Post by: KITNfury on December 24, 2020, 12:21:53 PM
Why Real Estate? My primary reasons
- Monthly Income
- Equity Gain
- Tax Benefits
- Other People's Money (OPM)
Monthly Income:
In my opinion, it's very risky to invest in real estate that does not produce monthly income after all expenses. So if you buy right, you should be able to cover principle, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) along with other expenses like maintenance and capital expenditures (Cap Ex). The monthly income is scalable since it is not directly tied to your time. Most jobs, whether salary or hourly, still require a certain allotted time to make the cash and there is limited time you can give. You can get a better job, but essentially there is almost always a ceiling to how much you can make. There is virtually no ceiling to real estate income, but it does take time to build.
Equity Gain:
This comes in two forms, typically. Principle pay down is the first, assuming you're leveraged and took a loan to buy the property. And by the way, you're not paying this out of pocket. See above why cashflow is important. The second is appreciation. Appreciation isn't guaranteed, but assuming you don't lose the property (see cashflow above and why it's important) and you are buying in a market with population growth, it is very likely you'll see appreciation over time. There are cycles to the market so it could lose value, but over time it will almost certainly go up in value. If you own a home, do you think it will be worth more/same/less in 20 years?
Tax Benefits:
You can depreciate a property on paper when it's tax season. Basically the IRS will let you claim the building is losing value, even though it likely isn't. Assuming it's a residential property (regardless of units) it can be depreciated over 27.5 years. This is the assumed building value. Typically in the neighborhood of 80-90% of the purchase. So for easy math lets say you buy a triplex for $343,750 and you say the building is worth 80% of the purchase price. 343,750 x 0.8 = $275,000. So for the next 27.5 years, you can depreciate it evenly which in this case comes out to a nice $10,000. So on paper, your building is losing value at $10k per year. What does this mean? If you made $10k on this property that year, you owe zero dollars in taxes because you "lost" money that offset the money you made in cashflow. If you make $7k in cash from the property, the remaining $3k in "losses" can be applied to your W2 income, still saving you money at tax season.
OPM:
Other people's money. Usually this is a bank. So while investing $20 in the stock market buys you $20 in stock, investing $20 in RE means buying $100 in real estate. Leverage comes with risk, but has huge upside if you can make your payments until fully paid off, see cashflow above and why it's important. Furthermore, whether it's natural appreciation, or you did things to the property to raise it's value, you can refinance the property and potentially pull all of your down payment and/or rehab money. Why is that nice? Well you can recycle your money and buy another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Oh, and if you're making money each month on a property that you have none of your own money, you've found investing nirvana.....an infinite return on your money.
Investing in RE is a get rich slow scheme, but the good news is that you do get rich. Everybody knows somebody that works their ass off and doesn't make money in it. But why follow them? You also know that some people do well in it. Follow them. It's not as hard to understand as people often think, it's do-able. If you do it even somewhat smart, you will become wealthy. Obviously I'm passionate about it because I've seen first hand results how many lives it changes. I'm here to help anyone interested in that. Let me know how I can help.
:kstategrad:
Post by: Justwin on December 24, 2020, 10:17:32 PM
One thing I think you should point out is that you can't keep taking losses forever on a rental property. I think the rule is something like 2 out of the 5 previous years, you have to make money on it or you are not allowed to claim a loss. You are only allowed to claim it as zero income without offsetting other income if you aren't making making money the required number of years.
Post by: KITNfury on December 25, 2020, 06:54:35 AM
I appreciate all of your thoughts on real estate as they make me think about it as a driver of wealth.I've never heard that specifically, but I'm not a tax professional. I'm guessing you're speaking about true losses where my note on taxes is talking about depreciating the property to offset positive income. Only buy priory that positively cashflow.
One thing I think you should point out is that you can't keep taking losses forever on a rental property. I think the rule is something like 2 out of the 5 previous years, you have to make money on it or you are not allowed to claim a loss. You are only allowed to claim it as zero income without offsetting other income if you aren't making making money the required number of years.
Post by: Fedor on December 29, 2020, 01:53:33 PM
Afford Anything is a good podcast for rental info, along with the aforementioned Bigger Pockets. AA covers lifestyle stuff also so it is a little easier to stay plugged in long term.
Post by: ChiComCat on December 29, 2020, 01:56:06 PM
A good rule of thumb to start with is monthly rent should be 1% of the all in property cost. i.e. if you bought a place for $85k and renovation cost you $15k, a total of $100k, you would want to rent the place for $1k a month.
Afford Anything is a good podcast for rental info, along with the aforementioned Bigger Pockets. AA covers lifestyle stuff also so it is a little easier to stay plugged in long term.
1% is really hard to come by.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 29, 2020, 02:17:11 PM
Post by: Justwin on December 29, 2020, 02:20:45 PM
I appreciate all of your thoughts on real estate as they make me think about it as a driver of wealth.I've never heard that specifically, but I'm not a tax professional. I'm guessing you're speaking about true losses where my note on taxes is talking about depreciating the property to offset positive income. Only buy priory that positively cashflow.
One thing I think you should point out is that you can't keep taking losses forever on a rental property. I think the rule is something like 2 out of the 5 previous years, you have to make money on it or you are not allowed to claim a loss. You are only allowed to claim it as zero income without offsetting other income if you aren't making making money the required number of years.
The main thing is that you have to be able to convince the IRS that you have a profit motive. You may or may not be able to do this if your rental has a loss every year. If you can show a profit for 3 out of the previous 5 years, you are presumed to have a profit motive.
Also, there are limitations on taking rental losses since it is considered passive income. You need to make sure that you meet the definitions to not consider it passive or have a low enough income in order to have rental losses offset W2 income.
Post by: Fedor on December 29, 2020, 03:45:09 PM
It can be. The pundits tell you to find a way to add value; add a bedroom or fix a distressed property. It is a lot easier if you don't have to pay a contractor and can do the work yourself.A good rule of thumb to start with is monthly rent should be 1% of the all in property cost. i.e. if you bought a place for $85k and renovation cost you $15k, a total of $100k, you would want to rent the place for $1k a month.
Afford Anything is a good podcast for rental info, along with the aforementioned Bigger Pockets. AA covers lifestyle stuff also so it is a little easier to stay plugged in long term.
1% is really hard to come by.
Post by: Institutional Control on December 29, 2020, 03:50:30 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on December 29, 2020, 03:51:18 PM
Post by: Institutional Control on December 29, 2020, 03:53:42 PM
my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wetwillie on December 29, 2020, 04:33:15 PM
my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Post by: Institutional Control on December 29, 2020, 06:20:22 PM
Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kat Kid on December 29, 2020, 06:23:24 PM
somewhat off topic but mhk is unbelievable with the amount of crap holes that it has as rentals. I know its to be expected in a college town but the amount of property owners doing nothing to a place for 20+ years is unreal. some of them are starting to get dumped onto the market due to lack of students and an increase in nicer and newer places to live. same shitholes are still being listed and sold at unreal amounts with unreal amounts of work to be done to them. keep thinking a mhk real estate bubble will burst at some point but it has yet to happenYeah this. I saw that place that Brady used to live in off city park that is split up in to a bunch of weird little apartments was listed for over a million.
Post by: Kat Kid on December 29, 2020, 06:32:42 PM
my dream is to be an MHK slumlordIt actually sounds like a huge PITA.
Post by: steve dave on December 29, 2020, 08:28:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on December 29, 2020, 08:37:30 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on December 29, 2020, 08:42:59 PM
Post by: IPA4Me on December 29, 2020, 08:57:18 PM
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 29, 2020, 10:01:26 PM
I manage 11 doors with free software. The other x* doors I own 50% of is managed by a property manager.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
*I'm not ashamed to name the number, but to some it's large, to others it tiny....so ultimately it's irrelevant.
Post by: puniraptor on December 29, 2020, 10:04:28 PM
Post by: puniraptor on December 29, 2020, 10:07:28 PM
Post by: KITNfury on December 29, 2020, 10:36:09 PM
Not in the Midwest, although it is getting harder.A good rule of thumb to start with is monthly rent should be 1% of the all in property cost. i.e. if you bought a place for $85k and renovation cost you $15k, a total of $100k, you would want to rent the place for $1k a month.
Afford Anything is a good podcast for rental info, along with the aforementioned Bigger Pockets. AA covers lifestyle stuff also so it is a little easier to stay plugged in long term.
1% is really hard to come by.
Post by: puniraptor on December 30, 2020, 12:01:08 AM
What's the rental market like around you Puni, if you know/don't mind answering?
here's a funny thing: when you sign for a rental, you need to front 4-5 months rent in cash UP FRONT
-1 month rent "agent fee" pays your housing agent that finds you the rental, they also serve as your primary point of contact throughout your lease.
-1 month rent "key fee", basically a thank you gift to the landlord for letting you live there.
-1st month's rent.
-1 or 2 month's rent as a security deposit.
Post by: IPA4Me on December 30, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
I got into some vodka last night, so re-reading and responding now that my head is clear.Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Management software varies wildly in capability and cost. I don't know exactly when you'd want to transition to the bigger programs, but I use cozy.co for the properties I self manage. It's a website. It does many things like advertise vacancy, accept online payment, service requests, etc. I really only use it for online payment though. It's excellent.
My property manager uses Buildium. It's much more intricate, but tbh I'm not the biggest fan as the reports are sometimes hard to follow.
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 08:30:20 AM
Adding value to property is where the magic happens. It's not required to succeed, but if you can do that is like throwing gasoline on your investing fire.It can be. The pundits tell you to find a way to add value; add a bedroom or fix a distressed property. It is a lot easier if you don't have to pay a contractor and can do the work yourself.A good rule of thumb to start with is monthly rent should be 1% of the all in property cost. i.e. if you bought a place for $85k and renovation cost you $15k, a total of $100k, you would want to rent the place for $1k a month.
Afford Anything is a good podcast for rental info, along with the aforementioned Bigger Pockets. AA covers lifestyle stuff also so it is a little easier to stay plugged in long term.
1% is really hard to come by.
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 08:32:42 AM
GIANT one.Hiring a good property manager negates almost all PITA issues. You sacrifice some profit for that buffer though, which is usually worth it imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 08:33:32 AM
That is insaneWhat's the rental market like around you Puni, if you know/don't mind answering?
here's a funny thing: when you sign for a rental, you need to front 4-5 months rent in cash UP FRONT
-1 month rent "agent fee" pays your housing agent that finds you the rental, they also serve as your primary point of contact throughout your lease.
-1 month rent "key fee", basically a thank you gift to the landlord for letting you live there.
-1st month's rent.
-1 or 2 month's rent as a security deposit.
Post by: DQ12 on December 30, 2020, 08:48:55 AM
I think dlew should pause and think about what a dumbass he was in college and if he would've wanted to be able to rent anything out to himself at that lifestage.I was a model tenant that always paid rent on time, didn't destroy anything, and didn't really raise much of a fuss. Which is saying a lot considering my room would get down to about 50 degrees in the winter time (which led to horrific electric blanket burns) and was littered with hundreds of dead ants until i just put duct tape over a preexisting hole in the wall.
Post by: Kat Kid on December 30, 2020, 10:22:30 AM
I was thinking of bubbles story but totally forgot this amazing piece of Dlew lore. Lmao.I think dlew should pause and think about what a dumbass he was in college and if he would've wanted to be able to rent anything out to himself at that lifestage.I was a model tenant that always paid rent on time, didn't destroy anything, and didn't really raise much of a fuss. Which is saying a lot considering my room would get down to about 50 degrees in the winter time (which led to horrific electric blanket burns) and was littered with hundreds of dead ants until i just put duct tape over a preexisting hole in the wall.
Post by: DQ12 on December 30, 2020, 11:19:51 AM
The Bubbles story where some windows got broken occurred in his house. And we replaced the windows two days later.I was thinking of bubbles story but totally forgot this amazing piece of Dlew lore. Lmao.I think dlew should pause and think about what a dumbass he was in college and if he would've wanted to be able to rent anything out to himself at that lifestage.I was a model tenant that always paid rent on time, didn't destroy anything, and didn't really raise much of a fuss. Which is saying a lot considering my room would get down to about 50 degrees in the winter time (which led to horrific electric blanket burns) and was littered with hundreds of dead ants until i just put duct tape over a preexisting hole in the wall.
Post by: Institutional Control on December 30, 2020, 06:45:14 PM
My company bought Buildium about a year ago. It’s a nice inexpensive software for managing under 1000 units. Reporting is limited and the accounting features are on level of QuickBooks. I sell only to Commercial clients and generally over 2M square feet but our company is the largest provider in the multifamily market.I got into some vodka last night, so re-reading and responding now that my head is clear.Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Management software varies wildly in capability and cost. I don't know exactly when you'd want to transition to the bigger programs, but I use cozy.co for the properties I self manage. It's a website. It does many things like advertise vacancy, accept online payment, service requests, etc. I really only use it for online payment though. It's excellent.
My property manager uses Buildium. It's much more intricate, but tbh I'm not the biggest fan as the reports are sometimes hard to follow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 07:14:17 PM
Cool deal, had to Google who bought them. I'm not real familiar with most of the software for large quantity of doors.My company bought Buildium about a year ago. It’s a nice inexpensive software for managing under 1000 units. Reporting is limited and the accounting features are on level of QuickBooks. I sell only to Commercial clients and generally over 2M square feet but our company is the largest provider in the multifamily market.I got into some vodka last night, so re-reading and responding now that my head is clear.Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Management software varies wildly in capability and cost. I don't know exactly when you'd want to transition to the bigger programs, but I use cozy.co for the properties I self manage. It's a website. It does many things like advertise vacancy, accept online payment, service requests, etc. I really only use it for online payment though. It's excellent.
My property manager uses Buildium. It's much more intricate, but tbh I'm not the biggest fan as the reports are sometimes hard to follow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you do at real page? Also do you invest in property?
Post by: Institutional Control on December 30, 2020, 07:50:09 PM
I’m in Commercial sales. Sell to property management companies, REITs and owner/operators. I don’t own any property but have been in this industry for several years.Cool deal, had to Google who bought them. I'm not real familiar with most of the software for large quantity of doors.My company bought Buildium about a year ago. It’s a nice inexpensive software for managing under 1000 units. Reporting is limited and the accounting features are on level of QuickBooks. I sell only to Commercial clients and generally over 2M square feet but our company is the largest provider in the multifamily market.I got into some vodka last night, so re-reading and responding now that my head is clear.Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Management software varies wildly in capability and cost. I don't know exactly when you'd want to transition to the bigger programs, but I use cozy.co for the properties I self manage. It's a website. It does many things like advertise vacancy, accept online payment, service requests, etc. I really only use it for online payment though. It's excellent.
My property manager uses Buildium. It's much more intricate, but tbh I'm not the biggest fan as the reports are sometimes hard to follow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you do at real page? Also do you invest in property?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 30, 2020, 07:58:48 PM
:thumbs:I’m in Commercial sales. Sell to property management companies, REITs and owner/operators. I don’t own any property but have been in this industry for several years.Cool deal, had to Google who bought them. I'm not real familiar with most of the software for large quantity of doors.My company bought Buildium about a year ago. It’s a nice inexpensive software for managing under 1000 units. Reporting is limited and the accounting features are on level of QuickBooks. I sell only to Commercial clients and generally over 2M square feet but our company is the largest provider in the multifamily market.I got into some vodka last night, so re-reading and responding now that my head is clear.Not surprised but you get what you pay for.my dream is to be an MHK slumlordYou will definitely need a way to accept online payments and service requests.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You aren’t going to like KITNfury very much when he tells everyone he is managing lots of properties with a free software
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Management software varies wildly in capability and cost. I don't know exactly when you'd want to transition to the bigger programs, but I use cozy.co for the properties I self manage. It's a website. It does many things like advertise vacancy, accept online payment, service requests, etc. I really only use it for online payment though. It's excellent.
