I decided to look up our CA house on Zillow

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I agree that homelessness is a difficult social issue that society needs to address; I am less convinced that prioritizing home ownership helps address that issue.   I did not mean to suggest that European countries are doing better.  I wanted to suggest that although the US had placed a relatively high priority on home ownership over the past century, compared to other countries, I do not see that our outcome is convincingly better.  I have concerns that the US prioritizing home ownership has had downsides and that prioritizing it even more may result in even further problems.  

Would you rather see 50 homes in town owned by one person or a corporation that charges ever increasing rents or would you rather see 50 families own those 50 homes and build wealth? 
I don’t know a single family around me who is renting and doesn’t want to own. They are being outbid by cash offers well over asking price. Buyers? Commercial companies. The scale of this is unprecedented. 
Keeping homes for living as opposed to get rich quick schemes keeps prevent the types of price increases we are seeing.

 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Would you rather see 50 homes in town owned by one person or a corporation that charges ever increasing rents or would you rather see 50 families own those 50 homes and build wealth? 
I don’t know a single family around me who is renting and doesn’t want to own. They are being outbid by cash offers well over asking price. Buyers? Commercial companies. The scale of this is unprecedented. 
Keeping homes for living as opposed to get rich quick schemes keeps prevent the types of price increases we are seeing.

 

I do not see the bolded as an either/or.  Looking over history, it is not clear that owning a home is a path to building wealth.  

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Would you rather see 50 homes in town owned by one person or a corporation that charges ever increasing rents or would you rather see 50 families own those 50 homes and build wealth? 
I don’t know a single family around me who is renting and doesn’t want to own. They are being outbid by cash offers well over asking price. Buyers? Commercial companies. The scale of this is unprecedented. 
Keeping homes for living as opposed to get rich quick schemes keeps prevent the types of price increases we are seeing.

 

Renting absolutely does have its place.  There are real people out there who don’t want to be tied to one place, or don’t want the responsibility, or can’t take on the maintenance. 
Probably not anywhere close to 50:1 though!

While it was a way to build wealth for some time, the volatility has emotionally scarred me.  I got trapped in my “starter home” for what will be more than 17 years. Most of those at a not-so-terrific interest rate. (Far better than my parents in the 80s, though.). If we sell, we’ll come out with tens of thousands of dollars, so yay.  But that’s after paying over $265,000 to live here, plus all the money we put into the house over those years.  I’m not going to sneeze at it, but I won’t call it wealth, either.

I think we’re past the days when average people make significant profit from primary residences. Doing so has always required finding someone to pay more. It was just slower before.

None of that is to say I don’t want controls. I actually do. But so much more has to be re-thought than just “No one can own 50 houses.” 

[Faith-manor]

41 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Renting absolutely does have its place.  There are real people out there who don’t want to be tied to one place, or don’t want the responsibility, or can’t take on the maintenance. 
Probably not anywhere close to 50:1 though!

While it was a way to build wealth for some time, the volatility has emotionally scarred me.  I got trapped in my “starter home” for what will be more than 17 years. Most of those at a not-so-terrific interest rate. (Far better than my parents in the 80s, though.). If we sell, we’ll come out with tens of thousands of dollars, so yay.  But that’s after paying over $265,000 to live here, plus all the money we put into the house over those years.  I’m not going to sneeze at it, but I won’t call it wealth, either.

I think we’re past the days when average people make significant profit from primary residences. Doing so has always required finding someone to pay more. It was just slower before.

None of that is to say I don’t want controls. I actually do. But so much more has to be re-thought than just “No one can own 50 houses.” 

I agree. We need rentals, not vacation rentals, and not wealthy, gated community rentals, but reasonably priced rentals. GenZ probably won't be homeowners. Between student loans debt and the fact that the job market is no longer "get a job, stay in one place" because the only way to move up or get pay raises most of the time is to change employers, they can't stay in homes long enough to make back the cost of buying it plus the costs of selling it. This market will cool and settle down soon, and then if everything has been bought up for vacation rentals, it is going to be VERY problematic. We need well thought out, lol my term solution regulations, not knee jerk reactionary responses. However, long-term is not something the powers that be do well in this country to state it mildly.

[Janeway]

My last house has doubled in value in the last 2-3 years (it sold in summer 2019 and is now supposedly double that value). We sold it in 2007 and it has tripled in value since then. Our current house held its value and even dropped a little after we bought it, but in the last three years, it has doubled in value.

I wonder how much property values have been artificially driven up because of websites like Zillow.

[fairfarmhand]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

I agree. We need rentals, not vacation rentals, and not wealthy, gated community rentals, but reasonably priced rentals. GenZ probably won't be homeowners. Between student loans debt and the fact that the job market is no longer "get a job, stay in one place" because the only way to move up or get pay raises most of the time is to change employers, they can't stay in homes long enough to make back the cost of buying it plus the costs of selling it. This market will cool and settle down soon, and then if everything has been bought up for vacation rentals, it is going to be VERY problematic. We need well thought out, lol my term solution regulations, not knee jerk reactionary responses. However, long-term is not something the powers that be do well in this country to state it mildly.

