Living paycheck to paycheck (article)

[Heartstrings]

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

Why isn't the question - "why do some families have multiple dwellings?"  Nobody needs that?  The people who own a vacation house that sits empty much of the year - why aren't they the ones causing the housing shortage in those locations?  Why are we picking on old people who are just trying to enjoy the one asset they invested in all their working life?

We have been?    We had a whole conversation about VRBOs that are empty half the year, how they do help local economies with tourism but hurt locals wanting to buy homes, which complicates things. I guess you missed that.  

I think no fewer than 3 people have pointed out that it’s an issue with multiple causes.  We’ve talked incentives for builders, zoning, all sorts of things.  

Literally no one is picking on old people, which I think I’ve stated 3 times.  You seem uninterested in reading those parts of literally every post I’ve made about it though.  

Edited January 17 by Heartstrings

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

We have been?    We had a whole conversation about VRBOs that are empty half the year, how they do help local economies with tourism but hurt locals wanting to buy homes, which complicates things. I guess you missed that.

I'm not talking about VRBOs, I'm talking about "our lake house / cabin" that is not used for any other purpose than the owner's occasional getaway.

[Heartstrings]

29 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm not talking about VRBOs, I'm talking about "our lake house / cabin" that is not used for any other purpose than the owner's occasional getaway.

Yes, that is additional problem leading to the housing shortage.  One that hasn’t been brought up yet, so thank you.  I had forgotten about that as a thing.  

[scholastica]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm not talking about VRBOs, I'm talking about "our lake house / cabin" that is not used for any other purpose than the owner's occasional getaway.

A lot of those are 3 season housing or not in places with jobs out of season. My in-laws had a lake house that was usable from April-November. They or other family and friends used it consistently during that time. 

[regentrude]

33 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm not talking about VRBOs, I'm talking about "our lake house / cabin" that is not used for any other purpose than the owner's occasional getaway.

Aren't they often zoned so they cannot serve as a primary residence, or not equipped to handle four-season living, i.e. no adequate heat?

Or so far from a place with employment opportunities? Because most jobs aren't in the woods where people have their fishing cabin.

Edited January 17 by regentrude

[Bootsie]

Housing varies widely from family to family and location to location.  It is easy to read a lot more into these headline/statistics than what the story is really telling us.  What does it mean that baby boomers own a larger percentage of large homes than they did in the past?  First of all "large home" is defined in this study as 3 or more bedrooms--so my parents 1600sq ft house was a "large home" but an 1800 2 bedroom house with a study and an exercise room is a "small home"  These statistics do not necessarily point to "elderly" living in 3000 sq ft houses.  DH and I are baby boomers living in a "large home"--two blocks from my work--we count in the statistic.

Also, it is easy to jump from statistics that we are short on affordable housing in the US, when these statistics are based on the availability for a household living below the poverty line to find housing that is no more than 30% of their income to "we are short for middle class families to find a 3-bedroom home with a yard, in a good school district in Seattle that they can afford".  Both are significant issues, but they are very different issues with different causes and different possible solutions.

[DawnM]

2 hours ago, scholastica said:

A lot of those are 3 season housing or not in places with jobs out of season. My in-laws had a lake house that was usable from April-November. They or other family and friends used it consistently during that time. 

I was coming in to say something similar.   Never mind that they are usually so far out that unless you. have a remote job, you can't live there full time and function.

My aunt and uncle always had a mountain resort condo.   It was in an area where it would have been difficult to live full time as the jobs were back in the city.

[Carrie12345]

5 hours ago, regentrude said:

Aren't they often zoned so they cannot serve as a primary residence, or not equipped to handle four-season living, i.e. no adequate heat?

Or so far from a place with employment opportunities? Because most jobs aren't in the woods where people have their fishing cabin.

Here, most people have turned their personal vacation homes into short term rentals when they’re not using them, so it pays for itself. LOTS of lake homes/cabins, fully equipped.

[Carrie12345]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

First of all "large home" is defined in this study as 3 or more bedrooms--so my parents 1600sq ft house was a "large home" but an 1800 2 bedroom house with a study and an exercise room is a "small home"

That’s important to know!  
I guess my 1100sf house is large, lol.

[Frances]

5 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Yes, that is additional problem leading to the housing shortage.  One that hasn’t been brought up yet, so thank you.  I had forgotten about that as a thing.  

I brought it up earlier when I listed many of the contributing factors to the housing shortage.

[Frances]

5 hours ago, scholastica said:

A lot of those are 3 season housing or not in places with jobs out of season. My in-laws had a lake house that was usable from April-November. They or other family and friends used it consistently during that time. 

