're absolutely right about UWS. UMD is a better and more comprehensive school. When I was in college, years ago, Minnesota and Wisconsin had reciprocity agreements allowing each others' residents to attend college in either state at resident rates. Just consolidate the two schools on the Duluth campus, change the name to Mosquito State University and have both states support it.

I went to both for summer school. UMD had more of what I wanted and needed!

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 10:49:30 AM
I anticipated the knee jerk nimbyism replies. If I bought a home in an area zoned single family, I would expect that the rules would not be changed in the middle of the game. Although I have not experienced this myself, I find it interesting that there is never a shortage of people who self righteously accuse the protesting homeowners of nimbyism.

I think it is naive to believe that the zoning changes were made to help with housing. The beneficiaries are mostly the contractors who managed to get the changes through. Of course, they also really, really wanted to help with providing apartments for rent, right?  ;D

When does the game start and end?

Quote from: dgies9156 on August 23, 2024, 01:00:51 PM
Brother Hippie:

Blame my parents, in part, for the bolded highlighted part of your comments. My late Dad was Chairman of the Development authority in Douglas County and he and my Mom, who was a school board president in Solon Springs, worked to get the four lanes through to Superior. I believe Tommy Thompson once said that extending that road past Spooner would occur "over his dead body." Well, Tommy didn't die and both my parents were at the ceremony where Tommy cut the ribbon opening the highway west of Solon Springs.

I thought my Dad was going to kill me when I argued the Eau Claire bypass of U.S. 53 was a complete waste of money.

I don't think any of this has increased development, housing prices or opportunities in Northern Wisconsin. As to Superior, you're absolutely right about UWS. UMD is a better and more comprehensive school. When I was in college, years ago, Minnesota and Wisconsin had reciprocity agreements allowing each others' residents to attend college in either state at resident rates. Just consolidate the two schools on the Duluth campus, change the name to Mosquito State University and have both states support it.

I went to both for summer school. UMD had more of what I wanted and needed!

They still have such an arrangement. It's slightly different because Wisconsin students pay Minnesota rates and vice versa.

Quote from: jesmu84 on August 23, 2024, 01:04:50 PM
When does the game start and end?

This right here.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 10:49:30 AM
I anticipated the knee jerk nimbyism replies. If I bought a home in an area zoned single family, I would expect that the rules would not be changed in the middle of the game. Although I have not experienced this myself, I find it interesting that there is never a shortage of people who self righteously accuse the protesting homeowners of nimbyism.

I think it is naive to believe that the zoning changes were made to help with housing. The beneficiaries are mostly the contractors who managed to get the changes through. Of course, they also really, really wanted to help with providing apartments for rent, right?  ;D

But the rules aren't changing in the middle of the game. Every zoning ordinance I've seen includes a process by which your elected officials can amend the ordinance or grant variances to specific properties. Those are the rules.
I can understand the frustrations of a property owner who believes a change would devalue their property or lower their quality of living, but they're afforded every opportunity to make their case to their elected officials and persuade them to deny a requested variance or amendment. And I believe most ordinances contain language to the effect that a change should not be granted if it is detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare.

Again, I get the frustration, but suggesting that this is changing the rules or done capriciously without the input/influence of the neighbors is not accurate.

70% of.the new apartment construction is described as luxury apartments. Not helping the disadvantaged, and not decreasing property values. Much ado about nothing.

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 23, 2024, 02:57:56 PM
70% of.the new apartment construction is described as luxury apartments. Not helping the disadvantaged, and not decreasing property values. Much ado about nothing.

Supply will always impact demand.  Obviously, it would be ideal to build more affordable housing, but you know.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 23, 2024, 10:55:56 AM
But not adding density creates the suburban sprawl and all of the problems that come along with it.  What is the solution?

Fair question. Can we agree that there is no easy solution? I bet we can.

I am familiar with only one metro area and its housing "solutions"- Richmond, VA., even though we have lived in a rural area of Virginia and have for years. So...my thoughts and opinions are no longer based upon being a resident here, but rather as a visitor who has seen the dramatic changes.

1) I have seen badly dilapidated homes that were beyond salvation razed and (I think via HUD) new homes built with "old timey" exteriors to blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. The neighborhood remained almost 100% African American, as the temporarily displaced residents wanted.

2) Long vacant, deteriorating industrial properties have either been repurposed as apartments, mini breweries, restaurants etc. I mention this because I think focusing solely on the residential aspect ignores the linkage between residential and commercial.

3) An area with once beautiful Victorian era townhouses had been very run down by the '70s. It is now restored to its former glory, but not everyone is happy. The charge? Gentrification.

4) Throughout the city, old homes have been rehabbed. People are doing this on their own. If there is lead paint or asbestos removal involved, the cost of properly correcting the problems can be overwhelming. This would be a great place for government to help out so that the homes are not abandoned because buyers are scared off.

5) The Chicago program I discussed in my earlier post regarding using rehabbing as apprentice training as well as restoring old homes needs some government involvement to entice contractors to buy in to the program. Although it was many years ago, I still remember talking to a contractor who was happy to be part of the program and he mentioned the job training benefit to workers who previously in low paying jobs.

My point is/was that shoehorning duplexes and small apartment buildings into single family neighborhoods impresses me as unfair and hardly making a dent in the housing shortage. Old homes often have lead pipes, asbestos, antiquated wiring, and other problems. They typically need new kitchens and baths, HVAC, etc. But there are SO many of them, and to ignore them, I think, is silly. Do homes need huge kitchens and sunrooms? Exercise rooms? A couple of rooms as offices? There is plenty of very good stock needing rehabbing, and residents in those neighborhoods in a apprentice program are able to earn more than they did. I have never been a fan of simply throwing government money at problems. But offering it to help with the costs of rehabbing old homes? Sure! Just put in a requirement that it be owner-occupied for a while. Meaning maybe 10 years.

Thanks for asking the question regarding the solutions. The ones I offer may not work out, but I think that-to use a very worn out cliche'-we need to think outside the box.   

But isn't this all ignoring the problem that the US has with suburban sprawl?  If there is little to no density being added near to city centers then it stands to reason that housing needs to be added to the edge of town.  The consequences of building like this are everywhere.  More roads, more traffic, and more destruction of farmland/nature.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 23, 2024, 10:10:56 AM
Someone hasn't been to Wisconsin for awhile. Just drive across the Illinois border and you will see miles of businesses that have relocated there recently.

Hey, raised in Kenosha.  Congrats on becoming a suburb of Chicago.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 23, 2024, 04:08:51 PM
But isn't this all ignoring the problem that the US has with suburban sprawl?  If there is little to no density being added near to city centers then it stands to reason that housing needs to be added to the edge of town.  The consequences of building like this are everywhere.  More roads, more traffic, and more destruction of farmland/nature.

What is it that you think should be done about it, other than discouraging its spread? Your wording leads me to believe that you have a hatred for suburbs and want them punished somehow. I doubt that is what you are thinking, but it sure sounds like that.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 04:00:06 PM
Fair question. Can we agree that there is no easy solution? I bet we can.

I am familiar with only one metro area and its housing "solutions"- Richmond, VA., even though we have lived in a rural area of Virginia and have for years. So...my thoughts and opinions are no longer based upon being a resident here, but rather as a visitor who has seen the dramatic changes.

1) I have seen badly dilapidated homes that were beyond salvation razed and (I think via HUD) new homes built with "old timey" exteriors to blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. The neighborhood remained almost 100% African American, as the temporarily displaced residents wanted.

2) Long vacant, deteriorating industrial properties have either been repurposed as apartments, mini breweries, restaurants etc. I mention this because I think focusing solely on the residential aspect ignores the linkage between residential and commercial.

3) An area with once beautiful Victorian era townhouses had been very run down by the '70s. It is now restored to its former glory, but not everyone is happy. The charge? Gentrification.

4) Throughout the city, old homes have been rehabbed. People are doing this on their own. If there is lead paint or asbestos removal involved, the cost of properly correcting the problems can be overwhelming. This would be a great place for government to help out so that the homes are not abandoned because buyers are scared off.

5) The Chicago program I discussed in my earlier post regarding using rehabbing as apprentice training as well as restoring old homes needs some government involvement to entice contractors to buy in to the program. Although it was many years ago, I still remember talking to a contractor who was happy to be part of the program and he mentioned the job training benefit to workers who previously in low paying jobs.

My point is/was that shoehorning duplexes and small apartment buildings into single family neighborhoods impresses me as unfair and hardly making a dent in the housing shortage. Old homes often have lead pipes, asbestos, antiquated wiring, and other problems. They typically need new kitchens and baths, HVAC, etc. But there are SO many of them, and to ignore them, I think, is silly. Do homes need huge kitchens and sunrooms? Exercise rooms? A couple of rooms as offices? There is plenty of very good stock needing rehabbing, and residents in those neighborhoods in a apprentice program are able to earn more than they did. I have never been a fan of simply throwing government money at problems. But offering it to help with the costs of rehabbing old homes? Sure! Just put in a requirement that it be owner-occupied for a while. Meaning maybe 10 years.