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Not only do young couples just starting out need these kinds of homes, but older couples who want to use the $ invested in their family home instead of paying for a huge house with fancy finishes that they are not as interested in. 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Not only do young couples just starting out need these kinds of homes, but older couples who want to use the $ invested in their family home instead of paying for a huge house with fancy finishes that they are not as interested in. 

I know!  When young kids start looking for a place there is nothing in the newish range that is less than 2400 sf.  

[teachermom2834]

9 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Not only do young couples just starting out need these kinds of homes, but older couples who want to use the $ invested in their family home instead of paying for a huge house with fancy finishes that they are not as interested in. 

Well and not just new but decent homes without all the newest updates. I have sold two homes. Neither were in hot markets. One sold in five days and the other in ten days. Both were very outdated. People on a budget need safe homes with room for a few kids too. Not everyone can afford the updates and some people would rather have a yard and a place for kids to play. 
 

People were shocked our homes sold. I wasn’t. I bought them! HGTV has done a number on people. The fact that my house that still had the original 1972 kitchen sold quickly in 2015 shows people need affordable starter homes. 

[prairiewindmomma]

9 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Not only do young couples just starting out need these kinds of homes, but older couples who want to use the $ invested in their family home instead of paying for a huge house with fancy finishes that they are not as interested in. 

Maybe that’s true in your area…here an older 3br1ba 1200 ft home is still close to half a million dollars. Here’s an example, just listed, that is likely to have multiple offers and sell well over asking: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/12880-SW-Faircrest-St_Portland_OR_97225_M19294-96437

This is the new construction in the same price range, different part of town: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3851-SE-92nd-Ave-5_Portland_OR_97266_M92800-59569

You get a one car garage, two flights or stairs, essentially no lot—and it’s still $500,000.

It’s hard to get into the market when your basic starter home is $500,000.

[fairfarmhand]

6 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Maybe that’s true in your area…here an older 3br1ba 1200 ft home is still close to half a million dollars. Here’s an example, just listed, that is likely to have multiple offers and sell well over asking: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/12880-SW-Faircrest-St_Portland_OR_97225_M19294-96437

This is the new construction in the same price range, different part of town: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3851-SE-92nd-Ave-5_Portland_OR_97266_M92800-59569

You get a one car garage, two flights or stairs, essentially no lot—and it’s still $500,000.

It’s hard to get into the market when your basic starter home is $500,000.

Oh yeah. In Nashville, it is definitely true. There are tiny homes with tiny lots for half a million. But nobody's building those basic small houses in the burbs either. 

[Roadrunner]

You aren’t going to have reasonably priced rentals if real estate prices aren’t reasonable. If you pay a million dollars for a home, you aren’t going to rent it for a reasonable price. 
And I agree, plenty of people would rent if rents were reasonable. But rents are going up like crazy, so if you are locked into a good mortgage, you count yourself lucky here. 

And yes, here 1k sf is going for a million or close to it. McMansions go for several million. But CA also has a massive issue with over regulation when it comes to building. A town here built a public restroom  for close to a million (small one) because by the time they fought all the litigation and went through all the necessary reviews, that was the cost. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Roadrunner

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, fairfarmhand said:

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Not only do young couples just starting out need these kinds of homes, but older couples who want to use the $ invested in their family home instead of paying for a huge house with fancy finishes that they are not as interested in. 

This is exactly what we're looking for for our relative. They're out there but the market is so freaking hot that they sell before list and/or need a lot of work. This is certainly contributing to urban infill tho. I think that's a good thing.

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, fairfarmhand said:

You know what else we need? Smallish, 1000-1500 square ft basic starter homes. With simple finishes, just 2-3 beds 1-2 baths. NOBODY is building these anymore, 

Here, that size single family home would have a list price of around $1.5million and probably have a bidding war.

For newly built homes, that size for a cookie cutter type townhome is already starting from $1.3 million. Very similar floor plan on single family home would be a crazy amount.

e.g. of a being build townhome (ETA: the developer has already sold 90% of the units)

”TERRACES PLAN 2

$1,508,000

2 beds  2.5 baths 

approx. 1,466 sq ft

floorplan https://del2mso2rg7fb.cloudfront.net/App/Residence/floorplan_pdfs/000/000/120/original/Terraces_eflats_Plan 2_5.7.19.pdf”

Edited February 7, 2022 by Arcadia

[Carrie12345]

My builder offers a few plans in the 1200-1500ish area.  They start at $332,000 for builder’s grade everything, if your lot is $20k or less. And doesn’t need extra engineering. Or a deeper well. Or a drainage pipe under the driveway. Or a bunch of other things.