I’d be interested in the percentage that fit this description. Both second homes and short term rentals are huge issues in all of the coastal towns in my state and people live and work there year round. I don’t think there is a single part of my state without a housing shortage where local people who live and work there (even if the work is only seasonal) would not benefit if more homes were available for purchase for those who live year round. Of course that goes back to the catch 22 of touristy areas relying on visitors and those visitors needing a place to stay.

[Frances]

5 hours ago, regentrude said:

Aren't they often zoned so they cannot serve as a primary residence, or not equipped to handle four-season living, i.e. no adequate heat?

Or so far from a place with employment opportunities? Because most jobs aren't in the woods where people have their fishing cabin.

I think this is going to vary widely by location. I think few if any second homes in my state would fit the above.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

I was coming in to say something similar.   Never mind that they are usually so far out that unless you. have a remote job, you can't live there full time and function.

My aunt and uncle always had a mountain resort condo.   It was in an area where it would have been difficult to live full time as the jobs were back in the city.

Do these areas have no schools? Do no working people live there year round?

[DawnM]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

Do these areas have no schools? Do no working people live there year round?

If you work at the ski resort, you have a job, but there was really nothing else up there.    The nearest school is 45 min away, into town.   There were no decent medical facilities and my uncle was a surgeon.

I am not saying all areas are like this, but there are many.

Edited January 17 by DawnM

[Frances]

3 hours ago, DawnM said:

If you work at the ski resort, you have a job, but there was really nothing else up there.    The nearest school is 45 min away, into town.   There were no decent medical facilities and my uncle was a surgeon.

I am not saying all areas are like this, but there are many.

I can see where there are definitely places where people in lots of professions would not be able to live and work but would like to own a second home. The problem, at least in my state, is there are not enough affordable homes in these types of areas for the people who do work there and live there year round because people buying second homes and short term rentals have both caused prices to increase and led to a shortage of homes for sale. The vast majority of popular second home/short term rental spots in my state are also places where regular people live and work year round. None of the friends or neighbors I know in my state who own second homes do so in remote places where regular people don’t live and work year round.

[Jaybee]

23 hours ago, Frances said:

But if you’re downsizing, wouldn’t the sale of your larger home pay for the smaller home, no mortgage involved? I don’t think most people take on a mortgage when they downsize.

Dh and I are in our 60s. Due to our life's work/lifestyle, we did not buy a home until we were in our upper 50s. We still had (and have) two sons living with us. We bought a house with 1800 sq ft (3 bd 2 bth) that would be great to age in place unless we need care that we can't get at home. Everything is on one level--no steps at all, almost walk-in master shower, and the yard is low maintenance. However, due to dh's work, we live far from our home state and most of our family (though our other kids are very scattered). Where we plan to retire is not a hcol area, yet housing here is even lower. When I look online, even houses of 1200-1400 sq ft tend to cost 40-50K more than our current house. I'm not sure what we will be able to do.

16 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I don't think that's ever been particularly true in my area. I'm over 60 and can only remember a very small number (low single digits) of older people who have moved once their kids were grown and gone. I can't think of a single relative on either side of my family who downsized.

Same. The only downsizing situations of the older people I know/knew are of those who needed to move to either assisted living or in with relatives due to limitations.

[Catwoman]

I realize that many people on this thread apparently neither need nor want multiple residences, but maybe they should consider being less judgmental toward others who make different choices for our own families. 

It's pretty insulting for anyone to suggest that older Gen Xs and boomers should feel obligated to downscale our lifestyles just because we're getting older, no matter what size or number of residences we may happen to own, and whether those residences are in big cities, popular suburban neighborhoods, resort areas, or very rural areas. 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel guilty about how my dh and I choose to spend our money. We have owned three homes for many years, and even if we did sell them, they are in upscale neighborhoods that would be out of the price range of the vast majority of younger buyers, anyway. But the size, value, and locations shouldn't matter, because it's no one's business but ours what we do with our money.

Sometimes we go for years without visiting at least one of our homes, but honestly, our neighbors are more than happy to have our houses be empty but watched over by caretakers, rather than to see them rented out or turned into VRBOs. (And realistically, we have to employ people to maintain and watch over those homes, plus we're also still paying HOA dues, real estate taxes, school taxes, internet expenses, sewer and water bills, trash collection expenses, and more to support places where we don't avail ourselves of any of the services, so it's a win/win for the cities/towns to have part-time residents like us.)

I mean seriously, now there's some sort of moral criteria for when we should be comfortable admitting to owning more than one residence? Oh, but wait -- maybe it's ok if it's way out in a rural area where there are no jobs, and bonus points if it's not heated so it can only be used for part of the year???  That's just ridiculous. 