My property manager uses Buildium. It's much more intricate, but tbh I'm not the biggest fan as the reports are sometimes hard to follow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What do you do at real page? Also do you invest in property?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kinda surprised you haven't got into a syndication considering the elbows you rub.
Post by: KST8FAN on January 07, 2021, 09:34:45 PM
Tom
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on January 07, 2021, 09:45:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on January 08, 2021, 07:08:11 AM
It's definitely not my niche, but I've been looking at buying some land to build a house on. It would be great if I could lease out part of it to help pay for the entire purchase but the rent rates seem basically negligible.
Post by: steve dave on January 08, 2021, 08:02:22 AM
Can you make money on farmland by leasing it? I know you can lease it but my limited research in the past shows really low rent per acre to consider putting a mortgage on farmland (unless you farm it yourself).Not really. You can build equity very cheaply but you can’t finance land purchases, lease it, and cover both the note and your living costs. I mean, you could under very special circumstances and agreements where you are just rough ridin' someone with no options but in general you can’t. But, you can get close to covering the note and build equity with land price gains and clearing the debt.
It's definitely not my niche, but I've been looking at buying some land to build a house on. It would be great if I could lease out part of it to help pay for the entire purchase but the rent rates seem basically negligible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on January 08, 2021, 09:02:03 AM
Yea I wouldn't expect it to cover living expenses and a new build house, but if it could come close to paying for the land, I'd be good with that.Can you make money on farmland by leasing it? I know you can lease it but my limited research in the past shows really low rent per acre to consider putting a mortgage on farmland (unless you farm it yourself).Not really. You can build equity very cheaply but you can’t finance land purchases, lease it, and cover both the note and your living costs. I mean, you could under very special circumstances and agreements where you are just rough ridin' someone with no options but in general you can’t. But, you can get close to covering the note and build equity with land price gains and clearing the debt.
It's definitely not my niche, but I've been looking at buying some land to build a house on. It would be great if I could lease out part of it to help pay for the entire purchase but the rent rates seem basically negligible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Might be where I'm looking though. The more rural the place, the price per acre drops with similar lease rates (assuming land quality is equal). I might just be shipping too near KC for it to really make sense.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 08, 2021, 09:15:14 AM
Can you make money on farmland by leasing it? I know you can lease it but my limited research in the past shows really low rent per acre to consider putting a mortgage on farmland (unless you farm it yourself).Ag is also taxed immensely cheaper. Know someone with little bit of land and house and no interest in farming. They lease part of the land and boom property taxes are way cheaper.
It's definitely not my niche, but I've been looking at buying some land to build a house on. It would be great if I could lease out part of it to help pay for the entire purchase but the rent rates seem basically negligible.
Post by: KITNfury on January 08, 2021, 09:29:53 AM
I hadn't thought about that. I'm thinking the ideal scenario for me would be a farmhouse, 10+ acres, and paved access to house and also opposite side of property. Rent the house, lease some of the land, build a house. If the deal was good enough, I could basically cover the land/farmhouse cost with the rent leaving me with "free land" to build my house. Not sure how feasible in the area I'm looking.Can you make money on farmland by leasing it? I know you can lease it but my limited research in the past shows really low rent per acre to consider putting a mortgage on farmland (unless you farm it yourself).Ag is also taxed immensely cheaper. Know someone with little bit of land and house and no interest in farming. They lease part of the land and boom property taxes are way cheaper.
It's definitely not my niche, but I've been looking at buying some land to build a house on. It would be great if I could lease out part of it to help pay for the entire purchase but the rent rates seem basically negligible.
Also debated buying a larger chunk and dividing it and selling.
Post by: KST8FAN on January 14, 2021, 11:52:44 PM
Tom
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: puniraptor on January 15, 2021, 07:21:51 AM
Post by: puniraptor on January 15, 2021, 07:22:12 AM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 15, 2021, 09:22:51 AM
Post by: KITNfury on January 15, 2021, 09:59:26 AM
Post by: KITNfury on June 23, 2021, 10:25:27 AM
Guys I'm like super horned up for this cash out refinance thing kitn taught me aboutI'm pretty horned up now, too. I bought some multifamily in early 2018. After having a bunch of repairs made, I refinanced it and got all of my personal money back. So basically they became "free".
Due to the magic of a hot market with falling interest rates (at least lower than when I did the last refinance), I'm refinancing again. I'll be able to pull out about 20% more than my last loan amount and keep my payment (and cashflow) the same.
So I should maintain the same profitability with more cash to reinvest. The downside to doing this is commercial loans have balloon payments. This one has one in 5 years. If property values drop too much, I would risk being unable to refinance again unless I bring more cash to the table.
Post by: steve dave on June 23, 2021, 11:09:28 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: chum1 on June 23, 2021, 11:38:52 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 23, 2021, 11:40:09 AM
Houses in my neighborhood have been selling for 40-80% above what we paid for ours 11 years ago. Given that prior increases up until recently have been pretty modest, it seems like a huge jump.It's so dumb
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 23, 2021, 11:49:57 AM
Congrats to everyone who owns property because this crap is wild
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
feels good.
Post by: Pete on June 23, 2021, 11:56:08 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 23, 2021, 11:59:55 AM
So what do you do with it? Look to sell or just save less and consume more?
buy more at the next dip
Post by: steve dave on June 23, 2021, 12:13:52 PM
Houses in my neighborhood have been selling for 40-80% above what we paid for ours 11 years ago. Given that prior increases up until recently have been pretty modest, it seems like a huge jump.It’s nuts. We built ours 7 year’ish ago and are confident we could unload it in a week for double what we built it for. Refi’d to a 15 yr at 2.875 and am kicking myself for not cashing out equity on it because inflation is going to whip 2.875’s ass near term and I bet I could find a really fun way to invest that equity and lose like 50% of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Institutional Control on June 23, 2021, 12:36:36 PM
Congrats to everyone who owns property because this crap is wild
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the opposite feeling of owning crypto.
Post by: catastrophe on June 23, 2021, 12:48:00 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 23, 2021, 12:50:46 PM
I can’t figure it out. You’d think in an efficient market the soaring costs would result in more houses going up for sale, which absolutely has not been the case. Either we broke the market with ridiculous interest rates or the bubble will burst in the near future.You have to live in a house. There is no bubble bursting anytime in the near future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on June 23, 2021, 01:49:44 PM
lumber becoming more reasonable and foreclosures opening up will help quite a bit imo.I can’t figure it out. You’d think in an efficient market the soaring costs would result in more houses going up for sale, which absolutely has not been the case. Either we broke the market with ridiculous interest rates or the bubble will burst in the near future.You have to live in a house. There is no bubble bursting anytime in the near future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 23, 2021, 02:04:12 PM
lumber becoming more reasonable and foreclosures opening up will help quite a bit imo.I can’t figure it out. You’d think in an efficient market the soaring costs would result in more houses going up for sale, which absolutely has not been the case. Either we broke the market with ridiculous interest rates or the bubble will burst in the near future.You have to live in a house. There is no bubble bursting anytime in the near future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
indeed
Post by: catastrophe on June 23, 2021, 02:13:09 PM
Post by: kim carnes on June 23, 2021, 02:18:57 PM
Congrats to everyone who owns property because this crap is wild
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know a guy who bought a house for 2.2 in October and just got an offer for 2.9 🤯
Post by: sys on June 23, 2021, 03:21:07 PM
Post by: KITNfury on June 23, 2021, 03:25:21 PM
like the old saying goes, buy houses, they aren't making them anymore.:lol: practically the truth right now.
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 05:06:18 AM
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Post by: wetwillie on June 24, 2021, 06:30:44 AM
I'm considering taking my equity and buying an RV for full time living.
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Also a rapid appreciating asset in the current market
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 07:19:30 AM
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 08:08:16 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on June 24, 2021, 08:10:18 AM
Dumping a house frees up almost $2K a month for investment and spending. $1500 a month at 6% is a much better return than paying a mortgage. I'm an empty nester and definitely don't need the space. Still weighing my options.We're planning to do the RV thing for 6-12 months starting approximately 1 year from now. But I'll keep my house and rent it out. Rent should cover mortgage and expenses and throw a couple hundred each month our way. At the end of the trip, we'll buy another house.
We'll have our two young kids with us so we might intentionally drive the motorhome off a cliff or maybe my wife murders me in my sleep. Who knows? The possibilities are endless!
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Wait, didn’t you JUST buy a place?Nope. Deal didn't go. Still in my place that I built in 2006.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 08:30:05 AM
Oh, that makes sense then.Wait, didn’t you JUST buy a place?Nope. Deal didn't go. Still in my place that I built in 2006.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 08:30:35 AM
Oh, that makes sense then.Wait, didn’t you JUST buy a place?Nope. Deal didn't go. Still in my place that I built in 2006.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kat Kid on June 24, 2021, 09:03:19 AM
Makes sense.Oh, that makes sense then.Wait, didn’t you JUST buy a place?Nope. Deal didn't go. Still in my place that I built in 2006.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kat Kid on June 24, 2021, 09:03:54 AM
Makes sense.Oh, that makes sense then.Wait, didn’t you JUST buy a place?Nope. Deal didn't go. Still in my place that I built in 2006.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on June 24, 2021, 10:02:05 AM
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 10:57:33 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 24, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 12:59:53 PM
Fun fact: yla's wife in high school lived a full year in a 5th wheel with her parents. (military) :lol: :lol: she hated every minute of itOh my. That would be hell.
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 01:07:23 PM
IPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
Post by: michigancat on June 24, 2021, 01:11:00 PM
IPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
was your spouse on the submarine?
have you considered an 800 sq foot house?
Post by: passranch on June 24, 2021, 02:08:36 PM
IPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
was your spouse on the submarine?
have you considered an 800 sq foot house?
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3529-State-Line-Rd-Kansas-City-MO-64111/2342963_zpid/
Post by: michigancat on June 24, 2021, 02:29:11 PM
Looks like it has been on ocean voyages, much like IPAIPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
was your spouse on the submarine?
have you considered an 800 sq foot house?
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3529-State-Line-Rd-Kansas-City-MO-64111/2342963_zpid/
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 02:44:19 PM
Post by: IPA4Me on June 24, 2021, 02:49:58 PM
I'm divorced. 800 sq ft home doesn't appeal to me in this market of inflated prices. I'd rather drop $80-100K on an RV setup while awaiting the RE market crash. Then grab a waterfront condo after this buying frenzy ends.IPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
was your spouse on the submarine?
have you considered an 800 sq foot house?
Post by: michigancat on June 24, 2021, 02:57:36 PM
I'm divorced. 800 sq ft home doesn't appeal to me in this market of inflated prices. I'd rather drop $80-100K on an RV setup while awaiting the RE market crash. Then grab a waterfront condo after this buying frenzy ends.IPA have you done like lengthy trial runs of living in an RV? seems like a pretty big life adjustment.I lived on a submarine for four years with all of my crap in a significantly smaller area and no sunlight. Adaptation wouldn't be an issue.
I used about 800 sq ft of my 3200 sq ft home. Seems like such a waste. Could be putting my money into other things like the Crypto gambling thread.
Anyhow, I'm in the thinking/research stage. Haven't put the house on the market yet.
was your spouse on the submarine?
have you considered an 800 sq foot house?
ah that makes sense. I thought you were living with a GF! Maybe I was confused!
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 03:40:15 PM
https://animalspiritspod.libsyn.com/talk-your-book-the-state-of-the-housing-market
Post by: Cardiac Cats on June 24, 2021, 04:19:47 PM
The real estate market is not crashing, at least not for a LONG time
https://animalspiritspod.libsyn.com/talk-your-book-the-state-of-the-housing-market
Proud of you for going all in on Ben Carlson.
Post by: KITNfury on June 24, 2021, 04:30:57 PM
The real estate market is not crashing, at least not for a LONG timeI don't see a "crash" coming either. I don't expect it to keep shooting up at the current rate, either. But people waiting for a crash to buy will be waiting for a while imo. At least 5 years, maybe longer.
https://animalspiritspod.libsyn.com/talk-your-book-the-state-of-the-housing-market
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 04:43:09 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on June 24, 2021, 04:47:36 PM
The “crash” will be home price appreciation flattening someThat's my expectation too. As we know, it's mostly supply vs demand here. What matters that is not supply /demand are interest rates. It will take A LOT of building or A LOT of foreclosures to satisfy the demand. I don't believe either will occur soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And I don't see a large spike in interest rates either, although I'll admit it's harder for me to predict how long these rates will occur.
Post by: steve dave on June 24, 2021, 05:49:10 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 25, 2021, 08:39:34 AM
Post by: Pete on June 25, 2021, 09:00:40 AM
It’s also not the dang stock market. People won’t buy a home and sell it because it depreciated 20%. The opposite is more likely to occur. Same reason people aren’t flocking to sell now that they have an assload of equity. Builders aren’t building. Saw Mills won’t increase production. This is the new floor. And tomorrow will be the next new floor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, this makes sense to me as well.
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2021, 01:21:53 PM
Post by: kim carnes on June 29, 2021, 02:43:16 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2021, 03:34:08 PM
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
Post by: bucket on June 29, 2021, 03:41:08 PM
I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
As a home owner it doesn't necessarily bother me because I'm seeing my home valuation increase. However, it's really troubling when you consider what it means for home ownership among millennials, lower class and middle class families.
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2021, 03:43:13 PM
I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.That’s not moving the needle much at all
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2021, 03:44:30 PM
I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
As a home owner it doesn't necessarily bother me because I'm seeing my home valuation increase. However, it's really troubling when you consider what it means for home ownership among millennials, lower class and middle class families.
It basically amounts to a tax increase, unless you are looking to move somewhere where housing is significantly cheaper.
Post by: bucket on June 29, 2021, 03:47:18 PM
I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
As a home owner it doesn't necessarily bother me because I'm seeing my home valuation increase. However, it's really troubling when you consider what it means for home ownership among millennials, lower class and middle class families.
It basically amounts to a tax increase, unless you are looking to move somewhere where housing is significantly cheaper.
True.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 29, 2021, 05:16:31 PM
I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.That’s not moving the needle much at all
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's just one example
Post by: steve dave on June 29, 2021, 06:12:25 PM
I know, I was talking about the macro trend. It’s not moving the needle much.I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.That’s not moving the needle much at all
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's just one example
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on June 30, 2021, 10:20:31 AM
Correct, there is no boogie man here. Just short supply and low interest rates. Interest rates can rise, prices will fall, and monthly mortgage payments will be similar so affordability will be similar.I know, I was talking about the macro trend. It’s not moving the needle much.I wonder if there is any large investment entities impacting housing pricing and supply. Maybe certain entities, like one that just bought 17,000 houses.That’s not moving the needle much at all
I'll leave out Pit level commentary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's just one example
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Want lower property values? Create more housing. But that will take time and the current climate isn't conducive for it.
Post by: passranch on July 01, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
Post by: mocat on July 01, 2021, 03:57:57 PM
Post by: KITNfury on November 16, 2021, 09:52:07 AM
They aren't home runs, probably getting a slight discount from retail, but not a lot. But they fit my criteria. They are 2 full duplexes, identical and side by side, in a good KC suburb. After year 1, they should cashflow around 5-8% of my down payment. That number will climb over the years as rent creeps up. But, I expect appreciation will be pretty good since the area is nice.
What I plan to do is give each kid one when they turn 18, or 21, or 25.....whenever I feel they are mature enough lol. But they should be able to take out a HELOC to pay for college, which the rental income will pay off. So they will essentially get free college. If college isn't the right fit for them, they could move out of my house, live in one side and the rent from the other should be high enough at that time to let them live mortgage/rent free. And if they are smart, they'll start saving like crazy.
Just a thought for anyone with young kids. Although the best way IMO, is if you can find a fixer and refinance all your personal cash out (or most of it), get a basically fully financed house that pays you each month, then do the HELOC thing to pay for their college. Then college becomes truly free. I wanted that, but I also wanted identical appreciation as to not potentially rip off one kid if one area went up a lot and the other did not haha. Anyway, this post is already longer than I intended, so......