[fairfarmhand]

1 minute ago, Arcadia said:

Here, that size single family home would have a list price of around $1.5million and probably have a bidding war.

For newly built homes, that size for a cookie cutter type townhome is already starting from $1.3 million. Very similar floor plan on single family home would be a crazy amount.

e.g. of a being build townhome 

”TERRACES PLAN 2

$1,508,000

2 beds  2.5 baths 

approx. 1,466 sq ft

floorplan https://del2mso2rg7fb.cloudfront.net/App/Residence/floorplan_pdfs/000/000/120/original/Terraces_eflats_Plan 2_5.7.19.pdf”

Where in the heck do bus drivers and janitors and trash collectors and maids and cashiers live in those kinds of places? Because every city NEEDS nannies and chefs and landscapers. How does it work?

[prairiewindmomma]

9 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Where in the heck do bus drivers and janitors and trash collectors and maids and cashiers live in those kinds of places? Because every city NEEDS nannies and chefs and landscapers. How does it work?

There are a lot of people here who don’t marry at those income levels and have a variety of roommates through their lifetimes. If they do marry, they often have inter generational living situations. 
 

My other neighbor down the street works as a landscaper. His dad is in the same business. His mom works at a retail store. His wife works professionally. His sister is there sometimes also. The kids all share a bedroom. Three bedroom house—the sister takes the couch. 
 

They aren’t the outliers. In our neighborhood, counting 14 different houses, only two of us don’t have extended family or roommates. We expect our kids to live with us well into their 20s, and the other house bought in so very long ago they paid something like $300k for it and could swing it on a tech salary.

[Roadrunner]

30 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Where in the heck do bus drivers and janitors and trash collectors and maids and cashiers live in those kinds of places? Because every city NEEDS nannies and chefs and landscapers. How does it work?

Exactly. Add teachers, office workers or basically anybody who isn’t into tech. Nowhere.

It’s an absolute crisis here. I can’t wait for my kids to get out of this state. We will follow. 

[Arcadia]

7 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Where in the heck do bus drivers and janitors and trash collectors and maids and cashiers live in those kinds of places? Because every city NEEDS nannies and chefs and landscapers. How does it work?

Here domestic maids are typically self employed and earning good rates because people can pay more for weekly services. We don’t see landscapers often in my region, typically once a year for pruning the trees. We rarely see nannies since grandparents are the babysitters.  If you mean daycare instead, I don’t know since I don’t use daycare. I know my kids public elementary school teachers have homes and the young single teacher who taught my kid in 2009 lived with her parents nearby so she bike to work.

We do have two large low income (affordable housing) rental apartment complexes near my area. This is the income limit for my county with effect from last year.

 

Household Size:  1 PERSON	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $58,000
Household Size:  2 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $66,300
Household Size:  3 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $74,600
Household Size:  4 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $82,850
Household Size:  5 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $89,500
Household Size:  6 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $96,150
Household Size:  7 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $102,750
Household Size:  8 PERSONS	Income Limit (50% of AMI):  $109,400

[Clarita]

48 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

But CA also has a massive issue with over regulation when it comes to building.

CA has massive policy issues with housing. Based on things happening in my neighborhood I'm not convinced it's a bunch of rental companies buying up single family homes that is the issue. Prop 13 (our property taxes *don't go up with our property rates and can be transferred to your heirs) contributes a huge amount. So, there is not an insignificant number of heirs able to continue owning a home in CA because they inherited a home from their parents with a much lower carrying cost (whether they rent it out or live in it themselves), and there are people who just hold these homes (not prudent in my opinion, but they do because the carrying cost is low and they keep seeing the potential house price going up like it's money in their pocket).

We bought our house from some heirs who held this house (sitting empty) for about 6 years, just because they didn't want to do anything with it. Also, the way prop 13 is set up all properties get this treatment, just to make this whole thing worse (although I believe heirs can only "apply" prop 13 to one of the inherited properties). So, older people would just hold on to all their homes. 

[Roadrunner]

8 minutes ago, Clarita said:

CA has massive policy issues with housing. Based on things happening in my neighborhood I'm not convinced it's a bunch of rental companies buying up single family homes that is the issue. Prop 13 (our property taxes *don't go up with our property rates and can be transferred to your heirs) contributes a huge amount. So, there is not an insignificant number of heirs able to continue owning a home in CA because they inherited a home from their parents with a much lower carrying cost (whether they rent it out or live in it themselves), and there are people who just hold these homes (not prudent in my opinion, but they do because the carrying cost is low and they keep seeing the potential house price going up like it's money in their pocket).