 

[Catwoman]

5 hours ago, Frances said:

I’d be interested in the percentage that fit this description. Both second homes and short term rentals are huge issues in all of the coastal towns in my state and people live and work there year round. I don’t think there is a single part of my state without a housing shortage where local people who live and work there (even if the work is only seasonal) would not benefit if more homes were available for purchase for those who live year round. Of course that goes back to the catch 22 of touristy areas relying on visitors and those visitors needing a place to stay.

I think there is also another issue, particularly in resort and coastal towns and in major metropolitan areas -- and that's affordability. It's not like the people who own oceanfront properties and large homes in upscale neighborhoods are going to sell them for prices that a low-income buyer (or even a higher income first-time buyer) would be able to afford. 

It sounds very altruistic to say that part-time residents shouldn't own these homes or that the homes shouldn't be used as vacation rentals, but are they truly depriving a low or even middle-income family of housing?  No, I don't believe they are.

Edited January 18 by Catwoman
typo!

[Frances]

45 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I think there is also another issue, particularly in resort and coastal towns and in major metropolitan areas -- and that's affordability. It's not like the people who own oceanfront properties and large homes in upscale neighborhoods are going to sell them for prices that a low-income buyer (or even a higher income first-time buyer) would be able to afford. 

It sounds very altruistic to say that part-time residents shouldn't own these homes or that the homes shouldn't be used as vacation rentals, but are they truly depriving a low or even middle-income family of housing?  No, I don't believe they are.

Many coastal homes here do not have ocean views and the majority are smaller homes, not the huge ocean view homes you see in movies. All the coastal towns here are relatively small. While it’s unlikely that low income people could afford to buy them, there was a time not that long ago when the majority of homes in coastal communities here were owned by year round residents, and not used as short term rentals or vacation homes. The explosion in short term rentals is what finally brought the housing situation to crisis proportions. And it’s not just that those who live there year round and want to buy can’t find anything or anything affordable, it’s that rents are also very high due to the shortage of housing.

I remember driving through a lake from town in MN last year and being so impressed that there were mobile home parks and apartments (both basic and upscale looking) with lake views in addition to lots of single family homes of various sizes. Granted, this was a very large lake, which likely made it easier to end up with a wide range of properties having lake views.

Edited January 18 by Frances

[SKL]

Another thought ... I know a lot of "boomers" who still have children living with them.  (I just missed being a "boomer" by a couple years, and a lot of my kids' friends' parents are older than me.)  My brother who has a 3 bedroom home often has grandkids living with him.

And I tried to find out the difference in average family size between younger and older parents.  I couldn't find meaningful statistics, but aren't millennials having fewer kids on average, with a pretty high percentage having no kids at all?  Shouldn't we expect the younger generation, then, to own fewer "large houses"?  Why is that a problem?

Also, the article talking about boomers not downsizing doesn't say whether they've considered what the market would be for their current homes.  In my personal experience, the homes of older folks aren't the type to be in demand for younger families.  Either they are not near job markets or they are old and need a lot of work, or both.  Moving out of those homes might just put more pressure on the market for more in-demand homes (because the old folks have to live somewhere, right?).

Edited January 18 by SKL

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

The article talking about boomers not downsizing doesn't say whether they've considered what the market would be for their current homes.  In my personal experience, the homes of older folks aren't the type to be in demand for younger families.  Either they are not near job markets or they are old and need a lot of work, or both.  Moving out of those homes might just put more pressure on the market for more in-demand homes (because the old folks have to live somewhere, right?).

I think this must be location dependent. In my current neighborhood, my hometown, and the location where my son just moved, homes being sold by older people are very sought after, both ones in excellent shape and those needing work. Most people in my hometown commute to work, but they consider the rural lifestyle and smaller schools an acceptable trade off. When people in my small hometown heard my mom was getting ready to sell, she constantly had young people approaching her and expressing interest.

Edited January 18 by Frances

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I mean seriously, now there's some sort of moral criteria for when we should be comfortable admitting to owning more than one residence?

I don't actually care how many houses you own.  I was just annoyed by the way they are implying that the average older joe (who usually worked hard to own 1 house) needs to move the hell on.  Why pick on that demographic when there are others taking up more space with less reason?

 

Edited January 18 by SKL

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think this must be location dependent. In my current neighborhood, my hometown, and the location where my son just moved, homes being sold by older people are very sought after, both ones in excellent shape and those needing work. Most people in my hometown commute to work, but they consider the rural lifestyle and smaller schools an acceptable trade off. 

So where are these older people moving to?

[Frances]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

So where are these older people moving to?

I’ve already described the very nice, affordable aging in place senior community where my moved into a senior apartment. Virtually every single person moving there sold a home before doing so. A few of her other friends moved in with children or had children move in with them. A couple of her friends who used to live out in the country bought very small homes or condos, some in communities specifically designed for seniors, in nearby small cities when they sold their properties. These are not upscale, fancy resort type retirement homes, but solid, simple homes where residents don’t have to worry about yard work, snow removal, snowy country roads, etc., but are still independent and have room to live and host family and friends.