Thanks for asking the question regarding the solutions. The ones I offer may not work out, but I think that-to use a very worn out cliche'-we need to think outside the box.   

None of this adds density or increases housing supply.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 05:00:15 PM
What is it that you think should be done about it, other than discouraging its spread? Your wording leads me to believe that you have a hatred for suburbs and want them punished somehow. I doubt that is what you are thinking, but it sure sounds like that.

No, I live in a suburb.  Personally, I would prefer to live in a more urban place, but I don't fancy living alone. ;D 

I think properties that are within a certain distance of city centers should have less restrictive zoning to encourage development and density.  Additionally, I think we could certainly do some things to move away from home ownership being the primary storage of wealth.  Homes should be for living, not a foolproof investment opportunity.

Yeah, let's tax unrealized capital gains. Hope Buffoon 2 keeps showin' her brilliance. She's lookin' more like a kamikaze
pilot every day, aina?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 23, 2024, 08:30:13 PM
Yeah, let's tax unrealized capital gains. Hope Buffoon 2 keeps showin' her brilliance. She's lookin' more like a kamikaze
pilot every day, aina?

Weird.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 23, 2024, 08:30:13 PM
Yeah, let's tax unrealized capital gains. Hope Buffoon 2 keeps showin' her brilliance. She's lookin' more like a kamikaze
pilot every day, aina?

Why would you add this stoopid blatantly political comment in a thread that has avoided any semblance of a political taint? Was it supposed to be funny for others of your ilk? This is the type of comment that I hope will lead to an immediate scoopcation. SMH

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 23, 2024, 05:13:54 PM
No, I live in a suburb.  Personally, I would prefer to live in a more urban Centreville ha. place, but I don't fancy living alone. ;D 

I think properties that are within a certain distance of city centers should have less restrictive zoning to encourage development and density.  Additionally, I think we could certainly do some things to move away from home ownership being the primary storage of wealth.  Homes should be for living, not a foolproof investment opportunity.

The newer suburban areas around DC area are definitely high density. Four story townhouses and multistory apartment buildings are plentiful. Exactly what are proposing to make homeownership "not a foolproof investment opportunity"? And why should the owners be restrained in this? I really think all this has about as much chance of flying as Muggsy's magnificent 5 point plan.

I'm not sure how housing costs becomes reasonable for the average person, but I DO get your oft repeated outrage at the burden on younger generations. We can agree on that, right? With the current near deadlock on housing-high prices, high mortgage rates- I realize that there may be no other way out other than with government getting involved somehow, but that basic principle is too often a slippery slope to me. The massive amount of very large apartment building I see tells me that investors are expecting this country to be increasingly rental based long term. As Lawdog has pointed out, it has been heavy on luxury apartment buildings.

I hope you get your wish to live in the city. Do me a favor....lighten up on demonizing old farts like me that were able to do well in real estate when conditions were much better. Success is not a crime, even if it was achieved under easier conditions. All you are doing is heading towards an ulcer.  :)

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 23, 2024, 08:30:13 PM
Yeah, let's tax unrealized capital gains. Hope Buffoon 2 keeps showin' her brilliance. She's lookin' more like a kamikaze
pilot every day, aina?

You'll never have to worry about paying that tax, my guy. Dentists ain't in that tax bracket, aina?

Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on August 23, 2024, 09:09:09 PM
Why would you add this stoopid blatantly political comment in a thread that has avoided any semblance of a political taint? Was it supposed to be funny for others of your ilk? This is the type of comment that I hope will lead to an immediate scoopcation. SMH

Because vomiting political nonsense is the only things he manages to do lately.

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 23, 2024, 09:45:37 PM
The newer suburban areas around DC area are definitely high density. Four story townhouses and multistory apartment buildings are plentiful. Exactly what are proposing to make homeownership "not a foolproof investment opportunity"? And why should the owners be restrained in this? I really think all this has about as much chance of flying as Muggsy's magnificent 5 point plan.

I'm not sure how housing costs becomes reasonable for the average person, but I DO get your oft repeated outrage at the burden on younger generations. We can agree on that, right? With the current near deadlock on housing-high prices, high mortgage rates- I realize that there may be no other way out other than with government getting involved somehow, but that basic principle is too often a slippery slope to me. The massive amount of very large apartment building I see tells me that investors are expecting this country to be increasingly rental based long term. As Lawdog has pointed out, it has been heavy on luxury apartment buildings.

I hope you get your wish to live in the city. Do me a favor....lighten up on demonizing old farts like me that were able to do well in real estate when conditions were much better. Success is not a crime, even if it was achieved under easier conditions. All you are doing is heading towards an ulcer.  :)

I didn't know you were old and I feel like I've be honest about my questions here.  If you feel upset that I think a lot of people who are older (and especially on this board, wealthy) are out of touch I don't know what to tell you, they are.  On a daily basis, I work with old people who are not as fortunate.  A woman called my office yesterday and wanted a ride to her dentist on the other side of town.  She had recently lost her ability to drive and feels stranded at her retirement home.  Her apartment is brand new, but located on the edge of town, and as I mentioned, far from her dentist.  For her to take an Uber round trip would be around $50 (I looked for her on my app) and of course, that is too much for her so she will probably miss her appointment on Monday.  And since I know people will ask, the service our company provides was more than she required and would have been much more expensive.  Now, if her housing didn't cost more than 40% of her monthly income, she was more centrally located, or public transportation was readily available she would probably be able to make it to her appointment.  I field dozens of calls like this every week.  The point I'm trying to make here is that housing among all age groups is unaffordable.  The best way to solve this problem is adding supply, but where the supply is also matters.

You're bringing up the newer suburban areas around DC getting multistory apartments is exactly what I'm referring to.  It's poor planning.  My guess is those apartments are the typical 5-over-1 construction that goes in everywhere.  They're fine, but they need to be INSIDE the city to provide density for people who need access to services.  Stacking them in the suburbs isn't ideal... though DC is a distinct exception here since the Metro lines extend far enough away from the city center to be effective.  My cousin lives in Fairfax and can take the Metro into the downtown area, which is AMAZING.  Try doing that in Phoenix area.  Getting anywhere in that sprawling hell hole of a city takes 45 minutes by car, and if you don't have a car or a lot of money for rides you're basically screwed.

Saying you don't want rezoning of single family housing is peak, "I got mine, eff you" behavior.  I don't care who says it.  Whether they're old or young, it's misguided and short sighted.  Times change, and cities need to adapt to this change.  You got yours and your financial freedom what I assume is decades ago.  I'm on the same track, but I've been fortunate.  Good family, good friends, and financially literate parents that passed along vital information.  Not everyone has this luck or opportunity.

Your observation about more rental units is absolutely true.  But one of the things you're probably not seeing is SFH's being bought up and turned in rental units by investment firms.  Some from the US, but many are international corporations.  I'm sure you can see why this is not ideal.

I understand not wanting government to get involved from a political point of view, but a large part of what government functionally does is providing things that the market can't or won't provide to produce a functional society?  Without city planning and government intervention there would be no roads, water, sewer, EMS, education, etc.  Why not add basic housing to that responsibility?  Other countries do it with great success.  We don't do it here because it might upset people who have absolutely no skin in the game other than a slightly higher tax bill.  Personally, I already pay for a ton of government services that I don't use, BUT I do benefit from them.  These services are essential to maintaining a functional society.  I don't use EBT, I don't benefit from Ag subsidies, I don't have children in school.  BUT these things all benefit our society as a whole.  I find it very strange where we decide to draw lines in our society about what basic needs we are okay with providing or at least assisting with.  Food?  Yep, that's fine.  Water?  Yes, everything that is built has water access and is readily available.   But somehow we draw the line at shelter.  Don't you find that a bit repulsive?  American can have most of the things they need to survive (not thrive) as a human except a place to actually lay down.

Also, I'm not sure if your attempting to joke that you hope I get to live in a city by wishing I get divorced, but I don't think that's what you meant, since you're a level headed person.  I'll choose to not read it that way.   ;)

I never once said success is a crime.  If it was, myself and most of my family and friends would be locked up.  Again, I'm doing great.  I have no problem with successful people.  What I have a problem with the absolute lack of empathy for people who are less fortunate and not successful.  Our society should be about lifting up people who are less fortunate and making the world a better place for everyone.  I hear a lot of people say they want to do the same, but they are uncomfortable with solutions that are observable and work under the guise of the solutions being 'too expensive' or 'unfair'.  Which is BS.  The US is the most wealthy country in the world.  The real problem is that we are also the most greedy, arrogant, and self absorbed nation.