Post by: meow meow on November 16, 2021, 10:22:27 AM
Post by: Justwin on November 16, 2021, 11:22:12 AM
Today I'm closing on my 2 kids "college funds".
They aren't home runs, probably getting a slight discount from retail, but not a lot. But they fit my criteria. They are 2 full duplexes, identical and side by side, in a good KC suburb. After year 1, they should cashflow around 5-8% of my down payment. That number will climb over the years as rent creeps up. But, I expect appreciation will be pretty good since the area is nice.
What I plan to do is give each kid one when they turn 18, or 21, or 25.....whenever I feel they are mature enough lol. But they should be able to take out a HELOC to pay for college, which the rental income will pay off. So they will essentially get free college. If college isn't the right fit for them, they could move out of my house, live in one side and the rent from the other should be high enough at that time to let them live mortgage/rent free. And if they are smart, they'll start saving like crazy.
Just a thought for anyone with young kids. Although the best way IMO, is if you can find a fixer and refinance all your personal cash out (or most of it), get a basically fully financed house that pays you each month, then do the HELOC thing to pay for their college. Then college becomes truly free. I wanted that, but I also wanted identical appreciation as to not potentially rip off one kid if one area went up a lot and the other did not haha. Anyway, this post is already longer than I intended, so......
In no way is college truly free in your example.
Post by: KITNfury on November 16, 2021, 12:37:20 PM
It is as long as the property doesn't lose value. The down payment may not be easily accessed, but it's still there.Today I'm closing on my 2 kids "college funds".
They aren't home runs, probably getting a slight discount from retail, but not a lot. But they fit my criteria. They are 2 full duplexes, identical and side by side, in a good KC suburb. After year 1, they should cashflow around 5-8% of my down payment. That number will climb over the years as rent creeps up. But, I expect appreciation will be pretty good since the area is nice.
What I plan to do is give each kid one when they turn 18, or 21, or 25.....whenever I feel they are mature enough lol. But they should be able to take out a HELOC to pay for college, which the rental income will pay off. So they will essentially get free college. If college isn't the right fit for them, they could move out of my house, live in one side and the rent from the other should be high enough at that time to let them live mortgage/rent free. And if they are smart, they'll start saving like crazy.
Just a thought for anyone with young kids. Although the best way IMO, is if you can find a fixer and refinance all your personal cash out (or most of it), get a basically fully financed house that pays you each month, then do the HELOC thing to pay for their college. Then college becomes truly free. I wanted that, but I also wanted identical appreciation as to not potentially rip off one kid if one area went up a lot and the other did not haha. Anyway, this post is already longer than I intended, so......
In no way is college truly free in your example.
Example:
Buy something worth $200,000. And let's make some assumptions that are not guaranteed to happen, but are likely.
Assumptions:
- 7% ROI based on down payment on average over 15 years
- Home value increase of 2% per year
Ok, so you buy this $200k property and have to put $40k as a down payment. In 15 years, assuming you get a 30 year mortgage at 4.125%, you will owe about $104k. It will also be worth around $270k. You would have about $165k in equity. So, you could simply sell the house, pay yourself back the $40k, and have $125k leftover to pay for college. Less actually due to capital gains, but you get the picture.
And oh by the way, you've been getting 7% on your down payment, totaling $42k over the 15 years. So you doubled your investment and paid for college.
Or, you could sell the property to your kid to get your $40k back. Since you would owe $104k, you would sell it for $144k to pay off the loan and get your $40k. They would then have a property with around $136k in equity. Plenty to take out a HELOC for college that the renters would pay back down.
Lots of scenarios that work fantastically as long as the property does not drop in value. Granted, the money is tied up (assuming you don't do a cash-out refinance at some point), but it's still there.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 16, 2021, 01:29:55 PM
Post by: wetwillie on November 16, 2021, 01:46:14 PM
Post by: catastrophe on November 16, 2021, 02:56:22 PM
I take it you believe there is more upside with the investment property but there is obviously more risk and work between debt management and property maintenance.
All that said, seems like a good intro to real estate for the kids if you ask me. I do wish I had more exposure to that investment vehicle growing up because at this point I’ve entirely lost interest in it.
Post by: KITNfury on November 16, 2021, 04:27:08 PM
Post by: KITNfury on November 16, 2021, 04:28:14 PM
I feel like that works really well with multiple properties but when you just have 1 you then have possibilities/probability of new roof, siding, updates, furnance, a/c, heater goes out. Still worthwhile in long run?I factor in all capital expenditures, like a new roof, into my projected ROI.
Post by: sys on November 16, 2021, 08:28:58 PM
In no way is college truly free in your example.
:lol:
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 19, 2021, 11:40:17 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on November 19, 2021, 12:23:36 PM
was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned using a self directed IRA to purchase real estate. Seemed like an interesting concept
I think self-directed IRAs are difficult to get approved.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on November 19, 2021, 01:16:38 PM
Yeah, didn't sound like it was for the average joe.was listening to a podcast the other day that mentioned using a self directed IRA to purchase real estate. Seemed like an interesting concept
I think self-directed IRAs are difficult to get approved.
Post by: KITNfury on November 19, 2021, 03:17:48 PM
I'd look at a syndication if I were using an IRA. Keep it completely passive.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 06, 2021, 04:51:36 PM
Post by: steve dave on December 06, 2021, 04:56:33 PM
Post by: wetwillie on December 06, 2021, 05:10:34 PM
Post by: steve dave on December 06, 2021, 05:12:25 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 06, 2021, 05:14:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on December 06, 2021, 05:36:09 PM
Post by: catastrophe on December 06, 2021, 05:38:46 PM
So long as you don’t think there’s a good chance of selling your house before then, ink that deal.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 06, 2021, 06:27:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on December 06, 2021, 06:28:48 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wetwillie on December 06, 2021, 06:42:01 PM
Any tax ramifications on a cash out refi that I’m not aware of? Feel like Uncle Sam has a way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Welcome to tax free income, it’s how the wealthy avoid taxes.
Post by: catastrophe on December 06, 2021, 06:46:04 PM
Post by: KITNfury on December 06, 2021, 06:51:08 PM
Yeah actually if you’re piling on debt against your house it can be a net tax positive because of the mortgage interest deduction.I think heloc interest deductions are possible, but not automatic.
Post by: catastrophe on December 06, 2021, 06:59:08 PM
Post by: KITNfury on December 06, 2021, 07:17:36 PM
High inflation favors the debtor.
Post by: KITNfury on January 06, 2022, 09:20:35 AM
https://www.stessa.com/blog/the-2022-winter-housing-market-heating-up/
https://www.zillow.com/research/november-2021-market-report-30427/
Post by: steve dave on January 06, 2022, 09:46:17 AM
Post by: wetwillie on January 06, 2022, 10:15:18 AM
Post by: KITNfury on January 06, 2022, 10:55:30 AM
@KITNfury do you do any air bnb’s with your rentals?I haven't yet, but probably inevitable that I give it a try at some point. Maybe soon. Have a house my partner and I were going to flip but I think we're going to keep it via BRRRR strategy. Might make it a short term rental, but not sure yet. Also want to do it with my own house. I'll be traveling the lower 48 basically fulltime for around 1 year (at least that's the plan). Not selling my house either way, but considering STR so if I decide to come home early, it's not tied up in a long term lease.
One interesting thing about STRs is that there are people literally getting rich by air bnb arbitrage. They essentially rent apartments (and let the landlord know the plan so they are on board), and then list those apartments for short term rentals and collecting the difference between rent and STR income. You just need to come up with the deposit, rent, and furnishings. Not necessarily "cheap", but less money typically than buying at 20% down. Like anything else, need to run the numbers right.
Post by: wetwillie on January 06, 2022, 10:57:14 AM
Post by: KITNfury on January 06, 2022, 11:13:59 AM
Yea I have a buddy that’s jumping into real estate and going to give the air bnb thing a go. I imagine it comes with more headaches but the ROI looks phenomenal.I personally would not consider self managing them, but yea the numbers can be very good. More hands on, but more returns assuming the right location and dwelling. I wouldn't buy one unless it would still at least sort of work for a traditional rental. If the numbers only work as an STR, you do run the risk of the local jurisdiction shutting down STRs. Some places, like Hawaii, have very limited (legal) STRs.
Post by: puniraptor on January 06, 2022, 11:02:39 PM
except as investment property and then the rate isnt tastie enough.
Post by: KITNfury on January 07, 2022, 01:17:43 PM
apparently since i dont live in my house and it is rented out, nobody will touch me with a refi :(What rate were you quoted?
except as investment property and then the rate isnt tastie enough.
Post by: KITNfury on January 08, 2022, 12:42:42 PM
Yea I have a buddy that’s jumping into real estate and going to give the air bnb thing a go. I imagine it comes with more headaches but the ROI looks phenomenal.Talked with a short term rental manager the other day and what he said was promising. Based on that convo, it might produce $500-1000 per month in profit after all expenses. That's crazy.
If it actually works out that way, I'll definitely start picking up some others.
Post by: wetwillie on January 08, 2022, 01:06:29 PM
Yea I have a buddy that’s jumping into real estate and going to give the air bnb thing a go. I imagine it comes with more headaches but the ROI looks phenomenal.Talked with a short term rental manager the other day and what he said was promising. Based on that convo, it might produce $500-1000 per month in profit after all expenses. That's crazy.
If it actually works out that way, I'll definitely start picking up some others.
Who’s the regulatory agency that would play party spoiler on STR regulation? It’s the only thing that makes me a bit nervous.
Post by: KITNfury on January 08, 2022, 01:22:23 PM
Probably the biggest threat would simply be the city or potentially an HOA from what I understand. For instance I think Kansas City has some sort of regulation on what percentage of units in a multifamily can be STR. So no turning a 12 unit into a small hotel. They could probably decide to "outlaw" it altogether if they wanted. I wouldn't think too many cities want to do that, though.Yea I have a buddy that’s jumping into real estate and going to give the air bnb thing a go. I imagine it comes with more headaches but the ROI looks phenomenal.Talked with a short term rental manager the other day and what he said was promising. Based on that convo, it might produce $500-1000 per month in profit after all expenses. That's crazy.
If it actually works out that way, I'll definitely start picking up some others.
Who’s the regulatory agency that would play party spoiler on STR regulation? It’s the only thing that makes me a bit nervous.
Post by: KITNfury on January 17, 2022, 12:20:01 PM
Post by: KITNfury on June 18, 2022, 04:09:06 PM
Post by: wetwillie on June 18, 2022, 05:54:31 PM
Post by: KITNfury on June 18, 2022, 06:03:39 PM
Has it become harder for you to find new investment properties since all the SFH are being snatched up by investment banks?Most people I've spoken to on this topic over estimate the percentage of housing being bought up by these big firms.
But I don't really do much with SFH, so it's not something that directly affects me. No personal experience going up against them.
Post by: wetwillie on June 18, 2022, 06:08:34 PM
Post by: KITNfury on June 18, 2022, 08:13:34 PM
Swooping in on them apartment buildings huh famI prefer apartments over SFH, but there are benefits to both.
Post by: catastrophe on June 18, 2022, 09:25:45 PM
Is it my turn to take it in the shorts or will I just continue pity my stock/crypto buds? Stay tuned!!It seems like it’s all linked. I’m completely disillusioned on the whole “diverse portfolio” concept.
Post by: Institutional Control on June 18, 2022, 09:30:37 PM
#thanksobama
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on June 18, 2022, 09:32:43 PM
A house for sale in our neighborhood just dropped their asking price by $150k this week.Anecdotally inventory in my area has finally started to improve, but prices are still very ouch.
#thanksobama
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Institutional Control on June 18, 2022, 09:36:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on June 18, 2022, 10:45:12 PM
There's definitely some truth to that, but I always figured diversification was a defensive move against losing it all, Enron style.Is it my turn to take it in the shorts or will I just continue pity my stock/crypto buds? Stay tuned!!It seems like it’s all linked. I’m completely disillusioned on the whole “diverse portfolio” concept.
Post by: DQ12 on June 23, 2022, 12:02:11 PM
Post by: KITNfury on June 23, 2022, 01:20:43 PM
Is it at all worthwhile to get a license to cut down on some commission costs?Some people think so, but I've never seriously considered it.
Post by: steve dave on April 14, 2023, 09:27:43 AM
https://twitter.com/daniromerotv/status/1646879986937380865?s=46&t=odWzhuZU7P443NcVwlC1iQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on April 14, 2023, 09:53:40 AM
When executives demand returning to the office this is why, obviously
https://twitter.com/daniromerotv/status/1646879986937380865?s=46&t=odWzhuZU7P443NcVwlC1iQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think there's gonna be a bubble there when long term leases expire. Not enough finance bros to prop that market up imo.
Post by: Spracne on April 14, 2023, 10:13:36 AM
Post by: DQ12 on April 14, 2023, 02:15:07 PM
When executives demand returning to the office this is why, obviouslyIt seems to me that a lot of commercial real estate could be converted to residential.
https://twitter.com/daniromerotv/status/1646879986937380865?s=46&t=odWzhuZU7P443NcVwlC1iQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 14, 2023, 02:46:55 PM
Is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?
Yes.
Post by: catastrophe on April 14, 2023, 04:05:51 PM
Post by: wetwillie on April 14, 2023, 04:13:07 PM
Our office is currently in the bizarre position of being basically empty at least half of the week but having no “space” for new hires.
Same. HR has come to the brilliant conclusion that more people are in the office on Wednesday than any other day though, so they will figure it out eventually.
Post by: steve dave on April 14, 2023, 04:25:44 PM
Our office is currently in the bizarre position of being basically empty at least half of the week but having no “space” for new hires.
this is very common. we also allocate expenses to business units based on their desks. we actually started letting our people work fully remote in 2018 to just cut out that cost completely. thank god we aren't stuck holding that bag now like everyone else.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 14, 2023, 05:44:01 PM
(https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/55/52/07/360_F_55520798_34JWTvaLqAB5fpAEtcYM2zs4lL24qCTj.jpg)
Post by: ben ji on April 14, 2023, 06:12:09 PM
My office is 10 minutes from my house so I go in most days but am 100% WFH on Friday afternoons. Really I only go in because I'm more productive and I get stir crazy spending an entire day in my house.
Post by: steve dave on April 14, 2023, 07:49:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on April 14, 2023, 08:57:56 PM
Post by: Spracne on April 14, 2023, 09:08:17 PM
My office doesn't have mandatory in office but I work in physical products and it's honestly next to impossible to do 100% remote. But we have people (one person) on the team who suck and oddly enough they never come in so I'm thinking about making in office mandatory so they leave (hopefully). Would have fired this person but they got pregnant.
Moving to NYC made you hard in a hurry.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 14, 2023, 09:13:33 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 14, 2023, 09:15:53 PM
Post by: steve dave on April 14, 2023, 09:36:42 PM
My office doesn't have mandatory in office but I work in physical products and it's honestly next to impossible to do 100% remote. But we have people (one person) on the team who suck and oddly enough they never come in so I'm thinking about making in office mandatory so they leave (hopefully). Would have fired this person but they got pregnant.
Moving to NYC made you hard in a hurry.
if someone asked me if I just tried "justin vernon suit" and "bon iver suit" in an AI image generator and came away unimpressed so didn't post it I'd be forced to say no. THEN I'd burn in eternal hellfire for being a liar.
Post by: tdaver on April 14, 2023, 11:03:46 PM
My company has a 3 day in the office, 2 day WFH policy.
That’s my dream scenario, but full time officer here. :sad:
Post by: steve dave on April 14, 2023, 11:21:08 PM
How much you makin’ clearly wantin’ to brag bro?My company has a 3 day in the office, 2 day WFH policy.