Many small towns in the Midwest have small one story senior/disabled apartment complexes built by the government with affordable rents. My husband’s grandparents first bought a house in town after they sold their farm. Later, after her husband died and she got tired of trying to find people to mow and shovel snow, his grandma moved into one of these apartments. It was quite nice and she liked the size of it and not having to worry about keeping on top of yard work and snow shoveling. She could just enjoy her small garden area.

My mom sad there’s always a long waiting list for these apartments in my hometown. It had two bedrooms and we always stayed over with her when we went to visit. And there was a shared community center she reserved when the whole family came for a holiday meal or other special gathering.

Edited January 18 by Frances

[frogger]

I actually think the housing market would sort itself out if we could have a free market. If prices shot up density would increase but as it is the older generations are the ones at the community council meetings shutting down projects on property they don't own! Then they want senior tax exemptions. Then they want the young people to shovel their driveway and get tax payer funded assistance for all sorts of things because  poor me I am old. Boo-hoo. Then they wonder why younger generations are fed up with them. I am older and and own multiple properties and I'm fed up with them! 

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I don't actually care how many houses you own.  I was just annoyed by the way they are implying that the average older joe (who usually worked hard to own 1 house) needs to move the hell on.  Why pick on that demographic when there are others taking up more space with less reason?

 

I agree with you -- I'm annoyed by that, too!

I get tired of feeling like some people think older folks are expendable -- and apparently we have now outlived our usefulness to the point where we are terribly selfish if we want to keep the homes we worked for, because we owe it to a younger generation to sell them those homes (at very affordable prices, of course!) 

I'm glad my own ds24 doesn't share those opinions. I hope your daughters don't, either!

 

[Carrie12345]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

And I tried to find out the difference in average family size between younger and older parents.  I couldn't find meaningful statistics, but aren't millennials having fewer kids on average, with a pretty high percentage having no kids at all?  Shouldn't we expect the younger generation, then, to own fewer "large houses"?  Why is that a problem?

If the measure being used truly is 3 bedrooms, my guess (based only on my regional experience) is simply inventory.  
1 and 2 bedroom homes are nearly non-existent in my immediate area, at least by percentage.  Dd does have a 2-bed apartment in an older small city, but even that is in a house that was converted into a multi-family.

Additionally, work from home has increased the need for private rooms at home. But that wasn’t a building factor until more recently.

My current friend-renter lives in my 3-bedroom mostly alone. But he shares kids with his ex-wife. Combined, the family has 2 kids and 6 bedrooms. Not that unusual.

My grandmother’s home was a 2-bedroom, but way larger than my 3-bedroom. After it sold a couple of years ago, the investor immediately remodeled it with more bedrooms.

On the blame thing, I don’t see it as moral judgment, but as acknowledging factors that are contributing to an issue and discussing them. I’m not mad at my parents or future self for keeping houses! But that’s still 2 fewer available houses. 

[Pawz4me]

4 hours ago, frogger said:

I actually think the housing market would sort itself out if we could have a free market. If prices shot up density would increase but as it is the older generations are the ones at the community council meetings shutting down projects on property they don't own! Then they want senior tax exemptions. Then they want the young people to shovel their driveway and get tax payer funded assistance for all sorts of things because  poor me I am old. Boo-hoo. Then they wonder why younger generations are fed up with them. I am older and and own multiple properties and I'm fed up with them! 

I see a lot of the total opposite in my area (I've lived here all my life). It used to be relatively rural but has become mostly a suburb/bedroom community for the nearby city. And younger people who've moved here in the last 10-15 years or so get very angry when the older person (often a retired farmer) who owns acres and acres of land bordering their property decides to sell. Frequently it's not even a property bordering them, but somewhere they drive by and they find the property attractive as is. The buyer is usually a large housing developer who's going to come in and build relatively high density housing. All they do (this is all on the local FB page) is complain about the pressure those new residents will put on the existing infrastructure and how "greedy" landowners are to sell to a big developer like that, and about the zoning board for allowing it. As far as I can tell the majority of the people complaining seem to be under 50. So older folks seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The thing is -- frustrated people all too often have an overwhelming need to blame someone for the situation. We see that being exploited in politics all the time. It's dangerous and often comes back to "all about me" thinking, and many people really only respect a free market if it's doing what they want it to do. And nothing is ever going to be all things to all people.