And finally, ulcers are bacterial and can easily be treated with antibiotics.   ;D

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 24, 2024, 11:50:02 AM
I didn't know you were old and I feel like I've be honest about my questions here.  If you feel upset that I think a lot of people who are older (and especially on this board, wealthy) are out of touch I don't know what to tell you, they are.  On a daily basis, I work with old people who are not as fortunate.  A woman called my office yesterday and wanted a ride to her dentist on the other side of town.  She had recently lost her ability to drive and feels stranded at her retirement home.  Her apartment is brand new, but located on the edge of town, and as I mentioned, far from her dentist.  For her to take an Uber round trip would be around $50 (I looked for her on my app) and of course, that is too much for her so she will probably miss her appointment on Monday.  And since I know people will ask, the service our company provides was more than she required and would have been much more expensive.  Now, if her housing didn't cost more than 40% of her monthly income, she was more centrally located, or public transportation was readily available she would probably be able to make it to her appointment.  I field dozens of calls like this every week.  The point I'm trying to make here is that housing among all age groups is unaffordable.  The best way to solve this problem is adding supply, but where the supply is also matters.

You're bringing up the newer suburban areas around DC getting multistory apartments is exactly what I'm referring to.  It's poor planning.  My guess is those apartments are the typical 5-over-1 construction that goes in everywhere.  They're fine, but they need to be INSIDE the city to provide density for people who need access to services.  Stacking them in the suburbs isn't ideal... though DC is a distinct exception here since the Metro lines extend far enough away from the city center to be effective.  My cousin lives in Fairfax and can take the Metro into the downtown area, which is AMAZING.  Try doing that in Phoenix area.  Getting anywhere in that sprawling hell hole of a city takes 45 minutes by car, and if you don't have a car or a lot of money for rides you're basically screwed.

Saying you don't want rezoning of single family housing is peak, "I got mine, eff you" behavior.  I don't care who says it.  Whether they're old or young, it's misguided and short sighted.  Times change, and cities need to adapt to this change.  You got yours and your financial freedom what I assume is decades ago.  I'm on the same track, but I've been fortunate.  Good family, good friends, and financially literate parents that passed along vital information.  Not everyone has this luck or opportunity.

Your observation about more rental units is absolutely true.  But one of the things you're probably not seeing is SFH's being bought up and turned in rental units by investment firms.  Some from the US, but many are international corporations.  I'm sure you can see why this is not ideal.

I understand not wanting government to get involved from a political point of view, but a large part of what government functionally does is providing things that the market can't or won't provide to produce a functional society?  Without city planning and government intervention there would be no roads, water, sewer, EMS, education, etc.  Why not add basic housing to that responsibility?  Other countries do it with great success.  We don't do it here because it might upset people who have absolutely no skin in the game other than a slightly higher tax bill.  Personally, I already pay for a ton of government services that I don't use, BUT I do benefit from them.  These services are essential to maintaining a functional society.  I don't use EBT, I don't benefit from Ag subsidies, I don't have children in school.  BUT these things all benefit our society as a whole.  I find it very strange where we decide to draw lines in our society about what basic needs we are okay with providing or at least assisting with.  Food?  Yep, that's fine.  Water?  Yes, everything that is built has water access and is readily available.   But somehow we draw the line at shelter.  Don't you find that a bit repulsive?  American can have most of the things they need to survive (not thrive) as a human except a place to actually lay down.

Also, I'm not sure if your attempting to joke that you hope I get to live in a city by wishing I get divorced, but I don't think that's what you meant, since you're a level headed person.  I'll choose to not read it that way.   ;)

I never once said success is a crime.  If it was, myself and most of my family and friends would be locked up.  Again, I'm doing great.  I have no problem with successful people.  What I have a problem with the absolute lack of empathy for people who are less fortunate and not successful.  Our society should be about lifting up people who are less fortunate and making the world a better place for everyone.  I hear a lot of people say they want to do the same, but they are uncomfortable with solutions that are observable and work under the guise of the solutions being 'too expensive' or 'unfair'.  Which is BS.  The US is the most wealthy country in the world.  The real problem is that we are also the most greedy, arrogant, and self absorbed nation.

And finally, ulcers are bacterial and can easily be treated with antibiotics.   ;D

Excellent post. I would add healthcare to the bolded as well.

Quote from: lawdog77 on August 24, 2024, 12:13:35 PM
Excellent post. I would add healthcare to the bolded as well.

You're exactly right!

There is plenty of housing in this country. People have to be willing to live in the areas that are affordable and within their means.

All my kids were able to gain a stake in the real estate economy by their mid 20s. They worked hard , long hours saved and bought something within their means without parent subsidy. In excellent neighborhood's .

We employ thousands of folks at the lower end of economy and are very aware of what it takes for people to enjoy a life that is safe and having basic needs. We pay reasonable wages and provide excellent benefits.

People of all ages need to take personal responsibility for their own lives and living circumstances.

As to Older folks,Plenty of my friends changed their residences as they aged to accommodate  easier access to basic necessities like medical and grocery stores etc. Many moved well in advance of physical infirmities to be well positioned . Small town America offers a lot in this regard.

Government can and is absolutely there for disabled . However , I reject the notion that government needs to take care of everyone's responsibilities.

Quote from: Herman Cain on August 24, 2024, 02:36:48 PM
There is plenty of housing in this country. People have to be willing to live in the areas that are affordable and within their means.

All my kids were able to gain a stake in the real estate economy by their mid 20s. They worked hard , long hours saved and bought something within their means without parent subsidy. In excellent neighborhood's .

We employ thousands of folks at the lower end of economy and are very aware of what it takes for people to enjoy a life that is safe and having basic needs. We pay reasonable wages and provide excellent benefits.

People of all ages need to take personal responsibility for their own lives and living circumstances.

As to Older folks,Plenty of my friends changed their residences as they aged to accommodate  easier access to basic necessities like medical and grocery stores etc. Many moved well in advance of physical infirmities to be well positioned . Small town America offers a lot in this regard.

Government can and is absolutely there for disabled . However , I reject the notion that government needs to take care of everyone's responsibilities.

Thank you for so quickly proving my point.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 24, 2024, 02:50:13 PM
Thank you for so quickly proving my point.

Well, he's not a real guy, so it was pretty easy for him to make up something quickly.

Quote from: Herman Cain on August 24, 2024, 02:36:48 PM
There is plenty of housing in this country.

Theres an estimated shortage of 8 million single family homes in this country that is growing by the hundreds of thousands every year.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 24, 2024, 06:30:25 PM
Theres an estimated shortage of 8 million single family homes in this country that is growing by the hundreds of thousands every year.

But his kids bought homes in excellent neighborhoods in their mid-20s. Therefore you're wrong.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 24, 2024, 06:40:06 PM
But his kids bought homes in excellent neighborhoods in their mid-20s. Therefore you're wrong.

And I'm sure they had no financial advantages to make those purchases possible

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 24, 2024, 06:30:25 PM
Theres an estimated shortage of 8 million single family homes in this country that is growing by the hundreds of thousands every year.

well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 24, 2024, 07:28:13 PM
well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

So is your assertion that if they weren't here there would be adequate housing for everyone? Because there are studies that suggest the exact opposite. By free-market libertarians!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/02/how-immigration-restrictions-reduce-housing-construction-and-exacerbate-shortages/

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 24, 2024, 07:28:13 PM
well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

Lolllllll

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 24, 2024, 06:30:25 PM
Theres an estimated shortage of 8 million single family homes in this country that is growing by the hundreds of thousands every year.

I'll also add, that if you make the median household income in the US ($75k), and can put 20% down on a home, you cannot afford a mortgage on the median house price ($412k), because you do not make enough money to support the loan (28% of monthly gross income: $1750 per month).

Housing is not affordable, because people are not competing against other like-minded people for buying a home, they are competing against corporate entities, investment companies, and other high net-worth individuals, who recognize that housing is a need, and they can take advantage of that to profit, while excluding families from the housing market.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 24, 2024, 07:28:13 PM
well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/059/686/777/original/ewelina-absolutna-wojak27.gif?1676932656)

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 24, 2024, 07:28:13 PM
well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

Such a weird little guy.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 24, 2024, 07:43:29 PM
So is your assertion that if they weren't here there would be adequate housing for everyone? Because there are studies that suggest the exact opposite. By free-market libertarians!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/02/how-immigration-restrictions-reduce-housing-construction-and-exacerbate-shortages/

  just saying all those millions of illegals allowed to walk across our border has to have some impact.  they can't all stay in tents, especially in the colder climates.  if there is a shortage of affordable housing not counting the illegals, then it sounds like it is probably worse than advertised.

saying we have a housing shortage, but denying the 20 million illegals (or whatever the number is) is having or not having an affect is counter intuitive to say the least.   

Quote from: jficke13 on August 24, 2024, 09:46:40 PM
Such a weird little guy.

  what's weird about this ficke?  cuz i'm a deeper thinker than you?  you all good with our "secure" border?  the economic affect/effect, not to mention all the other obvious problems, was so avoidable, 

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 25, 2024, 07:21:43 AM


  just saying all those millions of illegals allowed to walk across our border has to have some impact.  they can't all stay in tents, especially in the colder climates.  if there is a shortage of affordable housing not counting the illegals, then it sounds like it is probably worse than advertised.

saying we have a housing shortage, but denying the 20 million illegals (or whatever the number is) is having or not having an affect is counter intuitive to say the least.   