That’s my dream scenario, but full time officer here. :sad:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: tdaver on April 14, 2023, 11:45:53 PM
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 15, 2023, 12:42:11 AM
If I was ever told I had to go back into the office at all I would quit on the spot. Too addicted to my home field and the flexibility with kids activities and whatnot. Obviously I travel for work and get my team in for meetings and crap but just daily bullshit isn’t happening. Also I could probably go a full year without “needing” anything more than my phone. Laptop makes pounding out long emails easier but I could throw it in the river and nobody would know for probably 6 months at least.Same. I have the coworking space for when I want to be in an office but I would never take a job I couldn’t be fully remote ever again. I invested a lot of money in my office and love the flexibility it affords.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kat Kid on April 15, 2023, 07:37:06 AM
I will take the other side of that. If you think the market will solve that, I have some bad news for you. If cities do this, then they will get worked over on the terms and bail someone out and it will produce like one building that costs $400 billion that no one wants to live in.When executives demand returning to the office this is why, obviouslyIt seems to me that a lot of commercial real estate could be converted to residential.
https://twitter.com/daniromerotv/status/1646879986937380865?s=46&t=odWzhuZU7P443NcVwlC1iQ
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KST8FAN on April 15, 2023, 11:05:17 AM
Tom
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: sys on April 15, 2023, 05:21:42 PM
they (at least or so i was told) were desperate to fire her, but were afraid to. i left before she came back from her second maternity leave so i don't have a resolution to the story.
Post by: steve dave on April 15, 2023, 10:02:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on April 16, 2023, 08:53:06 AM
Post by: steve dave on April 16, 2023, 06:22:26 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on April 20, 2023, 08:57:28 AM
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DQ12 on April 21, 2023, 10:23:07 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 10:32:01 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’d both be nimbys if anyone tried to build a high rise next to your homes
Post by: DQ12 on April 21, 2023, 10:44:40 AM
Maybe, but it'd be a weird circumstance to build a high-rise next to my home. There is definitely a big, unsightly apartment building adjacent to my neighborhood though.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’d both be nimbys if anyone tried to build a high rise next to your homes
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 10:46:10 AM
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 10:46:52 AM
Maybe, but it'd be a weird circumstance to build a high-rise next to my home. There is definitely a big, unsightly apartment building adjacent to my neighborhood though.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’d both be nimbys if anyone tried to build a high rise next to your homes
every nimby thinks it would be a weird circumstance to build a high rise next to their home
Post by: Spracne on April 21, 2023, 10:52:17 AM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on April 21, 2023, 11:36:42 AM
out in the boonies: private property absolutist
Post by: pissclams on April 21, 2023, 01:03:52 PM
Maybe, but it'd be a weird circumstance to build a high-rise next to my home. There is definitely a big, unsightly apartment building adjacent to my neighborhood though.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’d both be nimbys if anyone tried to build a high rise next to your homes
prairie village is exploring the idea of letting people build what equates to carriage houses in residents’ back yards and letting them rent them out in an effort to create more affordable housing. the lots in pv generally are tiny and homes are already built on top of each other.
i’m sure they are all on acid or some other type of drug
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 01:11:24 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on April 21, 2023, 01:19:45 PM
Maybe, but it'd be a weird circumstance to build a high-rise next to my home. There is definitely a big, unsightly apartment building adjacent to my neighborhood though.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230420/439c592b3341604ebc30c778e172d1c7.jpg)Yeah, I'm either there or Streets Cleaner.
I think I’m a Market Urbanist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’d both be nimbys if anyone tried to build a high rise next to your homes
every nimby thinks it would be a weird circumstance to build a high rise next to their home
Dunno what exactly is considered high rise, but they're going to put up a big multistory mixed use place about a block and a half from me. I'm fine with it.
Post by: cfbandyman on April 21, 2023, 01:54:38 PM
We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 02:11:27 PM
We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
*Snob alert*
Brooklyn is actually a well-designed suburb (or a lot of it is) close to what you describe. Incredibly pleasant place to live but designed to "live" and commute to Manhattan. Biggest issue is its transit is too "suburban" which can make traveling within Brooklyn a bit of a pain compared to going into Manhattan.
I don't think you can create a new community like that though.
Post by: DQ12 on April 21, 2023, 02:30:06 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Post by: Spracne on April 21, 2023, 02:43:39 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 02:44:49 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
I’m sure they are completely unrelated
Post by: cfbandyman on April 21, 2023, 02:46:30 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
I’m sure they are completely unrelated
100%, also notice I didn't say we couldn't have both, but def we zone to make sure we don't have both
Post by: CNS on April 21, 2023, 02:49:05 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 02:50:03 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Does the KC metro have a housing crisis?
Post by: Spracne on April 21, 2023, 02:56:42 PM
suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Does the KC metro have a housing crisis?
I don't know. I don't live there. PV seems to think it does. I'm speaking on a macro level--across all metros.
Post by: pissclams on April 21, 2023, 02:57:11 PM
it depends on who you asksuburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Does the KC metro have a housing crisis?
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 03:08:46 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on April 21, 2023, 03:14:35 PM
Is it really a crisis?suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Post by: OB_Won on April 21, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
It wasn't just a few years ago.Is it really a crisis?suburbia rough ridin' rules. yards. bigger houses. garages. buffalo wilds wings.We should all be living in highly dense multi family units but I hate the thought of it.
IMO, while I am fine with single family homes it's too much, as is too much urban. Europe has it most right, row houses and mid dense apartments/condos with walkable areas and spaces should be the norm. Cottages/single family as you get away from city centers but still keep it "not surburban"
Really whatever helps with walkability and less dependent on cars, with some good public transportation.
row housing is small and stupid and devoid of yards. i don't want to a share a wall with my neighbors. maybe i could live with it if i lived in a shrimpy country like the UK, but here in america, we got room to enjoy ourselves a bit.
Yet we still have a housing crisis. Curious!
Post by: yoga-like_abana on April 21, 2023, 03:26:01 PM
Post by: Spracne on April 21, 2023, 03:49:09 PM
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 03:55:28 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on April 21, 2023, 04:01:55 PM
We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.So first world crisis?
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
Post by: star seed 7 on April 21, 2023, 04:03:29 PM
Post by: sys on April 21, 2023, 04:04:49 PM
We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.So first world crisis?
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
anglo world crisis. it doesn't seem to happen much in non-english speaking countries.
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 04:11:00 PM
We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.So first world crisis?
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
anglo world crisis. it doesn't seem to happen much in non-english speaking countries.
Depends on how you categorize a crisis but there are definitely affordability challenges in Berlin and Vietnam (off the top of my head). I'm sure there are way more places with similar issues
Post by: sys on April 21, 2023, 04:16:30 PM
Quote
The cost of living in Berlin is just above the European average and yet the vibrant city is the cheapest capital city in Western Europe
https://housinganywhere.com/Berlin--Germany/cost-of-living-berlin
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 04:19:51 PM
We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
All of those places have areas zoned for high rises.
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 04:20:33 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 04:25:57 PM
Like I said depends on how you define a crisisQuoteThe cost of living in Berlin is just above the European average and yet the vibrant city is the cheapest capital city in Western Europe
https://housinganywhere.com/Berlin--Germany/cost-of-living-berlin
Quote
Berlin’s soaring rents, increasing 85% between 2007 and 2019, are tremendously impacting the population, of which 80% rent their homes.
https://theeconreview.com/2022/11/30/berlins-worsening-housing-crisis-how-a-failed-rental-referendum-impacted-its-population-and-europes-refugees/
Plus western European capitols aren't exactly affordable!
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 04:35:04 PM
That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 05:01:35 PM
You sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
Post by: Spracne on April 21, 2023, 05:06:28 PM
Again, this is on a macro scale. I'm not accusing any of you of being guilty of anything in particular. And as I acknowledged, it is very location-dependent. Still, a third of Americans live in metros that wrestle (poorly) with this problem. More density and fewer cars would be better for many, many reasons, but I understand that's not a very white-midwestern-popular stance. But it's mine, and I'll own it.
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 05:52:05 PM
You sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 07:08:37 PM
I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Post by: pissclams on April 21, 2023, 08:35:42 PM
what do you think, clams?if you don’t want to call it a crisis right now, that’s ok. as spracs has said, the definition is debatable. what’s not debatable is that the current situation is only going to get much much worse in very short order. there’s a snowball going downhill and gaining momentum and a lot of good people will get run over by it.
it’s really unfortunate how we treat each other.
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 08:39:37 PM
what do you think, clams?if you don’t want to call it a crisis right now, that’s ok. as spracs has said, the definition is debatable. what’s not debatable is that the current situation is only going to get much much worse in very short order. there’s a snowball going downhill and gaining momentum and a lot of good people will get run over by it.
it’s really unfortunate how we treat each other.
FWIW I honestly don't have an opinion on the KC housing market and was curious what your take was. (I don't have the knowledge to form an opinion tbh)
Post by: DQ12 on April 21, 2023, 08:52:43 PM
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
Post by: OB_Won on April 21, 2023, 09:14:33 PM
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 09:25:25 PM
Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 09:29:13 PM
I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 09:34:48 PM
Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Do u think prices are higher in joco bc of zoning :lol:
Post by: wetwillie on April 21, 2023, 09:36:11 PM
Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Do u think prices are higher in joco bc of zoning :lol:
No, I think dlew is out of touch with median home prices
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 09:37:29 PM
Mostly policy makers and the voting public. But a sizeable portion of the voting public wants housing prices to be as high as possible! It's a tricky problem!I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Post by: michigancat on April 21, 2023, 09:40:59 PM
Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Do u think prices are higher in joco bc of zoning
No, I think dlew is out of touch with median home prices
To be fair he clearly said "in/around Kansas City".
Post by: DQ12 on April 21, 2023, 09:56:23 PM
I don’t think anyone would disagree that housing prices have increased significantly since 2018. Is a significant increase in median price a crisis? If it is, then yeah we’re in a crisis.Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Do u think prices are higher in joco bc of zoning :lol:
No, I think dlew is out of touch with median home prices
Fwiw, median price in wyco is 200k.
Post by: kim carnes on April 21, 2023, 10:38:38 PM
Mostly policy makers and the voting public. But a sizeable portion of the voting public wants housing prices to be as high as possible! It's a tricky problem!I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Did you not see the part where policymakers are allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes or…
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 04:09:56 AM
Mostly policy makers and the voting public. But a sizeable portion of the voting public wants housing prices to be as high as possible! It's a tricky problem!I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Did you not see the part where policymakers are allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes or…
Do you think "allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes" is an aggressive policy or...
Post by: steve dave on April 22, 2023, 06:39:35 AM
I have some shocking news about what literally everything on the planet costs today v. what it cost in 2018.Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.
I’m in favor of building more apartments/#plexes. And i think they are, at least w/r/t apartments.
The median home price in joco is 420k
https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market (https://www.redfin.com/county/1050/KS/Johnson-County/housing-market)
It was 280k in 2018.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pissclams on April 22, 2023, 07:58:11 AM
Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.affordable for who?
Post by: pissclams on April 22, 2023, 07:59:11 AM
what do you think, clams?if you don’t want to call it a crisis right now, that’s ok. as spracs has said, the definition is debatable. what’s not debatable is that the current situation is only going to get much much worse in very short order. there’s a snowball going downhill and gaining momentum and a lot of good people will get run over by it.
it’s really unfortunate how we treat each other.
FWIW I honestly don't have an opinion on the KC housing market and was curious what your take was. (I don't have the knowledge to form an opinion tbh)
i know, i wasn’t suggesting that you were saying one or the other.
Post by: DQ12 on April 22, 2023, 08:00:49 AM
People who can afford houses for at or around 300k.Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.affordable for who?
Post by: Justwin on April 22, 2023, 08:40:20 AM
We aren't building enough housing where it's needed (where people want/need to live). As to the definition of a crisis, we could quibble about the meaning of that. If you want to call it a "major housing problem" for mollification purposes, I'm alright with that, too. It's a major problem in big(ger) cities.So first world crisis?
The inability to build more housing seems like the #1 factor in the affordability crisis we're seeing in major cities. It also seems like being a NIMBY is the most broadly bipartisan position held by Americans. Yes, it varies by city. But about a third of all Americans live in metros with major affordability problems. “Major affordability” problems meaning the median income is nowhere close to enough to own a home in the city. Places like LA, NY, SF, but also Seattle, Austin, Denver, San Diego, Miami, etc.
anglo world crisis. it doesn't seem to happen much in non-english speaking countries.
I remember listening to someone who I believe was an aid worker and they said that Port-au-Prince had some of the highest housing prices in the world. I don't know if that is still the case today.
Post by: KITNfury on April 22, 2023, 09:18:43 AM
If it’s really a problem, maybe they should stop corporations from owning 1000’s of homes. Or, has KITN and his umpteen houses contributed to the discussion? Maybe tax the ever loving crap out of >2 homes and earmark it to subsidize housing?Houses are not my niche. I wouldn't say I support wall street buying houses, though. At same time, if the government wants to get involved, promote the building of houses through whatever incentive makes the most sense.
Post by: CNS on April 22, 2023, 11:08:33 AM
Friend of mine had a house fire during Covid and had to rent a house in my town while his was being rebuilt. He needed min 3 bedrooms and there were only 2 on the market, both at 3br. Both are in slight disrepair(for example he couldn’t use the deck on the one he eventually rented due to it being unsafe). He went with the slightly less expensive one for $3,500/month.
Houses in this town that were $110k 5yrs ago are going in the low to mid $200’s now.
One of the issues in my town is that one local builder owns nearly all the undeveloped land and is developing one neighborhood at a time. I say that loosely, because he hasn’t started the next phase and the neighborhood has been full for about 2-3yr.
The material pricing craziness harmed prices, and affected house costs and rents, but the lack of skilled labor is even more so the problem around here. I am currently hiring at my company and indeed.com is filthy with out of work carpenters who have been making $90-$110/yr for the last 3-4 yrs.
In my town, I don’t think zoning will help.
To expand to discussing the region, I think one of the best things that could be done would be regulating so that homes can’t be purchased by investment groups. Maybe a law that you can’t own more than a 2-3 houses.
Post by: Spracne on April 22, 2023, 11:14:49 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on April 22, 2023, 12:03:30 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 22, 2023, 12:12:56 PM
People who can afford houses for at or around 300k.Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.affordable for who?
What percentage of the population would you say this is?
Post by: kim carnes on April 22, 2023, 12:14:58 PM
Mostly policy makers and the voting public. But a sizeable portion of the voting public wants housing prices to be as high as possible! It's a tricky problem!I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Did you not see the part where policymakers are allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes or…
Do you think "allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes" is an aggressive policy or...
You literally said four-plexes were the solution my dude…
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 12:16:00 PM
OkMostly policy makers and the voting public. But a sizeable portion of the voting public wants housing prices to be as high as possible! It's a tricky problem!I mean clearly they need to be more aggressiveYou sure about that?That’s the beauty of it. No one really wants to live in one.
Exactly, but more specifically they don’t want to live in areas zoned for high rises
Anyway I don't think high rises are a solution, build something like 4 plexes in places like SF
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/)
The future is now, old man
Who is they? Humans?
Did you not see the part where policymakers are allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes or…
Do you think "allowing people to build four units on lots zoned for single family homes" is an aggressive policy or...
You literally said four-plexes were the solution my dude…
Post by: CNS on April 22, 2023, 12:20:24 PM
Very civil discussion. Good job, everyone. I agree that something needs to be done about investment groups buying up single-family homes at an alarming clip, but I'm unsure what can be done, legally.
I would assume that this could be regulated just like the banking industry could be regulated. By passing a law at the federal level. Maybe that could only stop investors buying properties outside of their state? I don’t know, but this one thing is going to drive a dreary future for our kids if something isn’t resolved or some other changes aren’t made to the relief of the market.
Home ownership is basically the secret to building middle class wealth in America and “starter” homes are now too expensive to be starter homes. This also ties heavily into depressed wages and increases in college costs/loans.