[DawnM]

8 hours ago, Frances said:

I can see where there are definitely places where people in lots of professions would not be able to live and work but would like to own a second home. The problem, at least in my state, is there are not enough affordable homes in these types of areas for the people who do work there and live there year round because people buying second homes and short term rentals have both caused prices to increase and led to a shortage of homes for sale. The vast majority of popular second home/short term rental spots in my state are also places where regular people live and work year round. None of the friends or neighbors I know in my state who own second homes do so in remote places where regular people don’t live and work year round.

But if the homes that are 2nd homes are in places most people couldn't live anyway, what does it matter?   I am pretty sure most of the lake homes in the mountains a couple of hours away from the city are not used full time by many at all but I also don't see people clambering to live out there full time because there simply aren't the jobs available.   In fact, many homes sit for a while when they go on the market.   The people who DO live there full time typically work at the resort and wouldn't have a job if it weren't for those folks who have their 2nd homes.

The areas where this is really an issue is in the cities where the jobs are.   San Francisco just recently made a law about AirBnBs and that all rentals had to be at least 30 days or something like that.   Many of those homes were then available as long term rentals and many owners were talking about selling.

 

I don't have time to look up the San Fran thing, but here is the wording I found by googling:

Only permanent residents of San Francisco are allowed to be short-term hosts. To be a permanent resident, you must reside in your unit for at least 275 nights per year. Absentee owners who live in San Francisco less than 275 days per year are not eligible to engage in short-term rentals.

I guess another question is, how much do we want the government dictating what we can and can't buy and where we can and can't live?   I go back and forth with that one.   And I doubt we can really discuss it without it getting too political.

 

[QueenCat]

8 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I mean seriously, now there's some sort of moral criteria for when we should be comfortable admitting to owning more than one residence? Oh, but wait -- maybe it's ok if it's way out in a rural area where there are no jobs, and bonus points if it's not heated so it can only be used for part of the year???  That's just ridiculous. 

It is ridiculous!!! I'm thinking about the people who you employ to help you when you aren't there... it's nice that they have a way to make an income!

[Scarlett]

6 hours ago, QueenCat said:

It is ridiculous!!! I'm thinking about the people who you employ to help you when you aren't there... it's nice that they have a way to make an income!

I think we are talking past each other.  I don’t think anyone is suggesting wealthy people sell their second and third homes.  It is just one possibility of maybe why, in some situations there is not enough housing.  I agree it is doubtful Cat’s second and third houses would be useful for first time buyers…..my friend has a similar Lakehouse that would not be affordable to lower income buyers.  
 

A lot of the issues cannot be discussed without discussing economic models which ends up political. 

Edited January 18 by Scarlett

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

As far as I can tell the majority of the people complaining seem to be under 50. So older folks seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The thing is -- frustrated people all too often have an overwhelming need to blame someone for the situation. We see that being exploited in politics all the time. It's dangerous and often comes back to "all about me" thinking, and many people really only respect a free market if it's doing what they want it to do. And nothing is ever going to be all things to all people.

It is surprising to me that working people, often with families to care for have time to go to meetings, testify, get into running for unpaid positions. Where I am at there are a lot of young families but they aren't running anything. Every where I go where things are getting done are at least 80% retirement age or older. 

Or you just mean they gripe on the internet but that doesn't do anything. 

I personally didn't really get involved Until I had more time in my life. 

You are right that it is very dangerous to give people control over others. The farmer should be able to do what he needs to with his own land. I should be able to put a 4 or 6 plex on mine to be helpful but you know despite being able to keep more trees etc then their dinky lots I wouldn't be allowed to because zoning and whining. 

[SKL]

8 hours ago, Frances said:

Many small towns in the Midwest have small one story senior/disabled apartment complexes built by the government with affordable rents. My husband’s grandparents first bought a house in town after they sold their farm. Later, after her husband died and she got tired of trying to find people to mow and shovel snow, his grandma moved into one of these apartments. It was quite nice and she liked the size of it and not having to worry about keeping on top of yard work and snow shoveling. She could just enjoy her small garden area.

My mom sad there’s always a long waiting list for these apartments in my hometown. It had two bedrooms and we always stayed over with her when we went to visit. And there was a shared community center she reserved when the whole family came for a holiday meal or other special gathering.

That's a great option for some older folks, and I'm very glad it exists.

But for many older folks, there is an emotional attachment to their home.  The hard work they put into it, the many memories, and even "stuff" that won't all fit into a senior apartment. It seems a lot of people are ignorant of that emotion, and it bothers me on multiple levels.

To add insult to injury, apparently the time to move is more or less the day after they finally pay off their mortgage.  Like that's nothing.  The writers of those articles must have never paid off a 30-year mortgage.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I'm glad my own ds24 doesn't share those opinions. I hope your daughters don't, either!

Don't worry ... my youngest thinks she's a SJW, but not to the point where it interferes with her comforts.  She would love to have a pretty house in every state and country.  😛

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

That's a great option for some older folks, and I'm very glad it exists.