We bought our house from some heirs who held this house (sitting empty) for about 6 years, just because they didn't want to do anything with it. Also, the way prop 13 is set up all properties get this treatment, just to make this whole thing worse (although I believe heirs can only "apply" prop 13 to one of the inherited properties). So, older people would just hold on to all their homes. 

And yet our property taxes are going up. I don’t really know how this is set up but we are mostly definitely paying more. In addition, if you do any work on that house, they reassess at crazy amounts. 
 

 

There is also a significant gap between housing formation and home construction. Not enough homes. All of this is piling up together into a crazy issue. But regulation as we have learned from a number of people attempting improvements is jaw dropping.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Roadrunner

[Clarita]

4 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Exactly. Add teachers, office workers or basically anybody who isn’t into tech.

Please stop with the tech worker blame. Tech workers make a decent living like doctors, surgeons, lawyers, CPA's, etc. Seriously a majority of tech workers have trouble affording a house in CA near their work, many are dual income families. Granted the plight of teacher, maids, fast food workers are harder please stop making it seem like all tech workers are Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg. 

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, Clarita said:

Please stop with the tech worker blame. Tech workers make a decent living like doctors, surgeons, lawyers, CPA's, etc. Seriously a majority of tech workers have trouble affording a house in CA near their work, many are dual income families. Granted the plight of teacher, maids, fast food workers are harder please stop making it seem like all tech workers are Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg. 

Here that’s what is driving the issue. It’s most definitely the factor. If I lived somewhere else, it probably won’t be. I will say that we know doctors who moved away because of cost of living because while some doctors make a lot of money (surgery), we aren’t able to attract family doctors to this area because of housing. We have doctors retiring and nobody filling their spots. Here locally the only families moving into new housing that is being built are commuter families with both incomes all from tach companies.  It is what it is. Lawyers locally against don’t make money. Maybe in big cities they make a lot of money, but here, their salaries aren’t that big. And our local government won’t prioritize local workforce like teachers for new housing. It’s a real issue. Older generation owned their places. They retire and we have no replacement. We need housing that prioritizes local not commuter workforce. And we need housing all over CA at reasonable costs. 

[Arcadia]

8 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

And yet our property taxes are going up. I don’t really know how this is set up but we are mostly definitely paying more. In addition, if you do any work on that house, they reassess at crazy amounts. 

It is cap at 2%. Measures and bonds are listed in the same property tax bill so the increase looks higher.

”Understanding Rate of Increase Limits

The assessed value of a property is limited to an increase no greater than 2% each year unless a change in ownership or new construction occurs. The 2% increase is originally applied to the base year value, and is thus referred to as the factored base year value.”

6 minutes ago, Clarita said:

Please stop with the tech worker blame. Tech workers make a decent living like doctors, surgeons, lawyers, CPA's, etc. Seriously a majority of tech workers have trouble affording a house in CA near their work, many are dual income families. Granted the plight of teacher, maids, fast food workers are harder please stop making it seem like all tech workers are Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg. 

My condo complex is mainly one bedroom and majority are tech workers. So basically grandparents, parents and a child living in a one bedroom unit. Many of my neighbors have actually rented for ten years before being able to afford to purchase. My single neighbor is around my age (nearly 50) and she paid $800k two years ago for 865sqft.

My husband’s employer freeze pay and had great profits as usual last year. Many left for the competitors next door for better pay and free meals.

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Arcadia said:

It is cap at 2%. Measures and bonds are listed in the same property tax bill so the increase looks higher.

”Understanding Rate of Increase Limits

The assessed value of a property is limited to an increase no greater than 2% each year unless a change in ownership or new construction occurs. The 2% increase is originally applied to the base year value, and is thus referred to as the factored base year value.”

My condo complex is mainly one bedroom and majority are tech workers. So basically grandparents, parents and a child living in a one bedroom unit. Many of my neighbors have actually rented for ten years before being able to afford to purchase. My single neighbor is around my age (nearly 50) and she paid $800k two years ago for 865sqft.

My husband’s employer freeze pay and had great profits as usual last year. Many left for the competitors next door for better pay and free meals.

It’s nuts. We need more building all around. And as somebody mentioned, not palaces,  but livable housing. This current situation benefits nobody. 
Honestly if I had a job that was mobile, we would never stay. And I wouldn’t commute 2 hours each way to work. That’s not a life. I know people who do it daily. Misery. But no jobs locally pay enough, so people drive. 
We need better distribution of those jobs across the country and maybe they would lift wages in other sectors, which they haven’t done well enough to account for price increases. 

and to top it off now, there is no inventory. I am horrified for anybody who is looking for home now. I think buying out place is the best thing we ever did. So lucky all around here. 
 

Ha, so 2% makes sense. 
 

And all of those ordinances to limit temporary rentals hasn’t helped. I don’t understand why. 

[Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

It’s nuts. We need more building all around. And as somebody mentioned, not palaces,  but livable housing.