I fear for America’s middle class.
Post by: KITNfury on April 22, 2023, 01:10:50 PM
CNS that's crazy. My mom rents a 3br in PV for $1800I don't the exact situation there, but 3500/mo is very high for almost any kc suburb, and those that can command those prices don't have junky decks.
Post by: KITNfury on April 22, 2023, 01:12:46 PM
If foreign people can buy property here, I better be able to buy out of state.Very civil discussion. Good job, everyone. I agree that something needs to be done about investment groups buying up single-family homes at an alarming clip, but I'm unsure what can be done, legally.
I would assume that this could be regulated just like the banking industry could be regulated. By passing a law at the federal level. Maybe that could only stop investors buying properties outside of their state? I don’t know, but this one thing is going to drive a dreary future for our kids if something isn’t resolved or some other changes aren’t made to the relief of the market.
Home ownership is basically the secret to building middle class wealth in America and “starter” homes are now too expensive to be starter homes. This also ties heavily into depressed wages and increases in college costs/loans.
I fear for America’s middle class.
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 01:14:41 PM
Post by: kim carnes on April 22, 2023, 01:17:57 PM
Post by: CNS on April 22, 2023, 02:19:35 PM
If foreign people can buy property here, I better be able to buy out of state.Very civil discussion. Good job, everyone. I agree that something needs to be done about investment groups buying up single-family homes at an alarming clip, but I'm unsure what can be done, legally.
I would assume that this could be regulated just like the banking industry could be regulated. By passing a law at the federal level. Maybe that could only stop investors buying properties outside of their state? I don’t know, but this one thing is going to drive a dreary future for our kids if something isn’t resolved or some other changes aren’t made to the relief of the market.
Home ownership is basically the secret to building middle class wealth in America and “starter” homes are now too expensive to be starter homes. This also ties heavily into depressed wages and increases in college costs/loans.
I fear for America’s middle class.
I think that foreigner ownership should not be allowed either.
Post by: CNS on April 22, 2023, 02:21:03 PM
CNS that's crazy. My mom rents a 3br in PV for $1800I don't the exact situation there, but 3500/mo is very high for almost any kc suburb, and those that can command those prices don't have junky decks.
It’s just one anecdotal case, and it was a couple years ago. We have a big inventory problem in my town. It’s crazy.
Post by: catastrophe on April 22, 2023, 02:37:59 PM
When housing has a profit motive and the government doesn't guarantee housing for everyone, a housing crisis is kinda inevitableYou realize you’re basically just critiquing capitalism.
Post by: steve dave on April 22, 2023, 03:16:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: star seed 7 on April 22, 2023, 03:51:06 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 05:03:17 PM
Yet michigancat participates in capitalism, curiousHe got me
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 05:38:02 PM
If it’s really a problem, maybe they should stop corporations from owning 1000’s of homes. Or, has KITN and his umpteen houses contributed to the discussion? Maybe tax the ever loving crap out of >2 homes and earmark it to subsidize housing?
corporations (or kitn) owning houses doesn't decrease the number of dwellings available for people to live in.
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
I agree that something needs to be done about investment groups buying up single-family homes.I think that foreigner ownership should not be allowed either.
you people are legit insane.
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 05:45:39 PM
Home ownership is basically the secret to building middle class wealth in America and “starter” homes are now too expensive to be starter homes.
very hard for the same asset to serve as a continually appreciating investment and an inexpensive consumer good.
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 05:46:28 PM
When housing has a profit motive and the government doesn't guarantee housing for everyone, a housing crisis is kinda inevitable
you people are legit insane.
Post by: DQ12 on April 22, 2023, 07:01:41 PM
The population looking to buy a house? Probably a pretty sizable portion.People who can afford houses for at or around 300k.Fwiw, I don’t really think there’s a housing crisis in KC. There’s plenty of affordable (~>300k) houses in/around KC. Maybe not just really affordable nice houses.affordable for who?
What percentage of the population would you say this is?
Post by: CNS on April 22, 2023, 07:02:48 PM
Home ownership is basically the secret to building middle class wealth in America and “starter” homes are now too expensive to be starter homes.
very hard for the same asset to serve as a continually appreciating investment and an inexpensive consumer good.
Yet that is pretty much what has happened for several generations.
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 07:55:39 PM
Yet that is pretty much what has happened for several generations.
before we look at the data, i'd like to know how you think that is possible. what is the mechanism?
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 11:13:28 PM
When housing has a profit motive and the government doesn't guarantee housing for everyone, a housing crisis is kinda inevitable
you people are legit insane.
I don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
Post by: sys on April 22, 2023, 11:19:49 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=42455.msg2216957#msg2216957 date=1682223208
I don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
[/quote
I don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
[/quote
it's one of the stupidest things i've ever read (non-dax edition), contradicted by both empirical evidence and logic from first principles.
Post by: michigancat on April 22, 2023, 11:20:37 PM
You need to settle downI don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
it's one of the stupidest things i've ever read (non-dax edition), contradicted by both empirical evidence and logic from first principles.
Post by: kim carnes on April 22, 2023, 11:57:47 PM
You need to settle downI don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
it's one of the stupidest things i've ever read (non-dax edition), contradicted by both empirical evidence and logic from first principles.
Explain how it would work so you can be endlessly ridiculed and laughed at
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2023, 07:31:29 AM
You need to settle downI don't see any sort of realistic fix out there but what I said is pretty rational.
it's one of the stupidest things i've ever read (non-dax edition), contradicted by both empirical evidence and logic from first principles.
Explain how it would work so you can be endlessly ridiculed and laughed at
I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
Post by: OB_Won on April 23, 2023, 10:49:35 AM
Nope, it doesn’t. But, it’s not even debatable that it decreases the affordability of those homes.If it’s really a problem, maybe they should stop corporations from owning 1000’s of homes. Or, has KITN and his umpteen houses contributed to the discussion? Maybe tax the ever loving crap out of >2 homes and earmark it to subsidize housing?
corporations (or kitn) owning houses doesn't decrease the number of dwellings available for people to live in.
There’s little doubt most of us can afford >$300K homes. But, look at the MEDIAN family income. The DTI stress placed on these folks is disheartening.
Post by: sys on April 23, 2023, 05:31:27 PM
But, it’s not even debatable that it decreases the affordability of those homes.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). of course it doesn't.
1. the demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged.
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs.
why do people get irrationally outraged at the idea of sfhs as rentals, but do not feel the same about multifamily housing? it's very strange.
Post by: sys on April 23, 2023, 05:40:04 PM
Yet that is pretty much what has happened for several generations.
before we look at the data, i'd like to know how you think that is possible. what is the mechanism?
oh well.
here's the data for the u.s. go down to the case-shiller home price index vs. cpi chart for the u.s. and hit all to see the full time series. you can see that until relatively recently, housing simply paced with inflation. there's also a similar chart for the u.k. farther down. kinda fun.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-vs-inflation/
Post by: KITNfury on April 23, 2023, 05:43:02 PM
I've actually learned how renting property out is unethical from lots of youngins on Twitter. It's a human right FFS!But, it’s not even debatable that it decreases the affordability of those homes.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). of course it doesn't.
1. the demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged.
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs.
why do people get irrationally outraged at the idea of sfhs as rentals, but do not feel the same about multifamily housing? it's very strange.
Post by: sys on April 23, 2023, 05:44:30 PM
I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
that's almost stupider, tbh. of course there's a realistic fix - reduce restrictions on the production of new housing.
Post by: steve dave on April 23, 2023, 06:14:22 PM
Yes, agree with all this.But, it’s not even debatable that it decreases the affordability of those homes.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). of course it doesn't.
1. the demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged.
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs.
why do people get irrationally outraged at the idea of sfhs as rentals, but do not feel the same about multifamily housing? it's very strange.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wetwillie on April 23, 2023, 06:52:09 PM
I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
that's almost stupider, tbh. of course there's a realistic fix - reduce restrictions on the production of new housing.
What kind of restrictions on new houses are preventing builders from constructing more of them?
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2023, 07:16:35 PM
I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
that's almost stupider, tbh. of course there's a realistic fix - reduce restrictions on the production of new housing.
I don't think that's politically realistic where it's most needed in the US. At least to remove restrictions in a way that would actually make a significant impact.
Post by: KITNfury on April 23, 2023, 07:43:39 PM
Depends where, but there can be many. One example is large set backs. It's obvious why this is "nice", but it drives up costs and reduces the quantity of houses.I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
that's almost stupider, tbh. of course there's a realistic fix - reduce restrictions on the production of new housing.
What kind of restrictions on new houses are preventing builders from constructing more of them?
Post by: Kat Kid on April 23, 2023, 07:51:49 PM
Depends where, but there can be many. One example is large set backs. It's obvious why this is "nice", but it drives up costs and reduces the quantity of houses.I literally said there isn't a realistic fix
that's almost stupider, tbh. of course there's a realistic fix - reduce restrictions on the production of new housing.
What kind of restrictions on new houses are preventing builders from constructing more of them?
this is a good one. people like the aesthetic of small, dense towns in europe (and in the US in older cities) but there is a relentless push for a 1950s suburban aesthetic for all.
I am not without blame, I live in suburban hell myself and it does have some positives, but it makes a lot of things really difficult and as someone that has followed some of these debates it is difficult to know what exactly is the right policy fix at the local/state/national level given the insane policy hurdles you face with entrenched real estate/homeowner interests at the smaller levels and the gridlock of national policy. I'm not sure i even know what would be workable if you had a magic wand and could just implement policy. I guess encouraging building and making more state owned housing would be where I would start, but state owned housing is pretty much a non-starter in this country so plenty of work to be done there.
Post by: sys on April 23, 2023, 08:04:32 PM
What kind of restrictions on new houses are preventing builders from constructing more of them?
zoning, permitting, required add ons that increase development costs.
Post by: sys on April 23, 2023, 08:10:31 PM
I don't think that's politically realistic where it's most needed in the US. At least to remove restrictions in a way that would actually make a significant impact.
When housing has a profit motive and the government doesn't guarantee housing for everyone, a housing crisis is kinda inevitable
there's nothing in your original statement about the current political realities in high-housing cost cities in the united states. in fact, it makes a general claim, implicitly arguing that local particulars are not relevant to the outcome.
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2023, 08:11:10 PM
I don't think that's politically realistic where it's most needed in the US. At least to remove restrictions in a way that would actually make a significant impact.When housing has a profit motive and the government doesn't guarantee housing for everyone, a housing crisis is kinda inevitable
there's nothing in your original statement about the current political realities in high-housing cost cities in the united states. in fact, it makes a general claim, implicitly arguing that local particulars are not relevant to the outcome.
Ok
Although the profits shape the politics (and vice versa)
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 09:15:44 AM
Yet that is pretty much what has happened for several generations.
before we look at the data, i'd like to know how you think that is possible. what is the mechanism?
oh well.
here's the data for the u.s. go down to the case-shiller home price index vs. cpi chart for the u.s. and hit all to see the full time series. you can see that until relatively recently, housing simply paced with inflation. there's also a similar chart for the u.k. farther down. kinda fun.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-vs-inflation/
Homes have always been a savings account that you get the dual benefit of being able to live in. It makes is easier to create personal wealth than paying rent then saving whatever is left.
Addressing the issue of affordability, and looking at the graph you presented, wages vs home price is a different graph. https://usafacts.org/data-projects/housing-vs-wages (https://usafacts.org/data-projects/housing-vs-wages). Houses have become more expensive while wages have lagged, making the house harder to get. Thus making the above benefit harder to get. I say this realizing that this isn't a clean issue and it isn't just a house affordability issue.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 09:22:31 AM
What kind of restrictions on new houses are preventing builders from constructing more of them?
zoning, permitting, required add ons that increase development costs.
I can get behind some of the zoning, for instance R1 vs R2(or more) could maybe become the same zone rating, but there definitely needs to be some control so that we don't end up with industrial and residential mixed.
I can get behind some of the permitting, but mostly the permitting(residentially) is to ensure that the home is designed to ensure the structure, sewage, etc will be sound. The cost of permitting pays for the inspections to double check this. This is definitely needed.
Post by: wetwillie on April 24, 2023, 10:17:17 AM
Post by: GregKSU1027 on April 24, 2023, 10:27:44 AM
Is 3D printing houses a thing that’s feasible at scale?Waiting on Disney to put this at Epcot or NASA to 3D print houses for Mars.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 11:25:40 AM
Is 3D printing houses a thing that’s feasible at scale?
Not without sci-fi level of tech that we don’t have. They are doing it in a very basic way, but even then it’s just a wall and not all the crap that goes into that wall, connections of that crap to anything, all the fixtures, appliances, etc, and absolutely zero finishes. Basically, the current 3D print cuts out the framer having to frame the walls but makes the concrete guys job much more involved(the 3D printer I have read about is a concrete printer) and probably adds additional needed work to make the 3D product usable with all the other things.
The best way to expedite res building at this point would be to make large leaps in the prefab side. Make walls, ceilings, etc that can be brought to site easily, handled quickly, and set in place and connected in a highly repeatable manner. This still wouldn’t eliminate any major components of the work, but if enough of it was set in place, and enough volume existed, it could probably bring the labor cost down through the manufacturing process. Basically like what Ford did for the car, rather than building your own car in your garage, but not as drastic as that.
We could also possibly build with things like tilt up concrete walls or precast walls shipped to site. I have no idea how that would compare to traditional framing as far as cost. Commercial loves it for its speed in getting a building built so that the biz can begin using the building really quickly. Again, there would still be a crap ton of finishes, plumbing, electrical, etc.
Post by: OB_Won on April 24, 2023, 01:22:06 PM
1. The demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged. - that's just simply not true in some parts of the country. Yes, there is a finite # of home buyers in the US, but when corporations decided to get in the mix the demand for housing drastically increases when 1 entity wants to buy 100's of homes.Yes, agree with all this.But, it’s not even debatable that it decreases the affordability of those homes.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). of course it doesn't.
1. the demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged.
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs.
why do people get irrationally outraged at the idea of sfhs as rentals, but do not feel the same about multifamily housing? it's very strange.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses. - No it doesn't, but it does take time and land to build, there are only so many builders, and the price of homes will continue to rise with demand. Also, many builders aren't even building homes for less than $300K any longer in major metros.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs - again, that's simply not true. In DFW they purchased 43% of homes sold in 2021 and that trend still continues.
why do people get irrationally outraged at the idea of sfhs as rentals, but do not feel the same about multifamily housing? - I'm not outraged, but I feel bad for my child who will have to work/save much harder than we all did to buy a home. Also, sfhs is a means of generating wealth.
All these have a trickle down effect. If a corp buys a bunch of homes in a neighborhood with cash and above asking price, ALL homes in neighborhood just became more expensive. Once home prices/rents increase, apartments raise their prices as well. The DTI new homebuyers/renters are on the hook for increases a bunch.
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-impact-of-institutional-buyers-on-home-sales-and-single-family-rentals-05-12-2022.pdf (https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-impact-of-institutional-buyers-on-home-sales-and-single-family-rentals-05-12-2022.pdf)
https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year (https://www.tpr.org/business/2022-06-14/investors-bought-nearly-a-third-of-all-homes-in-texas-last-year)
"Nearly a third of all homes sold in Texas last year went to a company or corporation that paid in cash, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors."
https://housemethod.com/blog/are-big-companies-buying-up-single-family-homes/ (https://housemethod.com/blog/are-big-companies-buying-up-single-family-homes/)
"According to data reported by the PEW Trust and originally gathered by CoreLogic, as of 2022, investment companies take up about a quarter of the single-family home market. Specifically, investor purchases accounted for 22% of all American homes in 2022. This number slightly decreased from last year (2021), which sat at 24%, with 90,215 homes in the third quarter alone. Over the last decade, the number of investors purchasing homes has increased from 10% to 15% each year, except for 2020 to 2021, which, according to a study by Redfin, saw an increase of over 80%. So, yes, investment and residential real estate companies are purchasing more and more American homes each year."