But for many older folks, there is an emotional attachment to their home.  The hard work they put into it, the many memories, and even "stuff" that won't all fit into a senior apartment. It seems a lot of people are ignorant of that emotion, and it bothers me on multiple levels.

To add insult to injury, apparently the time to move is more or less the day after they finally pay off their mortgage.  Like that's nothing.  The writers of those articles must have never paid off a 30-year mortgage.

My 75 year old mother runs a business from her home and has a 16 foot long arm in the basement and that certainly wouldn't work for her but I would love not maintaining a large home.  Everyones needs are different. 

She currently can't lift her arm and is scheduled for a shoulder replacement next month but she is trying hard to prep lots of smaller quilt squares that she can sew if her arm is in a sling against her after surgery because she can't, simply can't sit and do nothing. 😂

 

[SKL]

Also, where I live, there aren't that many "large homes" in busy metro areas.  The neighborhoods tend to be 100+ years old, the homes built when most homes were relatively small.  The "up and coming" areas tend to offer apartments rather than houses.

I will say that there have been some areas where homes have been torn down for public reasons.  In my suburb, they bought and removed a number of houses to address a drainage issue, and they say this is now going to be "green space."  In the nearby large city, they had/have a policy of tearing down abandoned houses and giving the property to the resident next door, again to make the city a bit greener.  That said, population has been on the decline here for a long time, so I don't think these policies have created a housing shortage.

[Heartstrings]

It’s a real shame that we can’t even discuss issues and causes because too many people want to personalize it.  All I see is “I got mine”.  

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Additionally, work from home has increased the need for private rooms at home. But that wasn’t a building factor until more recently.

My current friend-renter lives in my 3-bedroom mostly alone. But he shares kids with his ex-wife. Combined, the family has 2 kids and 6 bedrooms. Not that unusual.

Good points.  I agree that it seems reasonable for kids in 50/50 custody arrangements to have their own rooms at each parent's house.  But in a macro sense, man, that's a lot of bedrooms, even without population growth.  I wonder if anyone has given any thought to a solution for this.

I think having a "den" for working at home isn't new, but "needing" more than one per household is relatively recent.  (Typed while sitting in my "office" aka my fitdesk next to my bed.)

[saraha]

Where I live, lcol for sure, we have an odd phenomenon going on. The small family farms that have historically been on the lower per acre range have gone up in price dramatically. Even places as small as 10 acres. My nieces and nephews, as they grew up and started their families, all saved and expected to buy small holdings in either our county or the next even cheaper county next to us. Only the oldest two have been successful. We are Appalachian counties with very little job prospects, most people leaving the county to work, no hospitals except an emergency room/triage, limited access to the internet and yet price per acre has almost doubled in the last five years.

There are three reasons specifically for this. 1. The Amish and Mennonites. There has always been a pocket of Amish that lived in the next county over who’s three businesses would bring tourists out from Cincinnati. Their community started to shrink as there were no money making opportunities available. About 5 years ago, an Amish family hosted some Mennonite extended family from Pennsylvania. They went home, put together a group, came back and bought several small farms in my county. They had sold their much more expensive places in Pa, bought more land for the same money and offered over asking price. Ever since, there has been a “wait list” of families trying to move here the same way. As people started cottoning on, the asking prices started going up. It doesn’t matter how derelict a property is, if it’s for sale or rumored for sale, there will be a Mennonite knocking on your door.

2. Before the Mennonites, there was a farm family. They started out years ago with a regular farm, then started a feed operation and started renting ground. As the farmers who they rented from died, they would buy those properties. It has worked really well for them. They are nice hard working people who would get in good with a family, rent the ground, and then the wives or kids would usually sell to them right away and be done with it. They are building quite an empire slowly over the last 20 years as their boys grew up and joined the endeavor. They don’t offer over market price like the Mennonites, so this will quickly come to a competition.

3. Solar farms. There has been a boom of solar companies here. Lots of young men from our area got in with them. They aren’t buying land, just renting. But once they are on there, it makes the land unusable so there is less and less farm land to go around. 
All this to say, that local young people, my nieces and nephews included, quickly found themselves out of the running as prices went up so very quickly. These younger people have to leave the county for regular jobs and want their own space to farm on the side, just like their parents did, but that is/has become impossible so very quickly.