Majority of the housing we see being build now are rental apartments or condos near the BART, Caltrain and VTA light rail stations. 
There are new homes for sale in my area but getting the preapproval for a mortgage is harder now. 

[Roadrunner]

15 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Majority of the housing we see being build now are rental apartments or condos near the BART, Caltrain and VTA light rail stations. 
There are new homes for sale in my area but getting the preapproval for a mortgage is harder now. 

We have new developments but they are priced at million to start. You need two very high incomes to afford. Nothing on the lower end at all. And people fight affordable housing units. Nobody wants them in their neighborhood as if they weren’t people. Developers are taking in astronomical sums because they can charge what they want in this market. 
 

we know couple young college grads with supposedly high income sleeping in their vans in San Jose. That has got to do some real damage I think. 
 

People joke here that it’s for newly wed and nearly dead. 🙂 If you are young and want to room with bunch of people and surf, it’s a great place. If you are retired, again either you are super rich or inherited. The rest leave. Maybe it is meant to be that way. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Roadrunner

[Arcadia]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

we know couple young college grads with supposedly high income sleeping in their vans in San Jose. That has got to do some real damage I think. 

Are they originally from the area? Majority we know in my region are staying with parents to save money on rent. There was a couple in the news who was working at Google and lived in a RV in Mountain View for years to save money for down payment.

[Roadrunner]

6 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Are they originally from the area? Majority we know in my region are staying with parents to save money on rent. There was a couple in the news who was working at Google and lived in a RV in Mountain View for years to save money for down payment.

From San Bernardino county. 
 

DH keeps saying our kids will leave soon. I am not so sure at this point. 🤣

[Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

From San Bernardino county. 
 

DH keeps saying our kids will leave soon. I am not so sure at this point. 🤣

San Bernardino county to Santa Clara county would be a housing price sticker shock. 

Pick colleges in lower cost of living area? (Just kidding) I remembered @dereksurfswas thinking of moving to Oregon for college. Haven’t seen him around for ages. 

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Arcadia said:

San Bernardino county to Santa Clara county would be a housing price sticker shock. 

Pick colleges in lower cost of living area? (Just kidding) I remembered @dereksurfswas thinking of moving to Oregon for college. Haven’t seen him around for ages. 

We see a movement of people from here to north by the Oregon border. Humboldt County seems to be popular. 

I am pushing mine to consider Midwest. We will just pretend we aren’t from CA. 🤣 

[Arcadia]

31 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

 

I am pushing mine to consider Midwest. We will just pretend we aren’t from CA. 🤣 

My DS17 doesn’t want to stay in dorms so I actually check real estate prices for homes near his choices. He picked 6 state universities and he can commute easily to one of them. This one is tempting (provided there is no bidding war) if he gets into UCDavis 

“$885,000 Single Family

3 Beds 2 Full Baths 1,935 Sq. Ft.

2 Car Garage“ https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/ca/davis/2037-catalina-dr/pid_45210835/

 

[Clarita]

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Here that’s what is driving the issue. It’s most definitely the factor. If I lived somewhere else, it probably won’t be.

I live within commutable distance to the silicon valley, yes there are a lot of tech workers trying to find livable places. I just find it odd that people find it OK to essentially blame or look at with distain a bunch of employees who are also just trying to find shelter for their families/themselves. The majority of tech workers don't choose where their companies are located, and don't choose whether they get to work remotely or not. It's fine to blame tech companies for "needing" to be so close to each other (which is a problem),or not investing in adequate housing or whatever, but to feel OK shaming the workers is what I am against.

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

And people fight affordable housing units. Nobody wants them in their neighborhood as if they weren’t people.

Which in some cases doesn't even mean an actual poor person moves in. I remember in my parents' old neighborhood this was fighting against having people who made $80,000 a year move in.  

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Majority of the housing we see being build now are rental apartments or condos near the BART, Caltrain and VTA light rail stations. 
There are new homes for sale in my area but getting the preapproval for a mortgage is harder now. 

That's the same kind of housing being built in/around DC, especially in Crystal City.

[Roadrunner]

17 minutes ago, Clarita said:

I live within commutable distance to the silicon valley, yes there are a lot of tech workers trying to find livable places. I just find it odd that people find it OK to essentially blame or look at with distain a bunch of employees who are also just trying to find shelter for their families/themselves. The majority of tech workers don't choose where their companies are located, and don't choose whether they get to work remotely or not. It's fine to blame tech companies for "needing" to be so close to each other (which is a problem),or not investing in adequate housing or whatever, but to feel OK shaming the workers is what I am against.

Which in some cases doesn't even mean an actual poor person moves in. I remember in my parents' old neighborhood this was fighting against having people who made $80,000 a year move in.  