Did you read what I posted? Or are you used to just being spoon fed talking points?

Most economists believe that clearing out millions of working people - folks who accept jobs most Americans won't take, and folks who pay income and SS taxes while not being eligible for benefits in most states - would devastate the U.S. economy and cripple many industries.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/trump-mass-deport-migrants-crush-economy/

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-shift/2024/08/19/what-mass-deportation-would-mean-for-the-workforce-00174543

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article290242824.html

Mass deportation (and/or concentration camps) is a terrible idea just for economic reasons alone. It's also cruel - which, let's face it, is the the point.

The bipartisan immigration reform legislation - which was crafted by a Republican senator but was shut down by the previous president for purely political reasons - would be a far better plan for the economy.

Of course, none of this has much to do with the subject of this thread, but dentists gonna be who dentists gonna be.

Yes. Removing millions of people from the workforce, when we already have low unemployment and inflation is settling down, is a recipe for economic disaster.

And would have negative impacts on the housing market, including increasing the price of housing significantly.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 25, 2024, 07:42:37 AM
Did you read what I posted? Or are you used to just being spoon fed talking points?

Did you need to ask either of those questions? Of course he didn't read what you posted, and all he ever does is regurgitate Fox News talking points.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 25, 2024, 07:32:05 AM
  what's weird about this ficke?  cuz i'm a deeper thinker than you?  you all good with our "secure" border?  the economic affect/effect, not to mention all the other obvious problems, was so avoidable,

Can you imagine going on a college basketball message board, into a sub thread on mortgage rates and the housing market, and posting nonsequiters about immigration?

In what way is this not weird?

Quote from: jficke13 on August 25, 2024, 08:10:04 AM
Can you imagine going on a college basketball message board, into a sub thread on mortgage rates and the housing market, and posting nonsequiters about immigration?

In what way is this not weird?

Simply put: They are out of their minds.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 25, 2024, 07:32:05 AM
  what's weird about this ficke?  cuz i'm a deeper thinker than you?  you all good with our "secure" border?  the economic affect/effect, not to mention all the other obvious problems, was so avoidable,

Hell yeah dude and don't forget the frogs are gay

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 25, 2024, 07:58:49 AM
Yes. Removing millions of people from the workforce, when we already have low unemployment and inflation is settling down, is a recipe for economic disaster.

And would have negative impacts on the housing market, including increasing the price of housing significantly.

The country would starve to death.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 25, 2024, 07:58:49 AM
Yes. Removing millions of people from the workforce, when we already have low unemployment and inflation is settling down, is a recipe for economic disaster.

And would have negative impacts on the housing market, including increasing the price of housing significantly.

Wrong. Black people would get their black jobs back.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 24, 2024, 11:50:02 AM

But one of the things you're probably not seeing is SFH's being bought up and turned in rental units by investment firms.  Some from the US, but many are international corporations.  I'm sure you can see why this is not ideal.

Also, I'm not sure if your attempting to joke that you hope I get to live in a city by wishing I get divorced, but I don't think that's what you meant, since you're a level headed person.  I'll choose to not read it that way.   ;)

The real problem is that we are also the most greedy, arrogant, and self absorbed nation.

First of all, we agree on the problems created by investment firms buying up properties as a major factor in high home prices. I did not need you to inform me of a problem that you deemed yourself qualified to say I was "probably not seeing". It is possible that the practice could be legally challenged as heading towards monopolization (though not being there) and be addressed. That would be huge. It would have been an ideal subject to keep our discussion more civil.

Secondly, I apologize for what you thought might be a bad joke regarding your marriage. Mea Culpa. I read right past the being alone comment without grasping the obvious implications.

Thirdly, I am not unilaterally opposed to zoning changes that benefit a neighborhood that is in need of rebuilding and new thinking on the overall plan. I do not like a figurative or the literal bulldozer approach to rezoning without careful considerations. My opposition is specifically to spot zoning that I believe primarily benefits the builder of units. Again, expanding on our thoughts on this subject would have been more beneficial without the name calling and accusations.

What is your solution to changing this country from a "greedy, arrogant, and self-absorbed" one to a country more to your liking? I see some of the characteristics you enumerated, but I do not think a blanket condemnation is fair.  I have no training or qualifications as a psychologist, but my layman's opinion is that you have quite a few anger issues. Your opinions, thoughts, research etc. are impressive. Why spoil it by lashing out?

Lastly, if you believe I have little or no empathy for people struggling with housing and other costs (I hope I am mistaken here and have misread what you wrote), you are very wrong. I strongly protest. I have no vested interest in many of the issues e touched upon, yet I DO care, thank you very much. My wife and I live on 12 acres of beautiful property in the Blue Ridge Mountain area in a home that is comfortable but far from huge or luxurious. One of my favorite features is our 10' deep wraparound porches that we chose in lieu of excessive heated space under roof. I'm heading out there right now.  :)

Quote from: Scoop Snoop on August 25, 2024, 10:12:56 AM
First of all, we agree on the problems created by investment firms buying up properties as a major factor in high home prices. I did not need you to inform me of a problem that you deemed yourself qualified to say I was "probably not seeing". It is possible that the practice could be legally challenged as heading towards monopolization (though not being there) and be addressed. That would be huge. It would have been an ideal subject to keep our discussion more civil.

Secondly, I apologize for what you thought might be a bad joke regarding your marriage. Mea Culpa. I read right past the being alone comment without grasping the obvious implications.

Thirdly, I am not unilaterally opposed to zoning changes that benefit a neighborhood that is in need of rebuilding and new thinking on the overall plan. I do not like a figurative or the literal bulldozer approach to rezoning without careful considerations. My opposition is specifically to spot zoning that I believe primarily benefits the builder of units. Again, expanding on our thoughts on this subject would have been more beneficial without the name calling and accusations.

What is your solution to changing this country from a "greedy, arrogant, and self-absorbed" one to a country more to your liking? I see some of the characteristics you enumerated, but I do not think a blanket condemnation is fair.  I have no training or qualifications as a psychologist, but my layman's opinion is that you have quite a few anger issues. Your opinions, thoughts, research etc. are impressive. Why spoil it by lashing out?

Lastly, if you believe I have little or no empathy for people struggling with housing and other costs (I hope I am mistaken here and have misread what you wrote), you are very wrong. I strongly protest. I have no vested interest in many of the issues e touched upon, yet I DO care, thank you very much. My wife and I live on 12 acres of beautiful property in the Blue Ridge Mountain area in a home that is comfortable but far from huge or luxurious. One of my favorite features is our 10' deep wraparound porches that we chose in lieu of excessive heated space under roof. I'm heading out there right now.  :)

If you are feeling attacked, please don't think I was singling you out.  It was a generalization, not directed at you personally.

The best way to stop investment firms purchasing home is to legislate it.  My guess is this will eventually happen, but it will be fairly toothless... something like an investment firm can only own so many properties in a certain area or something. 

Don't worry about what you said, I knew it wasn't in your character to say something like that.  I just wanted to be sure.

I don't know how to change this country away from being greedy, arrogant, and self absorbed.  Those things don't happen over night.  Unfortunately, our culture encourages those things which is why we have many of the social ills that we do.  Many of our Christian brothers and sisters aren't very good Christians, but I don't want to get into why that may be.  One of my most hated things I see on the internet nowadays is someone helping someone for internet likes, and kudos.  The self aggrandization always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.  Doing something nice for someone doesn't need to be broadcast, and IMO it cheapens the good deed.  I try to practice altruism in my life, and don't do nice things for people because I want everyone else to know what a great guy I am.  Anyway.

Where have I lashed out at you, personally?  I save that for people who choose to argue without good intentions.  Which clearly isn't you.  I'm not sure why you think I'm so angry.  I'm not.  I lash out at people who have lashed out at me previously and don't want to have a serious conversation.  I absolutely will deride them at will because I don't have the desire to treat bad actors as equals.  Fools get treated like fools.  And even then, I forgive and move on from people who show decency or a desire to talk about something honestly. 

I thought we were having an honest conversation.  If you're pulling my "boomer" comments from other threads as a personal attack, just know that it isn't personal.  You're certainly not the first to point out that they feel attacked by them, and for that I apologize.  The generalization is just a generalization and isn't meant to include everyone.  Obviously, there are outliers. 

Enjoy your time in the mountains, they're beautiful and it sounds like a great time.

One out 4 affordable homes bought by investors last quarter.   Some markets as high as 35%.

(Simple Google search.   What percentage of homes are bought by investors)

Quote from: Hards Alumni on August 25, 2024, 10:51:31 AM
If you are feeling attacked, please don't think I was singling you out.  It was a generalization, not directed at you personally.

The best way to stop investment firms purchasing home is to legislate it.  My guess is this will eventually happen, but it will be fairly toothless... something like an investment firm can only own so many properties in a certain area or something. 

Don't worry about what you said, I knew it wasn't in your character to say something like that.  I just wanted to be sure.