This impacts us too. Since the beginning of the pandemic I have been taking meals weekly to the old man we land contract from. Over the years we have talked about his place, which is part of the original farm that our house sits on. When he retired he broke it up in large chunks. A neighbor bought one, we bought one, the big farm family bought one and he lives on one that adjoins us. He knows we are trying to pay our part off as quick as we can so that when he’s ready to sell, or dies, we can buy his. It is our only chance to expand our personal property as his land surrounds ours. Two weeks ago, he had a Mennonite guy knock on his door wanting to talk. He said he had a brother looking for a place to buy. Old man threw out a number he thought was ridiculous and the man responded, if you write that down, I’ll take it back and we can have a deal done in three weeks. When he told me this, it broke my heart. He swears he’s not selling, he’ll die there, but there’s no reason to think his kids won’t jump at the big money instead of selling it to us. I would like to think loyalty of caring for their dad would influence the deal, but he has 4 kids and I have only ever met two. They have no reason to sell to us at what we could afford when they could have more cash in hand to divide up. It makes me so sad.

Edited January 18 by saraha

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s a real shame that we can’t even discuss issues and causes because too many people want to personalize it.  All I see is “I got mine”.  

I'm not sure which "I got mine" you're talking about, but if it's my example of wanting to keep one's home after paying off the 30-year mortgage, I think that comment shows a lack of empathy for what many people have gone through to "get theirs."

[DawnM]

16 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s a real shame that we can’t even discuss issues and causes because too many people want to personalize it.  All I see is “I got mine”.  

I think we are reading different threads.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, QueenCat said:

It is ridiculous!!! I'm thinking about the people who you employ to help you when you aren't there... it's nice that they have a way 

10 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I think there is also another issue, particularly in resort and coastal towns and in major metropolitan areas -- and that's affordability. It's not like the people who own oceanfront properties and large homes in upscale neighborhoods are going to sell them for prices that a low-income buyer (or even a higher income first-time buyer) would be able to afford. 

It sounds very altruistic to say that part-time residents shouldn't own these homes or that the homes shouldn't be used as vacation rentals, but are they truly depriving a low or even middle-income family of housing?  No, I don't believe they are.

 

I guess it depends on if they are BLOCKING low income housing being built in the same area because I see a lot of that happening. I see this a LOT. 

[DawnM]

3 minutes ago, frogger said:

I guess it depends on if they are BLOCKING low income housing being built in the same area because I see a lot of that happening. I see this a LOT. 

Do you mean zoning for larger homes?   

Wanna hear the craziest story?   LAUSD worked with the city planners and built a condo/apartment complex that was for their low income employees.   The only problem was that the income levels were set too low.   So, even though it was designed to attract teachers who might not otherwise be able to live in Los Angeles without affordable housing, it ended up not being available to them!

Janitors and TAs were able to utilize it, so I am glad someone could.   

[BusyMom5]

10 hours ago, Frances said:

I’ve already described the very nice, affordable aging in place senior community where my moved into a senior apartment. Virtually every single person moving there sold a home before doing so. A few of her other friends moved in with children or had children move in with them. A couple of her friends who used to live out in the country bought very small homes or condos, some in communities specifically designed for seniors, in nearby small cities when they sold their properties. These are not upscale, fancy resort type retirement homes, but solid, simple homes where residents don’t have to worry about yard work, snow removal, snowy country roads, etc., but are still independent and have room to live and host family and friends.

Many small towns in the Midwest have small one story senior/disabled apartment complexes built by the government with affordable rents. My husband’s grandparents first bought a house in town after they sold their farm. Later, after her husband died and she got tired of trying to find people to mow and shovel snow, his grandma moved into one of these apartments. It was quite nice and she liked the size of it and not having to worry about keeping on top of yard work and snow shoveling. She could just enjoy her small garden area.

My mom sad there’s always a long waiting list for these apartments in my hometown. It had two bedrooms and we always stayed over with her when we went to visit. And there was a shared community center she reserved when the whole family came for a holiday meal or other special gathering.

My grandparents have been on the list for a place like this for over a year.  They are rental only and still cost a lot of money when you consider their house is paid for- only insurance and taxes to pay each year.  If they move, the rent for the senior living space could change at any time!  They are old- like 90- but if they had rented at one of these places at 75 or 80, they would be broke by now.  Their home is nice,  they built it new about 20 years ago with the idea that they could grow old there.  One day a family could move in and enjoy it, but for now I don't think there is anything wrong with them living there!  The idea that they need to move in order to make space for families is insulting- they are just as deserving of a nice house as anyone else!  

That town has had a real estate run, and DH and I think it's in a bubble.  Houses are more expensive there than in 2 other larger cities (it's a small, rural town).  Why?  Well since Covid there have been families moving in from HCOL areas and running up the prices of all homes and rentals!  A home that was $150-180 pre-Covid is now $300+.  And yes, that's now a starter home in a very low COL area that cannot support those prices with current wages.  Many are people with remote jobs who moved during Covid- lots from very blue areas.  Our co-op has doubled in size, and they are all from out of state.  Others retired here- realtors did a great job with advertising low prices and small town living ;)  Another really weird one is that other states have sent disabled people to live here- my parents are landlords, I swear this is true.  They can rent places here cheaper, so they keep renting places, hiring caregivers (Also cheaper here) and moving Medicaid patients here from higher COL areas.  There is a business that has just exploded in the last 10 years that focuses on high needs, 24 hour care individuals on Medicaid.  This influx of people has also caused some growing pains as we don't have enough Dr's and hospitals.  They are renting lots of houses.  