Absolutely. it’s a matter of understanding what is happening in the market though. It’s not about shaming workers. I don’t feel shame moving out of state. Should I? But if somebody points out that me (along with others moving out) paying cash for a house in the low cost area is driving up their prices, they will be absolutely right. I think some of our neighboring states have experienced that. It’s a fact. 
Which brings me back to my original point - build, prioritize primarily buyers so you don’t end up with imbalance in supply and demand. 

As far as I can see most middle class here would qualify for affordable housing. And poor people also need to live somewhere. I really don’t like local attitudes toward affordable units. 

[Roadrunner]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That's the same kind of housing being built in/around DC, especially in Crystal City.

Here in unincorporated areas the county is preventing you to put in a third bedroom unless you have at least an acre of land. 🤣 

[Arcadia]

@Roadrunner@Clarita my husband’s colleague (tech engineer) who moved to the bay area a year ago could not even get a mortgage preapproval. So she and her spouse have to continue renting here.

[rebcoola]

11 hours ago, Clarita said:

Please stop with the tech worker blame. Tech workers make a decent living like doctors, surgeons, lawyers, CPA's, etc. Seriously a majority of tech workers have trouble affording a house in CA near their work, many are dual income families. Granted the plight of teacher, maids, fast food workers are harder please stop making it seem like all tech workers are Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg. 

Yes, my brother is in tech and does well he refuses to move to Cali because of costs.  

 

[BakersDozen]

On 2/5/2022 at 8:08 PM, fairfarmhand said:

We're getting lots of transplants from CA here in TN. They can easily outbid the locals because they sell their homes out West and pocket thousands while still buying a nicer, bigger home here in Middle TN. I wonder how my kids will buy homes here.

I'm in AZ and this is our reality, too. We told our older 4 to save, save, save (this was about 5-6 years ago), go in together on a home, let us purchase a smaller/older home and rent to them...now it's too late and they're either paying insanely high rent or moving home. Because of what happened in 2008, I insisted on a home that had at least some possibility of older kids living here (we purchased current home in 2015). There is room, thank goodness, even with 1700 sqft. But I sure do wish our older dc had taken our advice before the prices were completely out of reach. 😞

We've considered moving but that is a huge risk as well - finding a job, not knowing if kids would move with us. Many of our friends got out when they were able and went to Idaho or the Midwest. We're stuck, though, and watching the craziness unfold with great alarm. It's terrible that rent here is considered "cheap" to those who are leaving CA and the rentals are 2K or more for a small home.

[BakersDozen]

11 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

We will just pretend we aren’t from CA. 🤣

People know to get their license plates changed asap upon moving here and God forbid one is discovered to have moved from CA. Visitors who can't change their license plates often find their vehicles keyed/vandalized. Tensions are high, prices are high...it's pretty ugly in my area.

[Carrie12345]

14 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Absolutely. it’s a matter of understanding what is happening in the market though. It’s not about shaming workers. I don’t feel shame moving out of state. Should I? But if somebody points out that me (along with others moving out) paying cash for a house in the low cost area is driving up their prices, they will be absolutely right. I think some of our neighboring states have experienced that. It’s a fact. 
Which brings me back to my original point - build, prioritize primarily buyers so you don’t end up with imbalance in supply and demand. 

As far as I can see most middle class here would qualify for affordable housing. And poor people also need to live somewhere. I really don’t like local attitudes toward affordable units. 

My area has a long history of resenting people moving in. Like, 50+ years worth. A large chunk of it is racism but, in recent years, I’ve found myself empathizing with the non-racist reasons and reflecting on the Human Geography lessons I taught at least 5 years ago. 
( 😉 )

There’s no legitimate reason for an individual to feel guilty.  I certainly don’t!  But significant migration does change the landscape, literally and figuratively. It becomes upsetting to *me when there are enough people to shift the area to be more like their old lifestyle than embrace the lifestyle that was set here. That’s not one person’s fault, but it still hurts to see the place I love shift to what I chose to escape.

Based on what local real estate people have told me, and on the texts and emails dh and I receive, the cash offers are absolutely not mostly people moving into a primary residence.  I’m sure it DOES happen, but it currently isn’t the bulk. 

And the price hike hurts. I raised my kids in a kind of dirt cheap area. Most of them want to stay. But now my daughter, with a genuine grown up career, is living in a small city across from drug dealers and is worried she’ll never be able to come back and have her own place in the formerly dirt cheap area I raised her in.  If it was just her, I’d have to shrug it off.  But it’s all the kids raised here. Live with your parents or leave the area. But to what area???

It isn’t one person’s fault. But it’s far from one person’s problem.

[prairiewindmomma]

7 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

People know to get their license plates changed asap upon moving here and God forbid one is discovered to have moved from CA. Visitors who can't change their license plates often find their vehicles keyed/vandalized. Tensions are high, prices are high...it's pretty ugly in my area.