I don't know how to change this country away from being greedy, arrogant, and self absorbed.  Those things don't happen over night.  Unfortunately, our culture encourages those things which is why we have many of the social ills that we do.  Many of our Christian brothers and sisters aren't very good Christians, but I don't want to get into why that may be.  One of my most hated things I see on the internet nowadays is someone helping someone for internet likes, and kudos.  The self aggrandization always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.  Doing something nice for someone doesn't need to be broadcast, and IMO it cheapens the good deed.  I try to practice altruism in my life, and don't do nice things for people because I want everyone else to know what a great guy I am.  Anyway.

Where have I lashed out at you, personally?  I save that for people who choose to argue without good intentions.  Which clearly isn't you.  I'm not sure why you think I'm so angry.  I'm not.  I lash out at people who have lashed out at me previously and don't want to have a serious conversation.  I absolutely will deride them at will because I don't have the desire to treat bad actors as equals.  Fools get treated like fools.  And even then, I forgive and move on from people who show decency or a desire to talk about something honestly. 

I thought we were having an honest conversation.  If you're pulling my "boomer" comments from other threads as a personal attack, just know that it isn't personal.  You're certainly not the first to point out that they feel attacked by them, and for that I apologize.  The generalization is just a generalization and isn't meant to include everyone.  Obviously, there are outliers. 

Enjoy your time in the mountains, they're beautiful and it sounds like a great time.

We're good Hards. Altruism is a good thing. I say just do it, preferably anonymously or at least without drawing attention to yourself. I'm with you regarding the "Look at me! Look at me!" donors.

The way we read/hear what others write and say varies quite a bit. I'm glad to hear that there was no bad intent on your part and am happy to leave it there. Time for the rear-view mirror, OK?

You can be assured of one thing-if I ever feel that I am being attacked, I will never, ever post "Why am I being attacked?"  ;D ;D
My least favorite scooper seems to have given that up after being ridiculed so many times.

I think we actually covered a number of issues, but whether either of us sees the issues differently? Too early to tell.

If you come out to the Blue Ridge area, stop by for a visit. I will even let you use my chain saw to clear brush. It's a lot of fun!

The declining birthrate will eventually help the housing market even out.   It will probably hurt the colleges.

Quote from: tower912 on August 25, 2024, 01:20:59 PM
The declining birthrate will eventually help the housing market even out.   It will probably hurt the colleges.

Net migration is going to prevent declining birthrates from easing the housing market anytime soon.  And there are many colleges that will be closing in the next few years so that will kind of take care of itself.

Agreed on both points.

Quote from: jficke13 on August 25, 2024, 08:10:04 AM
Can you imagine going on a college basketball message board, into a sub thread on mortgage rates and the housing market, and posting nonsequiters about immigration?

In what way is this not weird?

Indeed, roqqet is so right. The 8 million "illegals"-- or maybe 20 million, or whatever number he wants to make up at any given time-- are most definitely purchasing single family homes and driving the prices up for everyone else. Yes, indeed.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on August 25, 2024, 05:24:52 PM
Indeed, roqqet is so right. The 8 million "illegals"-- or maybe 20 million, or whatever number he wants to make up at any given time-- are most definitely purchasing single family homes and driving the prices up for everyone else. Yes, indeed.

One just came to my door and offered me 5x what my house is worth. I now have wads of cash, but I'm living on the street because I can't afford any housing because all the illegals in this country have taken all of the available housing.

I may be putting my house up for sale soon and I'm scurred.

Quote from: Jay Bee on August 25, 2024, 08:44:49 PM
I may be putting my house up for sale soon and I'm scurred.

Appropriate. Never take more than it's worth!

If I were to put my house up for sale, I had better have already made a down payment on my next house, as my current home would be snapped up in a week.  That is what scares me.

Quote from: tower912 on August 25, 2024, 08:57:23 PM
That is what scares me.

Mortgages shouldn't scare people.  Unless they're unprepared.

Sarcasm missed.

Quote from: tower912 on August 25, 2024, 09:03:10 PM
Sarcasm missed.

Dangit

Quote from: tower912 on August 25, 2024, 08:57:23 PM
If I were to put my house up for sale, I had better have already made a down payment on my next house, as my current home would be snapped up in a week.  That is what scares me.

My mom passed away back in October.  We had it cleaned out enough to put on sale in June and it was sold in 1 week. My brother and I had 5 offers. 
Once was all cash but they changed their mind the next day.  3 offers were fully mortgaging with no down payment and the winning offer some 29 year old single man amazingly put a very very significant down payment.
We have a friend looking to sell their longtime home and move to a different part of Connecticut to be closer to their daughter. She has the issue tower mentioned.  She said you have to have a pre-approved mortgage up to a certain amount because sellers won't wait for you to get a mortgage.  They'll just push the button for one of the other offers.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on August 26, 2024, 06:24:03 AM
My mom passed away back in October.  We had it cleaned out enough to put on sale in June and it was sold in 1 week. My brother and I had 5 offers. 
Once was all cash but they changed their mind the next day.  3 offers were fully mortgaging with no down payment and the winning offer some 29 year old single man amazingly put a very very significant down payment.
We have a friend looking to sell their longtime home and move to a different part of Connecticut to be closer to their daughter. She has the issue tower mentioned.  She said you have to have a pre-approved mortgage up to a certain amount because sellers won't wait for you to get a mortgage.  They'll just push the button for one of the other offers.

It' been two years but we bought without a financing contingency. We had to show we had enough cash and liquid assets to close a deal. We financed the house we bought for a year but the risk was creating a massive tax event if we could not get financing.

It's not a big deal as long as you have trust in your banker.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 23, 2024, 08:30:13 PM
Yeah, let's tax unrealized capital gains. Hope Buffoon 2 keeps showin' her brilliance. She's lookin' more like a kamikaze
pilot every day, aina?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 24, 2024, 07:28:13 PM
well let's see...how many illegals have been allowed to essentially walk across our "border"?  I'll bet it's well north of 8 million, so you might have a point.  they all need a place to stay, eyn'a?

all the other posts have been on topic except for these 2 clowns

Quote from: Spotcheck Billy on August 26, 2024, 08:50:43 AM
all the other posts have been on topic except for these 2 clowns

I think they are the same guy.

Quote from: Jockey on August 26, 2024, 02:42:34 PM
I think they are the same guy.

  loosen up the thong a little bit jockstrap, need some oxygen and blood flow to your brain

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 27, 2024, 05:32:04 AM
  loosen up the thong a little bit jockstrap, need some oxygen and blood flow to your brain

Says the deep thinker who alone has ascertained that illegal immigrants are buying up houses and making them unaffordable to 'Murkans

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on August 27, 2024, 09:42:40 AM
Says the deep thinker who alone has ascertained that illegal immigrants are buying up houses and making them unaffordable to 'Murkans

says the guy that blah blah...you're weak dude

never said the 20 million illegals your peeps are letting in are buying up houses did I...you guys who've created our problems sure are triggered easily. just look at the storm of posts.  scoop musta been smokin all day yesterday

can any of you guys think outside of your MSNBCjoylessReidCNNnbccbsabctheview...

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 27, 2024, 07:56:34 PM
says the guy that blah blah...you're weak dude

never said the 20 million illegals your peeps are letting in are buying up houses did I...you guys who've created our problems sure are triggered easily. just look at the storm of posts.  scoop musta been smokin all day yesterday

can any of you guys think outside of your MSNBCjoylessReidCNNnbccbsabctheview...

So weird.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 27, 2024, 07:56:34 PM
says the guy that blah blah...you're weak dude

never said the 20 million illegals your peeps are letting in are buying up houses did I...you guys who've created our problems sure are triggered easily. just look at the storm of posts.  scoop musta been smokin all day yesterday

can any of you guys think outside of your MSNBCjoylessReidCNNnbccbsabctheview...

Says the guy who barfs out Fox News talking points with every post he's ever made here.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 27, 2024, 07:56:34 PM
says the guy that blah blah...you're weak dude

never said the 20 million illegals your peeps are letting in are buying up houses did I...you guys who've created our problems sure are triggered easily. just look at the storm of posts.  scoop musta been smokin all day yesterday

can any of you guys think outside of your MSNBCjoylessReidCNNnbccbsabctheview...

Quote from: rocket surgeon on August 25, 2024, 07:21:43 AM


  just saying all those millions of illegals allowed to walk across our border has to have some impact.  they can't all stay in tents, especially in the colder climates.  if there is a shortage of affordable housing not counting the illegals, then it sounds like it is probably worse than advertised.

saying we have a housing shortage, but denying the 20 million illegals (or whatever the number is) is having or not having an affect is counter intuitive to say the least.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on August 27, 2024, 08:48:49 PM

Lmao, perfect

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on August 26, 2024, 06:24:03 AM
She said you have to have a pre-approved mortgage up to a certain amount because sellers won't wait for you to get a mortgage.  They'll just push the button for one of the other offers.