Meanwhile my tiny, dying town has empty houses that no one wants to live in- it's too remote, not good internet reliability,  too far from everything (an hour to Walmart). 

[frogger]

49 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Do you mean zoning for larger homes?   

Wanna hear the craziest story?   LAUSD worked with the city planners and built a condo/apartment complex that was for their low income employees.   The only problem was that the income levels were set too low.   So, even though it was designed to attract teachers who might not otherwise be able to live in Los Angeles without affordable housing, it ended up not being available to them!

Janitors and TAs were able to utilize it, so I am glad someone could.   

Sometimes it is zoning. Sometimes neighbors can get a project shut down even within zoning parameters. Sometimes it is low income. Sometimes people shut down projects that are just affordable housing not designated low income. I have been way more involved the past few years and it is eye opening. 

Of course, every locality is different but dang it is bad where I live. 

 

[SHP]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Also, where I live, there aren't that many "large homes" in busy metro areas.  The neighborhoods tend to be 100+ years old, the homes built when most homes were relatively small.  The "up and coming" areas tend to offer apartments rather than houses.

 

This is very odd because 100+ years ago houses had just as much variation in size as they do today and families built what they could afford. I live in a busy metro area in an area with 100+ year old houses. Mine was the standard middle class. I have 6 bedrooms, down from 7 when we removed a non load bearing wall. All rooms are medium-large. Think full/queen size bed plus a couch and dresser and it doesn't feel cramped. The house could accommodate live in help, but frequently the in home help lived elsewhere. All houses have or had detached carriage houses, today known as garages, most were single story.

One direction from here are the upper and upper-middle class houses. Those are easy to identify not just by the even larger size but the layout that assumes live-in help for multiple people. The rooms are massive. They all have detached carriage houses with a second floor apartment. Sometimes the house and carriage house are connected via and underground hall. 

The other direction are the houses that were built for working/servant class. Those are much much smaller. Usually built as 2 bedrooms, some have additions making them 3 bedrooms. All rooms are small. A full size bed an maybe a small dresser and the room will feel cramped. They do not have a carriage house or even a driveway unless added by a more recent owner.

None of these are for the incredibly wealthy, but those are not far either. 

All of this in under 3 square miles, all built around the same time. 

 

[Pawz4me]

3 hours ago, frogger said:

 

Or you just mean they gripe on the internet but that doesn't do anything. 

 

This.

 

[Bootsie]

38 minutes ago, SHP said:

This is very odd because 100+ years ago houses had just as much variation in size as they do today and families built what they could afford.

 

I haven't seen statistics on variation in size, but the average size was definitely smaller 100 years ago.  Even in 1970, only 49% of the houses in the US had 3 or more bedrooms.  The median  sq footage of a house built before 1960 is only about 1500 (as it stands today after any expansion).  There may have been a high standard deviation because of a few very large houses, but the majority of the houses in the US were small two-bedroom houses

[Frances]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

That's a great option for some older folks, and I'm very glad it exists.

But for many older folks, there is an emotional attachment to their home.  The hard work they put into it, the many memories, and even "stuff" that won't all fit into a senior apartment. It seems a lot of people are ignorant of that emotion, and it bothers me on multiple levels.

To add insult to injury, apparently the time to move is more or less the day after they finally pay off their mortgage.  Like that's nothing.  The writers of those articles must have never paid off a 30-year mortgage.

I don’t think people are ignorant of the emotions involved with downsizing and selling a family home. I’ve been through it with both my mom and my MIL and although not directly involved, I certainly discussed it with my husband’s grandma. I’m sure I’m not unique in having experience with this scenario.

[DawnM]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Sometimes it is zoning. Sometimes neighbors can get a project shut down even within zoning parameters. Sometimes it is low income. Sometimes people shut down projects that are just affordable housing not designated low income. I have been way more involved the past few years and it is eye opening. 

Of course, every locality is different but dang it is bad where I live. 

 

So are you proposing that all size houses can all co-exist next to one another in all areas?   Or are you suggestion that there simply needs to be more affordable housing in all major areas somewhere?

I purchased my home in an area that I knew would be safe, and I want to live in an area that is safe for my kids.   There are areas I would not choose to live if I didn't have to.   I am not going to apologize for that.