Same here. To be fair, the Californians who have moved into our school district say stupid things like, “I can’t believe how cheap houses are here compared to California.” Or, they complain about the weather and how we are not California-like in some way. You can write off the oddball family or two but it’s been eye-opening to see it be a prevalent enough attitude to make it into a stereotype.

Don’t be tone deaf, iykwim. 

[Sk8ermaiden]

On 2/5/2022 at 2:09 PM, SeaConquest said:

I dunno. I look around with the climate changing and I think these issues are going to be playing a greater and greater role going forward. There are issues related to erosion, sea level rise, and hurricanes (in some places) if you are on the water. There are issues related to drought and increasing fire danger. There are shifting weather patterns affecting increasing temperatures and the severity/path of winter storms, etc. It seems prudent IMHO to buy with climate change in mind, but it's very local with lots of little micro climates. You cannot just say it's wise to buy in X city or avoid Y state because there are so many regional micro climates.
 

Living in Houston, I worry constantly about the fact that "100-year floods" are coming at an exponentially increasing rate. We are also very close to sea level and I wonder at what poing you sell and move before it's too late to find a buyer. With aging parents and our entire support system here, that's an impossible decision for me to make at this time, but I keep hoping it'll be OK for a while. If my kids move away after college, I will probably follow suit.

[Sk8ermaiden]

On 2/6/2022 at 6:43 PM, Bootsie said:

I do not see the bolded as an either/or.  Looking over history, it is not clear that owning a home is a path to building wealth.  

I can't pull stats or references out of my hat - my memory for specifics is generally very poor. But every book and article I have read on generational poverty and systemic racism has pointed out that the inability of families to own a home is a major contributing factor to generational poverty (in the US)  - dating back to the days when banks wouldn't give loans and people wouldn't sell to those they deemed "undesireable" and still having a large effect today. 

But I don't think everyone needs to own a home. I do think that the average wage and the average expenses should leave enough room that home ownership could be within reach of most families - should they desire it.

Someone upthread pointed out that someone's home had appreciated 3.6% a year and that wasn't a great investment. My question would be - have wages in the area increased 3.6% a year? Have prices for utilities only increased by 3.6% a year? It's not so much about whether that home was a good investment - it's whether housing prices have gone so insane that normal people with decent jobs can no longer afford one. When corporations or foreign investors are snapping up all the real estate, so they can rent it back to people at high prices - thus guaranteeing they can never build equity or family wealth - I think it's a big problem.

I 100% agree with taxing the heck out of corporate and foreign homeowners (if they are renting out the owned property). 

[prairiewindmomma]

5 minutes ago, Sk8ermaiden said:

 It's not so much about whether that home was a good investment - it's whether housing prices have gone so insane that normal people with decent jobs can no longer afford one. When corporations or foreign investors are snapping up all the real estate, so they can rent it back to people at high prices 

This.

If you can never get onto the ownership ladder, you are forced to rent. Once you climb onto the ownership ladder, your mortgage increases with taxes and rising insurance costs, but those increases tend to be far below what rent jumps are.  Rents, on average, are up 29% year on year ( Jan 2022 to Jan 2021) for my metro area. Here buying is a form of locking in housing costs at a reasonable amount since salaries rarely increase that amount year to year.

Median home values are up 15.7% Jan 2022 to Jan 2021---so even if you have to re-sell in the future, you have some hope of being able to re-buy again.  If you stepped out of the market a few years ago and went to a rental, it's really hard to step back in again in this area because comparable homes to the one you sold are now selling for $200-300k more. 

Home ownership in the Midwest was a completely different game for us. We never saw significant appreciation in our homes there and ownership there was more about not being in a crappy rental. There were few decent rentals available since nearly everyone could own their homes. TX had different dynamics than the Midwest.  

It's hard to have a unified national discussion that is effective when regional economics factor so differently. 

 

[Pawz4me]

I haven't read this yet, but it's probably pertinent to this thread re rental markets/rental prices --

When Private Equity Becomes Your Landlord (ProPublica)

[Arcadia]

54 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

 

If you can never get onto the ownership ladder, you are forced to rent. Once you climb onto the ownership ladder, your mortgage increases with taxes and rising insurance costs, but those increases tend to be far below what rent jumps are.  Rents, on average, are up 29% year on year ( Jan 2022 to Jan 2021) for my metro area. Here buying is a form of locking in housing costs at a reasonable amount since salaries rarely increase that amount year to year.

People who have sold their parents home here and moved to Antioch, Martinez, Oakley for cheaper housing find that they can’t afford to move back here.
 

Owning a home also helps the next generation. I know a few teachers and nurses staying with parents to save on rent and childcare. Their husbands may not get along totally with the in-laws but it helps them save money for a downpayment. 
My husband’s colleague’ marital home is his parents home and he inherited that home when his parents passed, so he never had rent or mortgage. 
 