What is the big deal about getting a pre-approved mortgage?  It just means doing the paperwork before you start house hunting.  I believe that in most cases, you can still shop for a better mortgage deal once you are under contract. 

Quote from: warriorchick on August 28, 2024, 07:51:21 PM
What is the big deal about getting a pre-approved mortgage?  It just means doing the paperwork before you start house hunting.  I believe that in most cases, you can still shop for a better mortgage deal once you are under contract. 

It is a more attractive offer to the seller if the potential buyer is pre-approved.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on August 28, 2024, 08:03:08 PM

It is a more attractive offer to the seller if the potential buyer is pre-approved.

I totally get that.  My point was that MUFIC was talking about it like it was some huge burden on the househunter to get one. If he will get approved after the offer, he will get approved before the offer.

Gotcha. Yeah you can do it by email with your local bank most likely.

Cumberland, Md.; Tulsa; the Rochester, NY area; and parts of West Virginia are offering cold hard cash to people who move to their dying towns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/08/30/cumberland-maryland-revival/?

Quote from: wadesworld on August 27, 2024, 08:10:33 PM
Says the guy who barfs out Fox News talking points with every post he's ever made here.

so you guys barfing out cnn msnbc abc nbc cbs is superior??  "journalism" is dead

Journalism isn't dead at all.

A lot of people, however, choose not to consume journalism - but instead want to consume self-reinforcing entertainment disguised as journalism.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 03, 2024, 08:46:44 AM
so you guys barfing out cnn msnbc abc nbc cbs is superior??  "journalism" is dead

At least you admit you are barfing out Fox spew. Admitting it is the first step, congrats.

How 'bout those mortgage rates and the housing market?

My daughter and family is househunting in Seattle so I've been paying pretty close attention to the market there - which has mostly been booming for years and years.

Houses are staying on the market a little longer than they had been and not going over list as often, especially once you get past $1.3M or so. (Sadly, starter homes there are $1M-ish.)

Our area of Charlotte is still pretty hot. Most properly priced houses are going in a day or two, though not as many over-list offers.

Today's reminder that HOAs suck.

At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, David Martin took a water cooler and placed it on his driveway in front of his Goodyear, Ariz., home. He filled the cooler with water bottles and ice and told anyone who passed by to take one.

It was just a small gesture to help his neighbors during a hard time, Martin told The Washington Post. He decided to keep it going, and the cooler, with Martin's offer of free chilled water, has sat outside his garage ever since. His neighbors have gratefully obliged. So have delivery drivers, dog walkers and passersby playing basketball at a park near his house, especially this summer as southern Arizona scorches under a record-breaking heat wave.

The only objection, Martin was stunned to discover, came from his homeowners association.
]In April, Martin's HOA began fining him and his wife for violating an association rule to store items out of view, according to Martin and letters Martin shared with The Post. It increased to hundreds of dollars in the following months. The group, whose complaints were first reported by AZFamily, threatens to continue fining Martin until he removes his water cooler, he said. He refuses to pay.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beat-heat-arizona-man-offers-135053920.html

^^ great story, weirdo

Quote from: Pakuni on September 05, 2024, 10:13:28 PM
Today's reminder that HOAs suck.

At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, David Martin

I'd contribute to a go f*ck them for this guy.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on September 05, 2024, 10:20:00 PM
I'd contribute to a go f*ck them for this guy.

Seems I struck a nerve.
Huh.

Quote from: Pakuni on September 05, 2024, 10:20:29 PM
Seems I struck a nerve.
Huh.

THEY are sensitive.

Quote from: Pakuni on September 05, 2024, 10:20:29 PM
Seems I struck a nerve.
Huh.

I think we've all resolved some issues this evening. Lol.

Quote from: Jay Bee on September 05, 2024, 10:22:02 PM
THEY are sensitive.

Still insecure.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on September 05, 2024, 10:34:03 PM
Still insecure.

Not at all. The FBI shall protect me!

Quote from: Jay Bee on September 05, 2024, 10:44:15 PM
Not at all. The FBI shall protect me!

Indeed. They will.

Quote from: Pakuni on September 05, 2024, 10:13:28 PM
Today's reminder that HOAs suck.

At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, David Martin took a water cooler and placed it on his driveway in front of his Goodyear, Ariz., home. He filled the cooler with water bottles and ice and told anyone who passed by to take one.

It was just a small gesture to help his neighbors during a hard time, Martin told The Washington Post. He decided to keep it going, and the cooler, with Martin's offer of free chilled water, has sat outside his garage ever since. His neighbors have gratefully obliged. So have delivery drivers, dog walkers and passersby playing basketball at a park near his house, especially this summer as southern Arizona scorches under a record-breaking heat wave.

The only objection, Martin was stunned to discover, came from his homeowners association.
]In April, Martin's HOA began fining him and his wife for violating an association rule to store items out of view, according to Martin and letters Martin shared with The Post. It increased to hundreds of dollars in the following months. The group, whose complaints were first reported by AZFamily, threatens to continue fining Martin until he removes his water cooler, he said. He refuses to pay.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beat-heat-arizona-man-offers-135053920.html

Assume Rocket is the head of this HOA

Solid but not spectacular jobs report this morning pretty much confirms a Fed cut later this month, which eventually should push down already-falling mortgage rates. A .50 cut would really help the housing market, but .25 appears to be more likely.

Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/opinion/renting-owning-climate-change.html?

As the Southeast begins to recover from back-to-back hurricanes, potential home buyers across the country should take notice of the billions of dollars in property damage from the storms, some of it uninsured. The tremendous loss in places such as Swannanoa, N.C., and Keaton Beach, Fla., shows that homeownership in a world of growing disaster risk is less of an asset than it once was.

Homeownership is not simply a financial decision, but also a deeply emotional one. It's core to the American dream, representing financial permanence and a sense of stability for young and old families alike. But climate change is likely making homeownership more expensive and less predictable in large swaths of the country, and it's only getting worse.

As insurance premiums and property taxes rise, and future home values grow more uncertain, it's time for some prospective buyers set on living in areas with high risk of hurricanes, floods, wildfires and tornadoes to reconsider homeownership as a financial goal. Renting is quickly becoming a better way for many people to enjoy these places with much less financial baggage.

One of the biggest reasons homeownership is not what it used to be is the turmoil in property insurance markets. According to a recent report by Intercontinental Exchange Inc., a data and technology firm, the average property insurance payment for a mortgaged single family home has increased by 52 percent around the country since 2019.

My research with Philip Mulder at the University of Wisconsin- Madison shows a sharp increase in property insurance in the most disaster-prone parts of the country. In Florida, for example, average premiums have increased by $1,450 between 2020 and 2023. In essence, the insurance industry has decided that the risk of living in certain areas is now greater than it was previously.

For many wealthier homeowners, paying more in insurance premiums isn't a deal breaker. Other homeowners may adjust to growing insurance costs by bearing more of the risk themselves: raising their deductibles, reducing their coverage or dropping insurance policies altogether. But without coverage, families will face crushing losses in the event of a disaster.

A second cost borne by homeowners in a warming world is higher property taxes in part because towns and cities must pay for resiliency and repair efforts. Those taxes have increased on average by 18 percent for single family homes since 2019, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. found, and growth has been stronger in areas more prone to climate risk. If communities want to protect themselves against future disaster risks, the cost of large infrastructure investments — like sea walls or improved storm water drainage — are going to be felt by local taxpayers.

These two costs, insurance and property taxes, usually adjust on an annual basis, so they can change quickly, and uncertainty about them is making it harder to budget for the expected costs of homeownership. Historically, buying a house with cash or a fixed-rate mortgage was thought to broadly lock in housing expenses. This is no longer true, with important consequences for retirees on a fixed income or low-income home buyers looking for predictability.

There is also greater uncertainty around the value of the house itself. To date, we've seen little evidence that house prices truly capture the cost of climate change. But the prices of houses in places with growing climate risk should reflect that risk, and eventually decline. That means some homes won't end up being the good investments they now appear to be.

All of those issues with owning are making renting a safer, lower-risk option for many people who want to avoid those costs, maintain flexibility and put their wealth in assets that aren't exposed to weather risk. While landlords still have to take on the risk, they may have more resources for and experience shopping for insurance, giving them better coverage in the long run.

There are very real downsides to renting. Renters may find themselves needing to move if the property is destroyed, unsafe or redeveloped, or if rent increases are too high. Landlords may not maintain the property well, or they may be slow to invest in ways to make it more resilient to extreme weather. In some rental markets, landlords may pass along much of these costs of climate change to their tenants. Many households have also enjoyed the freedom and stability of homeownership for years and don't want to go back to dealing with a landlord.

But at a minimum, the choice between renting and owning should be made with clear information about risks.

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2024, 10:40:48 AM
Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/opinion/renting-owning-climate-change.html?

As the Southeast begins to recover from back-to-back hurricanes, potential home buyers across the country should take notice of the billions of dollars in property damage from the storms, some of it uninsured. The tremendous loss in places such as Swannanoa, N.C., and Keaton Beach, Fla., shows that homeownership in a world of growing disaster risk is less of an asset than it once was.