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 03:52:36 PM
Homes have always been a savings account that you get the dual benefit of being able to live in. It makes is easier to create personal wealth than paying rent then saving whatever is left.
Addressing the issue of affordability, and looking at the graph you presented, wages vs home price is a different graph. https://usafacts.org/data-projects/housing-vs-wages (https://usafacts.org/data-projects/housing-vs-wages). Houses have become more expensive while wages have lagged, making the house harder to get. Thus making the above benefit harder to get. I say this realizing that this isn't a clean issue and it isn't just a house affordability issue.
agree with you that home ownership can be financially beneficial as a way to force savings.
on the wages v inflation thing, wages have far outpaced inflation over any longer time period. that's how america became so crazy rich. over the period in your graph, the difference btwn home inflation and cpi is much greater (ca. 75 points) than was the case for home inflation v wages (ca. 20 points). of course lots of geographic variation as the article in your link details.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 03:55:10 PM
but mostly the permitting(residentially) is to ensure that the home is designed to ensure the structure, sewage, etc will be sound.
that's the case for sfh's in urban areas where it is relatively easy to build, but not the case in cities that have managed to create housing crises by making it difficult to build and definitely not the case for multifamily construction in those areas.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 04:04:06 PM
1. The demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged. - that's just simply not true in some parts of the country. Yes, there is a finite # of home buyers in the US, but when corporations decided to get in the mix the demand for housing drastically increases when 1 entity wants to buy 100's of homes.
they don't leave the houses empty or pack them up and ship them elsewhere. they rent the houses out. no reduction in supply.
2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses. - No it doesn't, but it does take time and land to build, there are only so many builders, and the price of homes will continue to rise with demand. Also, many builders aren't even building homes for less than $300K any longer in major metros.
300k is probably about cost of construction (in a low land cost, low labor cost metro area) for an entry-level type sfh. so yeah, resale prices aren't going to fall below that except in areas where no one wants to live.
3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs - again, that's simply not true. In DFW they purchased 43% of homes sold in 2021 and that trend still continues.
there are certainly areas where it is a higher % than nationwide, but the % of homes sold in 2021 is also a tiny fraction of the number of homes that exist.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 04:26:22 PM
but mostly the permitting(residentially) is to ensure that the home is designed to ensure the structure, sewage, etc will be sound.
that's the case for sfh's in urban areas where it is relatively easy to build, but not the case in cities that have managed to create housing crises by making it difficult to build and definitely not the case for multifamily construction in those areas.
Having built a tower in a metro area, permitting is more important there. The logistics are insane and the possibility of you rough ridin' up your neighbor's property, the general public, or the building you are building is infinitely higher. The quantity of inspections needed to ensure a large metro building is being built safely and up to code(lots of arguments about code but baseline it reinforces best building practices) is wild. The ability to harm other surrounding businesses with traffic issues(think large material delivery day after day after day) that can hugely negatively impact the coffee shop that no one can get to is a big issue. The ability to harm the public(think city pedestrians and large cranes lifting all that large material being delivered day after day), is ever present. The list is huge beyond that. These things are all part of what the city reviews to ensure that the building is good to go and so is all those around the building. It's hugely important.
When people talk about permitting being part of the problem, it makes me curious what we should back off of and where do they think that will lead us?
Post by: OB_Won on April 24, 2023, 04:31:29 PM
1. The demand for housing is unchanged, the supply is unchanged. - that's just simply not true in some parts of the country. Yes, there is a finite # of home buyers in the US, but when corporations decided to get in the mix the demand for housing drastically increases when 1 entity wants to buy 100's of homes.
they don't leave the houses empty or pack them up and ship them elsewhere. they rent the houses out. no reduction in supply.
Now tell me what happens to prices after demand drastically increases from multiple corps from all over the world bidding against each other for the same homes?
The same homes that were $200-$250K three or four years ago are now $350-$400k. There is simply no way a median family can afford that without putting themselves in serious financial hardship. Therefore, they rent, and lose out on all the benefits they otherwise would have received from home ownership.2. it does not impose a restriction on the construction of new houses. - No it doesn't, but it does take time and land to build, there are only so many builders, and the price of homes will continue to rise with demand. Also, many builders aren't even building homes for less than $300K any longer in major metros.
300k is probably about cost of construction (in a low land cost, low labor cost metro area) for an entry-level type sfh. so yeah, resale prices aren't going to fall below that except in areas where no one wants to live.
It isn't just 2021. That's just when it shot up. Referring back to the last sentence of my previous post, "Over the last decade, the number of investors purchasing homes has increased from 10% to 15% each year, except for 2020 to 2021, which, according to a study by Redfin, saw an increase of over 80%. So, yes, investment and residential real estate companies are purchasing more and more American homes each year."3. corporations own a tiny proportion of sfhs - again, that's simply not true. In DFW they purchased 43% of homes sold in 2021 and that trend still continues.
there are certainly areas where it is a higher % than nationwide, but the % of homes sold in 2021 is also a tiny fraction of the number of homes that exist.
I think we may be arguing two different points. I think you're saying there are still plenty of homes to live in (purchase or rent). I'm saying there aren't plenty of affordable homes for median Americans to purchase.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 05:12:18 PM
When people talk about permitting being part of the problem, it makes me curious what we should back off of and where do they think that will lead us?
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/06/14/sf-housing-bottleneck-resi-entitlements-permits-take-longest-in-state/
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/16/wait-times-for-building-permits-in-sf-stretches-into-years/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php
if you only read one of these, read the last one.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 05:22:49 PM
When people talk about permitting being part of the problem, it makes me curious what we should back off of and where do they think that will lead us?
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/06/14/sf-housing-bottleneck-resi-entitlements-permits-take-longest-in-state/
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/16/wait-times-for-building-permits-in-sf-stretches-into-years/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php
if you only read one of these, read the last one.
The last one is paywalled for me.
The other two simply state that SF takes forever and doesn't explain why. I would guess it is either corruption of those in the position to have the "discretionary" power or SF simply needs to hire more reviewers, more inspectors, and more of every single type of personnel that it takes to do the necessary work to get work permitted. This is a personnel issue, I would bet, not a permit issue.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 05:25:55 PM
The same homes that were $200-$250K 3 or 4 years ago are now $350-$400k. There is simply no way a median family can afford that without putting themselves in serious financial hardship. Therefore, they rent, and lose out on all the benefits they otherwise would have received from home ownership.
i mean yeah, in the last couple of years we've had inflation unprecedented within most of our lifetimes and the whole issue we're discussing is how housing costs have outpaced inflation over the last couple of decades. but just as a point of accuracy, the median household income is 79k. using 25-30% on housing, that puts "affordable" at ca. 300k at 6% interest and ca. 400k at 4% interest.
I think we may be arguing two different points. I think you're saying there are still plenty of homes to live in (purchase or rent). I'm saying there aren't plenty of affordable homes for median American's to purchase.
very true. i think houses available to rent are part of the country's supply of housing.
Post by: michigancat on April 24, 2023, 05:26:49 PM
When people talk about permitting being part of the problem, it makes me curious what we should back off of and where do they think that will lead us?
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/06/14/sf-housing-bottleneck-resi-entitlements-permits-take-longest-in-state/
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/16/wait-times-for-building-permits-in-sf-stretches-into-years/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-housing-development-red-tape-17815725.php
if you only read one of these, read the last one.
Much like having Diane Feinstein as their senator, this is what the people of San Francisco want
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 05:27:15 PM
The last one is paywalled for me.
Quote
As executive director of the Mission Housing Development Corp., Sam Moss exclusively builds 100% affordable housing for the most vulnerable San Franciscans. Given the drumbeat of calls from all corners of the city for more subsidized low-income housing, one might expect the city to welcome his work with open arms.
That’s not the case at all.
“The entire housing process is a complete nightmare,” Moss said. “San Francisco has a unique ability to find the most inventive ways to step on its own toes and prevent itself from providing its most needed services.”
Only 25¢ | Get Access to Your Trusted Source for Local News
Act Now
Each housing project Moss has developed in San Francisco has faced the same agonizing hurdles: months of preliminary coordination meetings followed by years of negotiations, paperwork and meetings to receive project approval — only to then be faced with an onslaught of permits before finally breaking ground.
Mayor London Breed blames the Board of Supervisors for obstructing housing. The supervisors in turn blame City Hall for not supporting enough affordable housing. The reality, however, is that all bodies have a role to play in fixing the status quo.
More for you
Nothing about Brooke Jenkins’ move to dismiss charges in an SFPD shooting smells right
Letters: ‘Dilbert’ cartoonist Scott Adams is right. Some white people should stay away from Black people
That’s because the core of San Francisco’s housing problem isn’t politics, it’s bureaucracy.
Decades of compounding bad policies that have resulted in impenetrable red tape that can — and often does — kill housing projects in San Francisco. Including affordable housing.
“What people don’t realize is that nonprofit housing projects have to be completed within 18 months of building permit approval, or we risk losing affordable housing bonds,” Moss said.
And yet the median time for securing approval to build in San Francisco is 627 days — which puts 50% of projects at risk of losing funding due to delays.
The outcomes speak for themselves.
In 2021, San Francisco issued permits for just 2,000 homes, and in 2022 there was similarly anemic building activity. By contrast, Seattle — a city of comparable size — issued more than 10,000 permits.
SF Next logo
SFNext is Chronicle coverage devoted to the city's most vexing problems.
Where should we go from here? Send your ideas to [email protected]. We’ll publish the best ideas we receive.
Have questions for Bilal Mahmood? He’s ready to answer them. Join him on Tuesday at 6 p.m. on SFNext’s new conversation forum, Discord (sign-up required).
San Francisco recently submitted and passed an impressive version of the state-mandated plan known as a housing element: The city says it will build more than 80,000 homes in eight years, or 10,000 homes per year. But state planners are not convinced San Francisco will live up to this promise. And a deep study of the city’s housing bureaucracy provides an answer as to why.
To understand the sweep of the problem, it is necessary to dive into the leviathan that is San Francisco’s city government. It took me several months of interviews with developers, commissioners, housing advocates and academics to fully understand the bottleneck of bureaucracy surrounding housing: a compounding set of confounding procedures that necessitates securing at least 87 permits, enduring 1,000 days for meetings and paying more than $500,000 in fees on average for any residential project. In combination, these procedures make nearly all housing projects financially infeasible to build in San Francisco.
1,000 days for meetings
Any attempt to build housing in San Francisco starts with meetings. Lots of meetings. Of course the San Francisco Planning Department will want to have its say. So will the Mayor’s Office of Disability and the Fire Department — among others.
There are two phases of housing development. The first is the project approval — or entitlement — phase. This requires meeting with the San Francisco Planning Department to prepare application forms simply requesting permission to build. In San Francisco, housing projects face a median wait time of more than 450 days for this entitlement.
The second phase is called the building permit — or post-entitlement — phase. This is when developers apply for permits to build. Combined with the project approval stage, the time to complete permitting often stretches to over three years, according to data published in San Francisco’s housing element. That’s more than 1,000 days before a housing project can even begin construction.
To understand the bottlenecks, let’s break down the process.
It can take 600 days to finish approvals for housing in San Francisco.
It can take 600 days to finish approvals for housing in San Francisco.
Amy Lee
There are six phases to housing development in San Francisco:
Steps 1 and 2 involve preliminary project assessments (which take 60 days) and project application filings (about 30 days) to the Planning Department that detail the overall housing project.
Steps 3 and 4 entail the preliminary application review (which takes about 90 days) where the Planning Department conducts checks of residential, streets and urban design planning, followed by any project refinements (typically another 30 days).
Step 5 is the final project analysis where comprehensive plan and design checks, and environmental reviews are conducted (which can take at least 180 days).
Finally, Step 6 is where after receiving an official project approval, the developer can apply for building permits to begin construction (but it can take over 600 days).
Why does navigating these steps take so long?
In part because San Francisco is the only major city in California with a city charter that mandates that all permits are “discretionary” and, by consequence, appealable. This simple rule has far-reaching consequences.
“In most cities, building permits follow what is called ‘ministerial’ approval — where if a project is code compliant, the permits will be approved, often in months,” said Rachael Tanner, president of the San Francisco Planning Commission. “The issue in San Francisco is that because all permits are discretionary, a governing body like the Board of Supervisors can weigh in — or a single resident can ask for the Planning Commission or for the Board of Appeals to take a closer look. This can literally add years to even the simplest projects.”
San Francisco’s discretionary process allows for two obstructionist tactics.
The first is that it enables a neighborhood organization or a single person to file a notice to the Planning Department requesting a delay of the project during the project approval stage or to file a notice to the Board of Appeals at the building permit stage.
CEQA appeals can add more time to building housing in San Francisco
CEQA appeals can add more time to building housing in San Francisco
Amy Lee
The recent housing project at 870 Union St. is a case study that is part of San Francisco’s housing element. A preliminary project assessment was filed in October 2015. Less than a year later, the project filed and received approval for most of its paperwork. But in September 2016, an appeal was filed by a neighborhood resident, triggering hearings and further meetings with the Planning Commission. The project wasn’t approved until May 2017 — more than 200 days later.
San Francisco abounds with such examples of projects delayed by neighborhood input. The cumulative impact was a 123-day median delay in the housing approval process in 2021, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element.
San Francisco is also the only city in California that allows such building permit appeals even after a project has received all its approvals. Assembly Member Matt Haney of San Francisco recently introduced AB1114, which would ban this practice. But even if that ban is implemented, a second obstructionist tactic still emerges from San Francisco’s discretionary system — a delay induced by the California Environmental Quality Act.
A well-intentioned 1970 law, known as CEQA, initiates a process requiring technical studies, environmental notices and additional hearings to evaluate and disclose to the public the environmental impact of any discretionary action by local government. Thanks to San Francisco’s charter, that includes housing projects. Housing experts note that the sheer volume of studies and meetings required to even consider a CEQA filing results in a median 122-day delay to projects. And if deemed necessary, an actual environmental impact report can take a median of 700 days to complete, according to San Francisco’s housing element.
In essence, because all permits in San Francisco are discretionary, every housing project becomes a political battle.
This is what happened at 469 Stevenson St., where developers sought to build 495 units of housing on a Nordstrom valet parking lot, only to be delayed more than a year when the Board of Supervisors rejected the project’s environmental analysis for what many critics argued were spurious reasons.
San Francisco’s extensively broad application of CEQA necessitates conducting more than 5,000 reviews per year. This intensive level of environmental review is not cheap. According to the 2022 update to San Francisco’s housing element, around 40 full-time planners are employed just to work on these reviews.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
San Francisco can simply follow the example of cities like San Jose, Mountain View and Santa Clara, which employ a split permitting process.
In this split process, the planning approval is discretionary while building permit approval is ministerial. This streamlines the approval process and avoids unnecessary discretionary stopgaps.
“Bifurcating the planning and building permit process will create a clear and discernible path for applicants to see what is required of their project,” says Raquel Bito, president of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Commission.
Indeed, the Department of Building Inspection formally first reviewed such a proposal in August — and is now investigating mechanisms to streamline.
We actually can see the potential impact of ministerial approval in place today. In 2017, a bill authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, SB35, was signed into law and it enabled ministerial approval at both the project approval and building permit stages for projects that feature 50% or more affordable housing.
The 555 Bryant St. housing development in San Francisco benefited from SB35 — a preliminary project application was filed in January 2021 and the project was fully approved within 175 business days — roughly half the time of the 870 Union St. project.
“Ministerial approval isn’t just important, it’s an absolutely essential tool if San Francisco is to meet its goal of building 82,000 homes in the next eight years,” said Wiener, who is introducing SB423, which would renew SB35 and make it even more effective.
The solution here is clear — build by ministerial approval. It works, even sometimes in San Francisco.