Where I am from, 81% of the country’s population lives in public housing which is a 99 year leasehold. In other words, the government is your landlord. 

[Laurel-in-CA]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:29 AM, Clarita said:

CA has massive policy issues with housing. Based on things happening in my neighborhood I'm not convinced it's a bunch of rental companies buying up single family homes that is the issue. Prop 13 (our property taxes *don't go up with our property rates and can be transferred to your heirs) contributes a huge amount. So, there is not an insignificant number of heirs able to continue owning a home in CA because they inherited a home from their parents with a much lower carrying cost (whether they rent it out or live in it themselves), and there are people who just hold these homes (not prudent in my opinion, but they do because the carrying cost is low and they keep seeing the potential house price going up like it's money in their pocket).

We bought our house from some heirs who held this house (sitting empty) for about 6 years, just because they didn't want to do anything with it. Also, the way prop 13 is set up all properties get this treatment, just to make this whole thing worse (although I believe heirs can only "apply" prop 13 to one of the inherited properties). So, older people would just hold on to all their homes. 

Actually this year they passed a modification to prop 13 for commercial properties, which also affects family businesses and the housing on them. It's having a negative effect on family farms and ranches in the more rural part of our area. And even with prop 13, taxes do go up; they just don't go up very much...2% of house value a year or some such. But we have another $1K of bonds (at least) on our property tax bill on top of the actual tax. Our monthly property tax set aside each month is akin to a house payment in less expensive areas of the country.

A lot of people in our area have moved to Idaho, where it is now a LOT more expensive than it used to be. Supply and demand, baby. I watch our neighborhood prices and compare them to prices in areas where we'd like to retire....as we go up, they go up too, and especially in the last couple of years. So much for our hope of buying a retirement home with our equity...well, unless we compromise somehow. The discussion is ongoing.

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, Sk8ermaiden said:

I can't pull stats or references out of my hat - my memory for specifics is generally very poor. But every book and article I have read on generational poverty and systemic racism has pointed out that the inability of families to own a home is a major contributing factor to generational poverty (in the US)  - dating back to the days when banks wouldn't give loans and people wouldn't sell to those they deemed "undesireable" and still having a large effect today. 

But I don't think everyone needs to own a home. I do think that the average wage and the average expenses should leave enough room that home ownership could be within reach of most families - should they desire it.

Someone upthread pointed out that someone's home had appreciated 3.6% a year and that wasn't a great investment. My question would be - have wages in the area increased 3.6% a year? Have prices for utilities only increased by 3.6% a year? It's not so much about whether that home was a good investment - it's whether housing prices have gone so insane that normal people with decent jobs can no longer afford one. When corporations or foreign investors are snapping up all the real estate, so they can rent it back to people at high prices - thus guaranteeing they can never build equity or family wealth - I think it's a big problem.

I 100% agree with taxing the heck out of corporate and foreign homeowners (if they are renting out the owned property). 

If you look at the research of Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller, and co-creator of the Case-Shiller index which focuses on the housing market, Home Page of Robert J. Shiller (yale.edu), you will find that the return to home ownership has been greatly overestimated by most people.  While there have been a number of articles in the popular press that suggest that the lack of home ownership has contributed to generational poverty, I have not seen any real economic research that suggests this.  In fact, much of the data data indicate that homeownership is NOT a way to build equity and family wealth.

If home ownership is viewed as a way of building equity or wealth and the return is 3.6%--$100 of investment is turned into $586.12 in 50 years.  If the same $100 is invested in another asset that has a return of 5%--it will be turned into $1146.74.  If I am concerned about a family's ability to build equity and family wealth, I want to encourage them to invest in the 5% investment return--not the 3.6% investment.  

[Carrie12345]

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

If you look at the research of Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller, and co-creator of the Case-Shiller index which focuses on the housing market, Home Page of Robert J. Shiller (yale.edu), you will find that the return to home ownership has been greatly overestimated by most people.  While there have been a number of articles in the popular press that suggest that the lack of home ownership has contributed to generational poverty, I have not seen any real economic research that suggests this.  In fact, much of the data data indicate that homeownership is NOT a way to build equity and family wealth.

If home ownership is viewed as a way of building equity or wealth and the return is 3.6%--$100 of investment is turned into $586.12 in 50 years.  If the same $100 is invested in another asset that has a return of 5%--it will be turned into $1146.74.  If I am concerned about a family's ability to build equity and family wealth, I want to encourage them to invest in the 5% investment return--not the 3.6% investment.  

Well, with one extra significant factor…  You can’t invest your rent money.  Unless you’re already wealthy enough to be that far ahead.

[Carrie12345]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table/#series:Net_Worth;demographic:housecl;population:all;units:median;range:1989,2019

Now I went down a rabbit hole. Median net worth is DRAMATICALLY higher for homeowners than renters.
I’m confident there are a whole lot of factors playing into that, but still.