Homeownership is not simply a financial decision, but also a deeply emotional one. It's core to the American dream, representing financial permanence and a sense of stability for young and old families alike. But climate change is likely making homeownership more expensive and less predictable in large swaths of the country, and it's only getting worse.

As insurance premiums and property taxes rise, and future home values grow more uncertain, it's time for some prospective buyers set on living in areas with high risk of hurricanes, floods, wildfires and tornadoes to reconsider homeownership as a financial goal. Renting is quickly becoming a better way for many people to enjoy these places with much less financial baggage.

One of the biggest reasons homeownership is not what it used to be is the turmoil in property insurance markets. According to a recent report by Intercontinental Exchange Inc., a data and technology firm, the average property insurance payment for a mortgaged single family home has increased by 52 percent around the country since 2019.

My research with Philip Mulder at the University of Wisconsin- Madison shows a sharp increase in property insurance in the most disaster-prone parts of the country. In Florida, for example, average premiums have increased by $1,450 between 2020 and 2023. In essence, the insurance industry has decided that the risk of living in certain areas is now greater than it was previously.

For many wealthier homeowners, paying more in insurance premiums isn't a deal breaker. Other homeowners may adjust to growing insurance costs by bearing more of the risk themselves: raising their deductibles, reducing their coverage or dropping insurance policies altogether. But without coverage, families will face crushing losses in the event of a disaster.

A second cost borne by homeowners in a warming world is higher property taxes in part because towns and cities must pay for resiliency and repair efforts. Those taxes have increased on average by 18 percent for single family homes since 2019, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. found, and growth has been stronger in areas more prone to climate risk. If communities want to protect themselves against future disaster risks, the cost of large infrastructure investments — like sea walls or improved storm water drainage — are going to be felt by local taxpayers.

These two costs, insurance and property taxes, usually adjust on an annual basis, so they can change quickly, and uncertainty about them is making it harder to budget for the expected costs of homeownership. Historically, buying a house with cash or a fixed-rate mortgage was thought to broadly lock in housing expenses. This is no longer true, with important consequences for retirees on a fixed income or low-income home buyers looking for predictability.

There is also greater uncertainty around the value of the house itself. To date, we've seen little evidence that house prices truly capture the cost of climate change. But the prices of houses in places with growing climate risk should reflect that risk, and eventually decline. That means some homes won't end up being the good investments they now appear to be.

All of those issues with owning are making renting a safer, lower-risk option for many people who want to avoid those costs, maintain flexibility and put their wealth in assets that aren't exposed to weather risk. While landlords still have to take on the risk, they may have more resources for and experience shopping for insurance, giving them better coverage in the long run.

There are very real downsides to renting. Renters may find themselves needing to move if the property is destroyed, unsafe or redeveloped, or if rent increases are too high. Landlords may not maintain the property well, or they may be slow to invest in ways to make it more resilient to extreme weather. In some rental markets, landlords may pass along much of these costs of climate change to their tenants. Many households have also enjoyed the freedom and stability of homeownership for years and don't want to go back to dealing with a landlord.

But at a minimum, the choice between renting and owning should be made with clear information about risks.

Bottom line?  Give Florida back to Spain

If sea levels rise you can just sell your house

Wat about global warming tho

    "Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership" ??

well, yeah, the climate changes...it changes roughly 3 or 4 times a year up here.  not so much in southwest, maybe 2 times.  if you want to include day to day stuff, then it changes A LOT there have bee hurricanes, cyclones, blizzards, earthquakes since the mesozoic era sometimes more, sometimes less.  people build, buy homes that were under water thousands of years ago.  the more populated an area gets, the more potential for devastation and the more expensive it becomes for insurance companies. 

this climate blah blah didn't seem to prevent many notable global warming nuts to build/buy gazillion $$ castles on coastlines


 

oh, i know, 8.5 out of 10 in 3...2...1...

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 29, 2024, 04:50:58 PM
    "Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership" ??

well, yeah, the climate changes...it changes roughly 3 or 4 times a year up here.  not so much in southwest, maybe 2 times.  if you want to include day to day stuff, then it changes A LOT there have bee hurricanes, cyclones, blizzards, earthquakes since the mesozoic era sometimes more, sometimes less.  people build, buy homes that were under water thousands of years ago.  the more populated an area gets, the more potential for devastation and the more expensive it becomes for insurance companies. 

this climate blah blah didn't seem to prevent many notable global warming nuts to build/buy gazillion $$ castles on coastlines

8 out of 10

Another banner post for the Marquette Dental School to use on their website

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 29, 2024, 04:57:10 PM
8 out of 10

Another banner post for the Marquette Dental School to use on their website

  6 minutes-must be a busy day for the gate keeper

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 29, 2024, 04:50:58 PM
    "Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership" ??

well, yeah, the climate changes...it changes roughly 3 or 4 times a year up here.  not so much in southwest, maybe 2 times.  if you want to include day to day stuff, then it changes A LOT there have bee hurricanes, cyclones, blizzards, earthquakes since the mesozoic era sometimes more, sometimes less.  people build, buy homes that were under water thousands of years ago.  the more populated an area gets, the more potential for devastation and the more expensive it becomes for insurance companies. 

this climate blah blah didn't seem to prevent many notable global warming nuts to build/buy gazillion $$ castles on coastlines

Enjoying your 79 degree weather at 5 PM on 10/29 up in Wisconsin today?

Quote from: wadesworld on October 29, 2024, 04:59:36 PM
Enjoying your 79 degree weather at 5 PM on 10/29 up in Wisconsin today?

No, he's looking for that ivermectin report he promised

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 29, 2024, 04:50:58 PM
    "Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership" ??

well, yeah, the climate changes...it changes roughly 3 or 4 times a year up here.  not so much in southwest, maybe 2 times.  if you want to include day to day stuff, then it changes A LOT there have bee hurricanes, cyclones, blizzards, earthquakes since the mesozoic era sometimes more, sometimes less.  people build, buy homes that were under water thousands of years ago.  the more populated an area gets, the more potential for devastation and the more expensive it becomes for insurance companies. 

this climate blah blah didn't seem to prevent many notable global warming nuts to build/buy gazillion $$ castles on coastlines

Please tell the Florida governor to stop asking for federal bailouts after climate blah blahs. Thanks!

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2024, 09:28:01 PMPlease tell the Florida governor to stop asking for federal bailouts after climate blah blahs. Thanks!

Florida is too busy setting up a Florida insurance plan of last resort for homeowners and businesses. Sounds like a great solution. Cheaper than private insurance or where private insurance seems the risk too high to insure. They don't trust market forces.

Albeit, it's an underfunded plan in the event of a major event such as a 5 or a a couple of 4's in populated areas.

So then the rest of us can bail them out when the scheme collapses.

Same old. Just go ahead and write a check to them now.

Can't trust market forces that deem risks too high and that the build rebuild schemes need to change.

Full disclosure: I live on a barrier island about 1/4 mile west of the Atlantic Ocean in Indian River County. We've dodged a couple of Cat 5s since we first bought here a decade ago. Our island was clobbered by EF3 tornados when the outer bands of Milton came ashore a couple of weeks ago.

That said, I'll give Florida credit. Our power was largely on a couple days after Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Our state moved quickly to repair hurricane damage. If you look closely, our power poles are largely concrete rather than wood and our infrastructure really is battle hardened. While it wasn't fast enough for some, we did very well. It's because we pay into hurricane recovery trusts with our power bills and our sales taxes here. And, our state learns from our experience. We aren't Louisiana.

Yes, our governor (love him or hate him) asked for help from the federal government. In our state's planning run-up to the hurricane, we had to. There are certain functions, ports for example, where the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction and the state can't do anything without the Corps' approval. One of the more interesting moments was when our governor, in a pre-Milton press conference, talked about getting the Port of Tampa back online if the hurricane hit Tampa. The Corps reportedly told him, "it will take a couple of weeks." Our shocked governor simply told the Corps, "that's not the Florida way!"

When we had gasoline shortages in the run-up to Milton, our state created ad hoc fueling stations and we GAVE folks who needed it 10 gallons of gasoline. Our largest grocer, Publix, routinely rushes emergency water, food and other supplies to hard hit areas immediately after hurricanes. The first two things most people see after a hurricane hits are Florida Power and Publix trucks.

Yes, FEMA is here. Their focus largely is on low- and moderate-income folks who need help rebuilding and didn't have insurance.

For our state, hurricane recovery is like snow plowing for Chicago. Botch it and you end up being the Swamps version of Michael Bilandic.

Our insurance rates here are obscene. But that and many HOAs are the cost of living here. Just like ridiculous housing prices and earthquakes are the cost of living in coastal California. Every part of the country has its pluses and minuses.

Florida sucks.

Quote from: dgies9156 on October 30, 2024, 08:18:33 AMhelp from the federal government

Welfare state.

Quote from: 🏀 on October 30, 2024, 09:06:11 AMWelfare state.