87 permits and $500,000 in fees
Just because a housing project is approved doesn’t workers can start building. It merely means the project has permission to apply for permits to start building.
In San Francisco, that process takes a median of 627 days. Worse yet, 270 projects during the past 10 years have taken more than four years to get all their permits. This is the slowest approval time for permits in any major city in California. It’s 400 days longer than Oakland and 300 days longer than Berkeley.
Where’s the breakdown?
The issue is bureaucracy. Namely, the 87 permits San Francisco’s housing element identified that a project needs to apply for in order to begin development: 15 permits from the Planning Commission, 26 permits from the Public Utilities Commission and Fire Department, 19 permits from the Department of Building Inspection, 17 permits from the Public Works and 10 other permits related to public spaces.
With 87 permits across multiple departments, it’s easy to see how San Francisco’s bureaucracy is slowing housing development to a crawl.
Why does San Francisco require so many permits? Part of the problem is redundancy. Of the 87 permits listed, at least 12 pertain to issues of water regulations, issued separately by the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Building Inspection and Public Works.
And it isn’t just the sheer number of permits. San Francisco forces developers to receive each set of permits sequentially — you can apply for a set of permits only after you have completed the previous set. With 87 permits, the time compounds.
Compare that to San Jose, which has only 57 permits and allows for parallel review of both the planning and permitting phases. According to Bito, this allows builders to receive feedback more readily from all requisite departments (like Public Works and the Fire Department), potentially shaving months of waiting.
Permitting in San Francisco isn’t just time-consuming, though, it’s expensive.
Permitting fees — specifically, what the Department of Building Inspection charges for a housing project — are proportional to the cost of construction. The challenge here is the unpredictability of those costs.
Labor and material prices are constantly changing. The longer a project is delayed in the approval or building permit phases, the higher likelihood that market conditions change and materials costs have risen, and the higher the city’s fees.
Furthermore, during the time developers are applying for permits, they incur significant costs to hold the land they plan to use.
San Francisco’s development process is also loaded with what are called “impact fees” — or fixed fees to get project approval. These impact fees cover the cost of providing public services like schools, water, transportation and public art investments in a neighborhood. But when added to the litany of other direct and indirect costs San Francisco imposes on development, they can make projects infeasible.
All told, housing development projects over $25 million can in turn incur at least $500,000 in combined impact and permitting fees, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element. This can add up to $74,000 in costs to an individual apartment or condo in San Francisco, compared to $39,000 per unit in Oakland, $54,000 per unit in Emeryville and $62,000 per unit in San Jose.
The result of these astronomical costs in San Francisco makes housing projects risky or infeasible to build. Only the most monied developers, therefore, have access to the market — and they focus on expensive high-rises to improve the odds of recouping their investments.
A path forward
If a housing project has to sequentially wade through 87 permits, pay $500,000 in impact and permitting fees and endure 1,000 days of meetings simply to break ground, it will be a tall order for San Francisco to build 10,000 houses per year as stated in our state-mandated housing element. We can’t even build 2,000 a year today.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can be a city with abundant, affordable housing, where unhoused populations can find stable homes, where San Francisco’s workers can live near their jobs, and where people and families of all stripes can make this city their home.
To move forward, however, we need to radically reform our housing approval processes. We need to transition housing approvals away from discretionary reviews — like every other major city in California.
State legislation like Assembly Member Haney’s AB1114 and state Sen. Wiener’s SB423 are necessary steps to get us there. But they are insufficient on their own.
San Francisco also needs to streamline permitting to allow for parallel processing and a reduction in impact fees. Some of this in the domain of Mayor Breed’s office, but both executive and legislative action here are necessary. Breed’s Housing For All executive order, which requests that all departments streamline permitting by 50% within a year, is a great step in the right direction.
But setting broad goals is just a start. San Francisco needs decisive action.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 05:29:08 PM
Much like having Diane Feinstein as their senator, this is what the people of San Francisco want
absolutely.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 07:30:13 PM
The last one is paywalled for me.QuoteAs executive director of the Mission Housing Development Corp., Sam Moss exclusively builds 100% affordable housing for the most vulnerable San Franciscans. Given the drumbeat of calls from all corners of the city for more subsidized low-income housing, one might expect the city to welcome his work with open arms.
That’s not the case at all.
“The entire housing process is a complete nightmare,” Moss said. “San Francisco has a unique ability to find the most inventive ways to step on its own toes and prevent itself from providing its most needed services.”
Only 25¢ | Get Access to Your Trusted Source for Local News
Act Now
Each housing project Moss has developed in San Francisco has faced the same agonizing hurdles: months of preliminary coordination meetings followed by years of negotiations, paperwork and meetings to receive project approval — only to then be faced with an onslaught of permits before finally breaking ground.
Mayor London Breed blames the Board of Supervisors for obstructing housing. The supervisors in turn blame City Hall for not supporting enough affordable housing. The reality, however, is that all bodies have a role to play in fixing the status quo.
More for you
Nothing about Brooke Jenkins’ move to dismiss charges in an SFPD shooting smells right
Letters: ‘Dilbert’ cartoonist Scott Adams is right. Some white people should stay away from Black people
That’s because the core of San Francisco’s housing problem isn’t politics, it’s bureaucracy.
Decades of compounding bad policies that have resulted in impenetrable red tape that can — and often does — kill housing projects in San Francisco. Including affordable housing.
“What people don’t realize is that nonprofit housing projects have to be completed within 18 months of building permit approval, or we risk losing affordable housing bonds,” Moss said.
And yet the median time for securing approval to build in San Francisco is 627 days — which puts 50% of projects at risk of losing funding due to delays.
The outcomes speak for themselves.
In 2021, San Francisco issued permits for just 2,000 homes, and in 2022 there was similarly anemic building activity. By contrast, Seattle — a city of comparable size — issued more than 10,000 permits.
SF Next logo
SFNext is Chronicle coverage devoted to the city's most vexing problems.
Where should we go from here? Send your ideas to [email protected]. We’ll publish the best ideas we receive.
Have questions for Bilal Mahmood? He’s ready to answer them. Join him on Tuesday at 6 p.m. on SFNext’s new conversation forum, Discord (sign-up required).
San Francisco recently submitted and passed an impressive version of the state-mandated plan known as a housing element: The city says it will build more than 80,000 homes in eight years, or 10,000 homes per year. But state planners are not convinced San Francisco will live up to this promise. And a deep study of the city’s housing bureaucracy provides an answer as to why.
To understand the sweep of the problem, it is necessary to dive into the leviathan that is San Francisco’s city government. It took me several months of interviews with developers, commissioners, housing advocates and academics to fully understand the bottleneck of bureaucracy surrounding housing: a compounding set of confounding procedures that necessitates securing at least 87 permits, enduring 1,000 days for meetings and paying more than $500,000 in fees on average for any residential project. In combination, these procedures make nearly all housing projects financially infeasible to build in San Francisco.
1,000 days for meetings
Any attempt to build housing in San Francisco starts with meetings. Lots of meetings. Of course the San Francisco Planning Department will want to have its say. So will the Mayor’s Office of Disability and the Fire Department — among others.
There are two phases of housing development. The first is the project approval — or entitlement — phase. This requires meeting with the San Francisco Planning Department to prepare application forms simply requesting permission to build. In San Francisco, housing projects face a median wait time of more than 450 days for this entitlement.
The second phase is called the building permit — or post-entitlement — phase. This is when developers apply for permits to build. Combined with the project approval stage, the time to complete permitting often stretches to over three years, according to data published in San Francisco’s housing element. That’s more than 1,000 days before a housing project can even begin construction.
To understand the bottlenecks, let’s break down the process.
It can take 600 days to finish approvals for housing in San Francisco.
It can take 600 days to finish approvals for housing in San Francisco.
Amy Lee
There are six phases to housing development in San Francisco:
Steps 1 and 2 involve preliminary project assessments (which take 60 days) and project application filings (about 30 days) to the Planning Department that detail the overall housing project.
Steps 3 and 4 entail the preliminary application review (which takes about 90 days) where the Planning Department conducts checks of residential, streets and urban design planning, followed by any project refinements (typically another 30 days).
Step 5 is the final project analysis where comprehensive plan and design checks, and environmental reviews are conducted (which can take at least 180 days).
Finally, Step 6 is where after receiving an official project approval, the developer can apply for building permits to begin construction (but it can take over 600 days).
Why does navigating these steps take so long?
In part because San Francisco is the only major city in California with a city charter that mandates that all permits are “discretionary” and, by consequence, appealable. This simple rule has far-reaching consequences.
“In most cities, building permits follow what is called ‘ministerial’ approval — where if a project is code compliant, the permits will be approved, often in months,” said Rachael Tanner, president of the San Francisco Planning Commission. “The issue in San Francisco is that because all permits are discretionary, a governing body like the Board of Supervisors can weigh in — or a single resident can ask for the Planning Commission or for the Board of Appeals to take a closer look. This can literally add years to even the simplest projects.”
San Francisco’s discretionary process allows for two obstructionist tactics.
The first is that it enables a neighborhood organization or a single person to file a notice to the Planning Department requesting a delay of the project during the project approval stage or to file a notice to the Board of Appeals at the building permit stage.
CEQA appeals can add more time to building housing in San Francisco
CEQA appeals can add more time to building housing in San Francisco
Amy Lee
The recent housing project at 870 Union St. is a case study that is part of San Francisco’s housing element. A preliminary project assessment was filed in October 2015. Less than a year later, the project filed and received approval for most of its paperwork. But in September 2016, an appeal was filed by a neighborhood resident, triggering hearings and further meetings with the Planning Commission. The project wasn’t approved until May 2017 — more than 200 days later.
San Francisco abounds with such examples of projects delayed by neighborhood input. The cumulative impact was a 123-day median delay in the housing approval process in 2021, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element.
San Francisco is also the only city in California that allows such building permit appeals even after a project has received all its approvals. Assembly Member Matt Haney of San Francisco recently introduced AB1114, which would ban this practice. But even if that ban is implemented, a second obstructionist tactic still emerges from San Francisco’s discretionary system — a delay induced by the California Environmental Quality Act.
A well-intentioned 1970 law, known as CEQA, initiates a process requiring technical studies, environmental notices and additional hearings to evaluate and disclose to the public the environmental impact of any discretionary action by local government. Thanks to San Francisco’s charter, that includes housing projects. Housing experts note that the sheer volume of studies and meetings required to even consider a CEQA filing results in a median 122-day delay to projects. And if deemed necessary, an actual environmental impact report can take a median of 700 days to complete, according to San Francisco’s housing element.
In essence, because all permits in San Francisco are discretionary, every housing project becomes a political battle.
This is what happened at 469 Stevenson St., where developers sought to build 495 units of housing on a Nordstrom valet parking lot, only to be delayed more than a year when the Board of Supervisors rejected the project’s environmental analysis for what many critics argued were spurious reasons.
San Francisco’s extensively broad application of CEQA necessitates conducting more than 5,000 reviews per year. This intensive level of environmental review is not cheap. According to the 2022 update to San Francisco’s housing element, around 40 full-time planners are employed just to work on these reviews.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
San Francisco can simply follow the example of cities like San Jose, Mountain View and Santa Clara, which employ a split permitting process.
In this split process, the planning approval is discretionary while building permit approval is ministerial. This streamlines the approval process and avoids unnecessary discretionary stopgaps.
“Bifurcating the planning and building permit process will create a clear and discernible path for applicants to see what is required of their project,” says Raquel Bito, president of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Commission.
Indeed, the Department of Building Inspection formally first reviewed such a proposal in August — and is now investigating mechanisms to streamline.
We actually can see the potential impact of ministerial approval in place today. In 2017, a bill authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, SB35, was signed into law and it enabled ministerial approval at both the project approval and building permit stages for projects that feature 50% or more affordable housing.
The 555 Bryant St. housing development in San Francisco benefited from SB35 — a preliminary project application was filed in January 2021 and the project was fully approved within 175 business days — roughly half the time of the 870 Union St. project.
“Ministerial approval isn’t just important, it’s an absolutely essential tool if San Francisco is to meet its goal of building 82,000 homes in the next eight years,” said Wiener, who is introducing SB423, which would renew SB35 and make it even more effective.
The solution here is clear — build by ministerial approval. It works, even sometimes in San Francisco.
87 permits and $500,000 in fees
Just because a housing project is approved doesn’t workers can start building. It merely means the project has permission to apply for permits to start building.
In San Francisco, that process takes a median of 627 days. Worse yet, 270 projects during the past 10 years have taken more than four years to get all their permits. This is the slowest approval time for permits in any major city in California. It’s 400 days longer than Oakland and 300 days longer than Berkeley.
Where’s the breakdown?
The issue is bureaucracy. Namely, the 87 permits San Francisco’s housing element identified that a project needs to apply for in order to begin development: 15 permits from the Planning Commission, 26 permits from the Public Utilities Commission and Fire Department, 19 permits from the Department of Building Inspection, 17 permits from the Public Works and 10 other permits related to public spaces.
With 87 permits across multiple departments, it’s easy to see how San Francisco’s bureaucracy is slowing housing development to a crawl.
Why does San Francisco require so many permits? Part of the problem is redundancy. Of the 87 permits listed, at least 12 pertain to issues of water regulations, issued separately by the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Building Inspection and Public Works.
And it isn’t just the sheer number of permits. San Francisco forces developers to receive each set of permits sequentially — you can apply for a set of permits only after you have completed the previous set. With 87 permits, the time compounds.
Compare that to San Jose, which has only 57 permits and allows for parallel review of both the planning and permitting phases. According to Bito, this allows builders to receive feedback more readily from all requisite departments (like Public Works and the Fire Department), potentially shaving months of waiting.
Permitting in San Francisco isn’t just time-consuming, though, it’s expensive.
Permitting fees — specifically, what the Department of Building Inspection charges for a housing project — are proportional to the cost of construction. The challenge here is the unpredictability of those costs.
Labor and material prices are constantly changing. The longer a project is delayed in the approval or building permit phases, the higher likelihood that market conditions change and materials costs have risen, and the higher the city’s fees.
Furthermore, during the time developers are applying for permits, they incur significant costs to hold the land they plan to use.
San Francisco’s development process is also loaded with what are called “impact fees” — or fixed fees to get project approval. These impact fees cover the cost of providing public services like schools, water, transportation and public art investments in a neighborhood. But when added to the litany of other direct and indirect costs San Francisco imposes on development, they can make projects infeasible.
All told, housing development projects over $25 million can in turn incur at least $500,000 in combined impact and permitting fees, according to San Francisco’s Housing Element. This can add up to $74,000 in costs to an individual apartment or condo in San Francisco, compared to $39,000 per unit in Oakland, $54,000 per unit in Emeryville and $62,000 per unit in San Jose.
The result of these astronomical costs in San Francisco makes housing projects risky or infeasible to build. Only the most monied developers, therefore, have access to the market — and they focus on expensive high-rises to improve the odds of recouping their investments.
A path forward
If a housing project has to sequentially wade through 87 permits, pay $500,000 in impact and permitting fees and endure 1,000 days of meetings simply to break ground, it will be a tall order for San Francisco to build 10,000 houses per year as stated in our state-mandated housing element. We can’t even build 2,000 a year today.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can be a city with abundant, affordable housing, where unhoused populations can find stable homes, where San Francisco’s workers can live near their jobs, and where people and families of all stripes can make this city their home.
To move forward, however, we need to radically reform our housing approval processes. We need to transition housing approvals away from discretionary reviews — like every other major city in California.
State legislation like Assembly Member Haney’s AB1114 and state Sen. Wiener’s SB423 are necessary steps to get us there. But they are insufficient on their own.
San Francisco also needs to streamline permitting to allow for parallel processing and a reduction in impact fees. Some of this in the domain of Mayor Breed’s office, but both executive and legislative action here are necessary. Breed’s Housing For All executive order, which requests that all departments streamline permitting by 50% within a year, is a great step in the right direction.
But setting broad goals is just a start. San Francisco needs decisive action.
eff, that’s a lot of article. Will read it tonight.
Post by: CNS on April 24, 2023, 07:51:53 PM
Post by: KITNfury on April 24, 2023, 08:32:53 PM
So, even the article says that SF is an outlier in being the only city in CA that has this set up.I didn't even read that article, but I think maybe(?) the point is how building restrictions can affect prices. One of the most expensive, maybe the most expensive, areas in the country also has the most red tape to cut in order to build. Obviously that's not the only factor, SF had extremely desirable weather and restriction on land, but I think maybe the point still holds water.
Post by: michigancat on April 24, 2023, 08:57:51 PM
So, even the article says that SF is an outlier in being the only city in CA that has this set up.It cites both Mountain View and San Jose as examples of cities doing it right. Lol those places are shittier and more expensive than SF
Post by: michigancat on April 24, 2023, 08:58:35 PM
It cites both Mountain View and San Jose as examples of cities doing it right. Lol those places are shittier and more expensive than SFSo, even the article says that SF is an outlier in being the only city in CA that has this set up.I didn't even read that article, but I think maybe(?) the point is how building restrictions can affect prices. One of the most expensive, maybe the most expensive, areas in the country also has the most red tape to cut in order to build. Obviously that's not the only factor, SF had extremely desirable weather and restriction on land, but I think maybe the point still holds water.
Post by: sys on April 24, 2023, 10:06:09 PM
Post by: blakepiper on May 02, 2023, 12:34:11 PM
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 02, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on May 02, 2023, 01:51:59 PM
Post by: KITNfury on May 02, 2023, 05:33:30 PM
yla airbnb goes live next month :horrorsurprise:Nice!
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2023, 10:02:21 PM
yla airbnb goes live next month :horrorsurprise:
how close to the stadium and how strict are you on us trashing the living crap out of the place like the fire department has to come because it's not literally on fire but it's basically "on fire" by how trashed the fuckin' place is?
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2023, 10:02:53 PM
Post by: steve dave on May 02, 2023, 10:04:43 PM
not asking for myself but for my friend pete
who will be renting the place we trash
Post by: steve dave on May 08, 2023, 09:47:06 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KITNfury on May 23, 2023, 12:18:46 PM
https://twitter.com/nickgerli1/status/1660751248889376771?t=asKSOfXDIASyih_6AtTN1A&s=19
Post by: sys on May 31, 2023, 07:40:55 PM
Post by: theresamclean on June 20, 2023, 09:05:02 AM
The city's housing problem seems to be rooted in its complicated system rather than political differences. It's encouraging to see efforts like the Housing For All executive order and proposed state legislation aiming to streamline processes and reduce fees. Let's hope these steps lead to meaningful change and pave the way for more accessible housing options.
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 20, 2023, 09:56:03 AM
Thanks for sharing this eye-opening article on the challenges of affordable housing development in San Francisco. It's disheartening to hear about the bureaucratic red tape and lengthy approval process that hinder crucial projects like yours.
I apologize for any confusion, but as an AI language model, I don't have the ability to share or provide specific articles. However, I can certainly discuss the challenges of affordable housing development in San Francisco if you'd like. The issue of bureaucratic red tape and a lengthy approval process can indeed pose significant obstacles to housing projects, making it difficult to address the affordable housing crisis effectively. It's an ongoing challenge that requires collaborative efforts and innovative solutions to make progress.
Post by: Aarondedja on August 24, 2023, 03:03:38 PM
Post by: bucket on August 24, 2023, 03:06:04 PM
The potential for monthly income, equity gain, and tax benefits really got my attention. Lately, I've been seriously considering dipping my toes into property investment. It's like a whole new adventure, trying to fit the pieces of cash flow and leverage together.
The machines are now looking to buy property?! :horrorsurprise:
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 24, 2023, 03:18:05 PM
The potential for monthly income, equity gain, and tax benefits really got my attention. Lately, I've been seriously considering dipping my toes into property investment. It's like a whole new adventure, trying to fit the pieces of cash flow and leverage together.Property investment can indeed offer various financial benefits like monthly rental income, potential equity appreciation, and tax advantages. It's important to thoroughly research the market, understand the costs involved, and consider factors like location and property management. Creating a solid financial plan and understanding how cash flow and leverage work will help you make informed decisions as you embark on this new adventure. If you have any specific questions or need advice on certain aspects of property investment, feel free to ask!
Post by: Kat Kid on August 24, 2023, 03:29:43 PM
The potential for monthly income, equity gain, and tax benefits really got my attention. Lately, I've been seriously considering dipping my toes into property investment. It's like a whole new adventure, trying to fit the pieces of cash flow and leverage together.Property investment can indeed offer various financial benefits like monthly rental income, potential equity appreciation, and tax advantages. It's important to thoroughly research the market, understand the costs involved, and consider factors like location and property management. Creating a solid financial plan and understanding how cash flow and leverage work will help you make informed decisions as you embark on this new adventure. If you have any specific questions or need advice on certain aspects of property investment, feel free to ask!
REITs can play an important part in an investment portfolio because they can offer a strong, stable annual dividend and the potential for long-term capital appreciation. REIT's total return performance for the last 20 years has outperformed the S&P 500 Index, other indices, and the rate of inflation.
As with all investments, REITs have their advantages and disadvantages.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 27, 2024, 08:41:16 AM
Post by: pissclams on March 27, 2024, 12:22:49 PM
Interested to see how commission structure changes thingsit won’t
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 27, 2024, 01:14:46 PM
Not so fast sweetheartInterested to see how commission structure changes thingsit won’t
Post by: wetwillie on March 27, 2024, 01:52:26 PM
Post by: pissclams on March 27, 2024, 03:51:24 PM
The way I see it, it will just shift the fees around and not reduce it any.that’s right, and fees have always been negotiable
Post by: Pete on March 27, 2024, 03:58:06 PM
For example, pretty good chance I will be selling my house in 3 years. If the housing market is still similar to today, I won’t be paying any rough ridin' commissions to buyers agents. I will be on the hunt for a seller’s agent that can do it for a low flat fee that basically compensates them for taking some pics and putting it on the MLS, showing the place and/or conducting an open house, and that’s about it.
Post by: Pete on March 27, 2024, 04:00:23 PM
Post by: wetwillie on March 27, 2024, 05:41:05 PM
Post by: Pete on March 27, 2024, 05:58:26 PM
500 bucks even 20 years ago seems like quite the bargain for what you are describing.We had to show the house ourselves, but it sold fast.
Post by: LickNeckey on March 27, 2024, 06:08:29 PM
Found out that title companies will give you that for free.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on March 27, 2024, 06:55:14 PM
I sold my first house on our own and drew up the contract and everything.
Found out that title companies will give you that for free.
Unless you live in the sticks or bad neighborhood, realtors seem pretty pointless to me. Even in those situations you can market your house to buyers pretty easily.
Post by: pissclams on March 27, 2024, 07:24:57 PM
some people just don’t have the time or expertise to do the legwork. when I say “some”, i mean most.I sold my first house on our own and drew up the contract and everything.
Found out that title companies will give you that for free.
Unless you live in the sticks or bad neighborhood, realtors seem pretty pointless to me. Even in those situations you can market your house to buyers pretty easily.
Post by: steve dave on March 27, 2024, 07:48:54 PM
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 28, 2024, 12:40:32 PM
I WOULD SIMPLY SHOVEL MY OWN SNOW FOR FREE!I mean at least the person you're paying to shovel actually does something
Post by: star seed 7 on March 28, 2024, 12:55:46 PM
I WOULD SIMPLY SHOVEL MY OWN SNOW FOR FREE!I mean at least the person you're paying to shovel actually does something
:Keke:
Post by: LickNeckey on March 28, 2024, 01:31:35 PM
I sold my first house on our own and drew up the contract and everything.
Found out that title companies will give you that for free.
Unless you live in the sticks or bad neighborhood, realtors seem pretty pointless to me. Even in those situations you can market your house to buyers pretty easily.
can't speak for others but the whole process from listing to selling was far easier than I assumed it would have been
Post by: Stupid Fitz on March 28, 2024, 01:31:52 PM
I WOULD SIMPLY SHOVEL MY OWN SNOW FOR FREE!I mean at least the person you're paying to shovel actually does something
Hey, putting a sign in your yard, taking some pics and posting them on the internet is totally worth 15-20 grand.......
Post by: wetwillie on March 28, 2024, 01:34:06 PM
Post by: steve dave on March 28, 2024, 01:45:16 PM
Can you list on Zillow and places like that for a flat fee? Seems like the racket is on the marketing side with the MLS and getting access to that is key.Yeah, there are a ton of options like that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LickNeckey on March 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PM
actually sold it from a Facebook lead
Post by: Pete on March 28, 2024, 02:20:26 PM
Post by: kim carnes on March 28, 2024, 02:21:45 PM
Post by: LickNeckey on March 28, 2024, 02:28:11 PM
Post by: wetwillie on March 28, 2024, 02:29:21 PM
Post by: steve dave on March 28, 2024, 02:37:17 PM
giving someone tens of thousands of dollars to walk someone through my house seemed foolish
depends what your time is worth to you
Post by: catastrophe on March 28, 2024, 02:49:04 PM
Post by: kim carnes on March 28, 2024, 04:01:59 PM
giving someone tens of thousands of dollars to walk someone through my house seemed foolish
depends what your time is worth to you
How does a realtor save you time as a seller??
Post by: steve dave on March 28, 2024, 04:13:18 PM
By selling a house for yougiving someone tens of thousands of dollars to walk someone through my house seemed foolish
depends what your time is worth to you
How does a realtor save you time as a seller??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on March 28, 2024, 06:57:48 PM
Post by: michigancat on March 28, 2024, 07:01:10 PM
Don't know why when you guys make it seem so easy (for real)
Post by: steve dave on March 28, 2024, 10:01:49 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 28, 2024, 10:13:37 PM
I’m sure you could do it. It seems easy enough. But why? There are millions of desperate realtors that will do it for you.At what % nerd
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on March 29, 2024, 08:24:46 AM
I think that the service of 1) helping take pictures of my house and put it on the MLS, 2) showing the house when people want to see it, 3) hoisting an open house or two, and 4) helping with the process and paper work of handling the offers and counter offers, and 5) helping with the process and paper work handoff with the title company to help make the closing smooth is valuable but worth a LOT less than $10K.
By comparison, if you pay an attorney to estate planning for a fairly complex Trust, wills, all that crap, you'll pay less than $10K, and that's for the time of someone with a J.D.
I think a fair price for what I described above is less than $5K.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on March 29, 2024, 10:09:59 AM
If the sales commission numbers come down into the 2% range, then I'd be more inclined to use a traditional realtor, but it still feels like WAY too much money. If you sell a $500K house at 6% that's $30K out of your pocket. If you sell one for 2% that's $10K.
I think that the service of 1) helping take pictures of my house and put it on the MLS, 2) showing the house when people want to see it, 3) hoisting an open house or two, and 4) helping with the process and paper work of handling the offers and counter offers, and 5) helping with the process and paper work handoff with the title company to help make the closing smooth is valuable but worth a LOT less than $10K.
By comparison, if you pay an attorney to estate planning for a fairly complex Trust, wills, all that crap, you'll pay less than $10K, and that's for the time of someone with a J.D.
I think a fair price for what I described above is less than $5K.
Agree. Comps are very easy to find. Pictures barely matter unless they are completely awful since people will come look no matter what. The last time we sold, I paid a small amount to get it on MLS sites, but even that was a waste. I linked it on various social media and that is where the buyer came from. Easy peasy. Its def not that easy in every area, but in KC it was no problem. We were done and closed at the same time as the new house. At that point, I really needed the money saved selling myself for the down payment on the new. Now, I would just not want to give someone 15k for something I can do with minimal effort.
I was also just thinking that is probably blowing everyones mind that I pulled off selling and buying a house on my own with no problems and I come here and yell about not being able to work travel websites. :party:
Post by: wetwillie on March 29, 2024, 10:12:30 AM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on March 29, 2024, 10:28:22 AM
Sounds like there is a business model to sell DIY packages to would be home sellers. I think it's a time component and also a lack of knowledge component that keeps people from FSBO.
For sure, I totally get why people wouldn't even attempt it. I just needed the cash at the time so I gave it a go and found it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought it might be. I had a realtor on standby in case something happened or if it wasn't selling as I had already bought the new place and the closing date was set. All worked out, but there was def some stress. Honestly the worst part was dealing with realtors calling and wanting the listing. After a few days, I figured out that the first thing I needed to say when I got a call was, "are you a realtor"? Some of them were real assholes and would pretend to be a buyer for 10 minutes on the phone and then tell me they had buyers if I gave them the listing. I just told them all to check back in a month.
Post by: yoga-like_abana on March 29, 2024, 10:49:12 AM
I never saw a FSBO in the Bay Areahttps://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/?searchQueryState=%7B%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22north%22%3A37.897036154147635%2C%22south%22%3A37.65334694399026%2C%22east%22%3A-122.12811557177734%2C%22west%22%3A-122.73854342822266%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22Manhattan%2C%20KS%22%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22days%22%7D%2C%22pmf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22pf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22fsba%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22nc%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22fore%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A20330%2C%22regionType%22%3A6%7D%5D%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A11%2C%22category%22%3A%22cat2%22%2C%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%7Dhttps://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/?searchQueryState=%7B%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22north%22%3A37.897036154147635%2C%22south%22%3A37.65334694399026%2C%22east%22%3A-122.12811557177734%2C%22west%22%3A-122.73854342822266%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22Manhattan%2C%20KS%22%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22days%22%7D%2C%22pmf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22pf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22fsba%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22nc%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22fore%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A20330%2C%22regionType%22%3A6%7D%5D%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A11%2C%22category%22%3A%22cat2%22%2C%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%7D
Don't know why when you guys make it seem so easy (for real)
Post by: LickNeckey on March 29, 2024, 10:57:51 AM
Sounds like there is a business model to sell DIY packages to would be home sellers. I think it's a time component and also a lack of knowledge component that keeps people from FSBO.
at closing the Title Company said that they basically had all of the challenging parts (contracts etc.) available to me for free
so check with a title co if you are fsbo'n
Post by: steve dave on March 29, 2024, 11:00:08 AM
Whatever you negotiate with them and land on. There are so many borderline homeless realtors out there you have a lot of bargaining power. Most of them just do it as a part time “job”.I’m sure you could do it. It seems easy enough. But why? There are millions of desperate realtors that will do it for you.At what % nerd
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LickNeckey on March 29, 2024, 11:01:55 AM
I always saw the realtor's biggest job as being to run comps and use whatever tricks to drum up as much interest as possible. Selling a house isn't hard, but if you do it yourself it's also hard to know whether you could have gotten another $20k+ out of the process by getting a bid war going.
imo best case scenario you get a bidding war that nets a large enough difference to cover the realtor expense
Post by: steve dave on March 29, 2024, 11:03:01 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on March 29, 2024, 11:05:23 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on March 29, 2024, 11:15:58 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 29, 2024, 11:27:09 AM
Post by: KITNfury on March 29, 2024, 11:53:11 AM
There are 2m realtors in the USA. There are 1.4m houses for sale in the USA. The top 10% of realtors probably handle half of those.I think it might be more. I've heard the stats but I don't remember exactly... IIRC, it followed pretty close to the 80/20 rule where like 80% of transactions are done by the top 20% of realtors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of "realtors" are completely inactive though.
Post by: IPA4Me on March 29, 2024, 08:49:44 PM
Plenty of home builders and their wives with an RE license closing their own deals.There are 2m realtors in the USA. There are 1.4m houses for sale in the USA. The top 10% of realtors probably handle half of those.I think it might be more. I've heard the stats but I don't remember exactly... IIRC, it followed pretty close to the 80/20 rule where like 80% of transactions are done by the top 20% of realtors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of "realtors" are completely inactive though.