This is a common misconception created by Midwestern and Northeastern states who measure total federal dollars collected versus spent.

Much of our federal largess comes from defense. We have Naval Air Stations in Jacksonville and Pensacola, Eglin Air Force Base near Panama City and U.S. Central Command at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa. We also have the space center in Cape Canaveral and a SFB in Rockledge.

One should put military installations where they're best positioned to defend the country in the event of attack. We have an enemy in Cuba who once upon a time housed ballistic missiles and recently housed a Russian submarine base. And, if we don't shoot rockets over the Atlantic in good quality weather (most of the time), where would you shoot them. The most logical place is Texas, which I suspect you'd find equally objectionable.

Look, Florida isn't perfect. But we're not a welfare state either.

Quote from: wadesworld on October 29, 2024, 04:59:36 PMEnjoying your 79 degree weather at 5 PM on 10/29 up in Wisconsin today?

actually no, i'm down in Az enjoying 90+ last thursday thru monday, tuesday it climate changed down to mid-high 70's into 80's mid afternoon.  today, the climate changed down to high 40's early morning and now will probably get into mid 70's slight breeze, but in direct sun it feels pretty warm.  must have been a lot of diesel burning and heavy breathing all that CO2 fluctuating 

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 30, 2024, 11:13:17 AMactually no, i'm down in Az enjoying 90+ last thursday thru monday, tuesday it climate changed down to mid-high 70's into 80's mid afternoon.  today, the climate changed down to high 40's early morning and now will probably get into mid 70's slight breeze, but in direct sun it feels pretty warm.  must have been a lot of diesel burning and heavy breathing all that CO2 fluctuating 

Did you find time to get us that Ivermectin study you promised, medical professional?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 30, 2024, 11:13:17 AMactually no, i'm down in Az enjoying 90+ last thursday thru monday, tuesday it climate changed down to mid-high 70's into 80's mid afternoon.  today, the climate changed down to high 40's early morning and now will probably get into mid 70's slight breeze, but in direct sun it feels pretty warm.  must have been a lot of diesel burning and heavy breathing all that CO2 fluctuating 

And this dude does science for his job...

Quote from: MU82 on October 29, 2024, 10:40:48 AMClimate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/opinion/renting-owning-climate-change.html?

As the Southeast begins to recover from back-to-back hurricanes, potential home buyers across the country should take notice of the billions of dollars in property damage from the storms, some of it uninsured. The tremendous loss in places such as Swannanoa, N.C., and Keaton Beach, Fla., shows that homeownership in a world of growing disaster risk is less of an asset than it once was.

Homeownership is not simply a financial decision, but also a deeply emotional one. It's core to the American dream, representing financial permanence and a sense of stability for young and old families alike. But climate change is likely making homeownership more expensive and less predictable in large swaths of the country, and it's only getting worse.

As insurance premiums and property taxes rise, and future home values grow more uncertain, it's time for some prospective buyers set on living in areas with high risk of hurricanes, floods, wildfires and tornadoes to reconsider homeownership as a financial goal. Renting is quickly becoming a better way for many people to enjoy these places with much less financial baggage.

One of the biggest reasons homeownership is not what it used to be is the turmoil in property insurance markets. According to a recent report by Intercontinental Exchange Inc., a data and technology firm, the average property insurance payment for a mortgaged single family home has increased by 52 percent around the country since 2019.

My research with Philip Mulder at the University of Wisconsin- Madison shows a sharp increase in property insurance in the most disaster-prone parts of the country. In Florida, for example, average premiums have increased by $1,450 between 2020 and 2023. In essence, the insurance industry has decided that the risk of living in certain areas is now greater than it was previously.

For many wealthier homeowners, paying more in insurance premiums isn't a deal breaker. Other homeowners may adjust to growing insurance costs by bearing more of the risk themselves: raising their deductibles, reducing their coverage or dropping insurance policies altogether. But without coverage, families will face crushing losses in the event of a disaster.

A second cost borne by homeowners in a warming world is higher property taxes in part because towns and cities must pay for resiliency and repair efforts. Those taxes have increased on average by 18 percent for single family homes since 2019, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. found, and growth has been stronger in areas more prone to climate risk. If communities want to protect themselves against future disaster risks, the cost of large infrastructure investments — like sea walls or improved storm water drainage — are going to be felt by local taxpayers.

These two costs, insurance and property taxes, usually adjust on an annual basis, so they can change quickly, and uncertainty about them is making it harder to budget for the expected costs of homeownership. Historically, buying a house with cash or a fixed-rate mortgage was thought to broadly lock in housing expenses. This is no longer true, with important consequences for retirees on a fixed income or low-income home buyers looking for predictability.

There is also greater uncertainty around the value of the house itself. To date, we've seen little evidence that house prices truly capture the cost of climate change. But the prices of houses in places with growing climate risk should reflect that risk, and eventually decline. That means some homes won't end up being the good investments they now appear to be.

All of those issues with owning are making renting a safer, lower-risk option for many people who want to avoid those costs, maintain flexibility and put their wealth in assets that aren't exposed to weather risk. While landlords still have to take on the risk, they may have more resources for and experience shopping for insurance, giving them better coverage in the long run.

There are very real downsides to renting. Renters may find themselves needing to move if the property is destroyed, unsafe or redeveloped, or if rent increases are too high. Landlords may not maintain the property well, or they may be slow to invest in ways to make it more resilient to extreme weather. In some rental markets, landlords may pass along much of these costs of climate change to their tenants. Many households have also enjoyed the freedom and stability of homeownership for years and don't want to go back to dealing with a landlord.

But at a minimum, the choice between renting and owning should be made with clear information about risks.

The idea that people should forgo buying a house because of these rising costs, and rent instead, doesn't make sense.

Those same rising costs, will lead to increases in rental prices, leading to a net benefit in owning still.

This reads like it was written by investment firms further trying to corner the real estate market so they can monopolize the housing industry and profit off of the need for shelter.

Quote from: forgetful on October 30, 2024, 07:54:19 PMThe idea that people should forgo buying a house because of these rising costs, and rent instead, doesn't make sense.

Those same rising costs, will lead to increases in rental prices, leading to a net benefit in owning still.

This reads like it was written by investment firms further trying to corner the real estate market so they can monopolize the housing industry and profit off of the need for shelter.

Yes and no. Landlords will pass along most rising costs to renters, yes. But there are still  price points at which renting makes more sense than buying, and good calculators that can help determine those.

There are all kinds of costs and commitments that go with homeownership. Renting is better for lots of people - even many who could afford owning.

We have rented for long stretches and also have owned 5 houses in 3 metro areas, and there were pros and cons to both.

Outlook is very rough for mortgage rates.

Quote from: CreightonWarrior on November 06, 2024, 08:58:09 AMOutlook is very rough for mortgage rates.

Expectations are that mortgage rates and inflation will rise significantly.

Could be a strange, wild ride. If tariffs push inflation higher and the Fed wants to raise rates again to tackle that, will it have the independence to do so?

Mortgage rates are already frustrating.

btw, i remember some here poking fun(shocker) at me for suggesting the surge in illegals would increase cost of home buying-ahem, sally et.al. there are many articles showing that i was correct. not holding my beath on sally issuing an apology


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Camarota-Testimony.pdf

https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/course-illegal-immigration-driving-cost-housing

and there are many more

Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 06, 2024, 11:15:06 AMbtw, i remember some here poking fun(shocker) at me for suggesting the surge in illegals would increase cost of home buying-ahem, sally et.al. there are many articles showing that i was correct. not holding my beath on sally issuing an apology


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Camarota-Testimony.pdf

https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/course-illegal-immigration-driving-cost-housing

and there are many more

1. One of your links is bad.
2. Posting from clearly biased sources doesn't really prove anything.
3. Rocky announced a politics ban that I hope you have the ability to follow.

Quote from: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on November 06, 2024, 11:18:54 AM1. One of your links is bad.
2. Posting from clearly biased sources doesn't really prove anything.
3. Rocky announced a politics ban that I hope you have the ability to follow.

I have an off-topic hair-brained scheme that will improve Scoop.

Rocky should run for office. Then, anytime someone mentions him, he could ban them for politics.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 06, 2024, 11:15:06 AMbtw, i remember some here poking fun(shocker) at me for suggesting the surge in illegals would increase cost of home buying-ahem, sally et.al. there are many articles showing that i was correct. not holding my beath on sally issuing an apology


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Camarota-Testimony.pdf

https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/course-illegal-immigration-driving-cost-housing

and there are many more

Not true.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/18/nx-s1-5138059/examining-how-undocumented-migrants-are-affecting-housing-prices

Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 06, 2024, 11:15:06 AMbtw, i remember some here poking fun(shocker) at me for suggesting the surge in illegals would increase cost of home buying-ahem, sally et.al. there are many articles showing that i was correct. not holding my beath on sally issuing an apology


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Camarota-Testimony.pdf

https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/course-illegal-immigration-driving-cost-housing

and there are many more

Sure seems like a political post.