141–150 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't this drying up in Canada then?
Some of the difference in nominal price appreciation is currency driven -- the US dollar has been strong and the loonie has been (relatively) weak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not rent. That's a tax, which is what you agree to in exchange for living in one of the most advanced societies on earth.
It's theft. People don't explicitly agree to it. It's forced on you. And most taxes don't go towards the advancement of society. Advancement comes from the people and businesses.
Reaffirming once again that if "nobody can afford to buy them" the actual prices start coming down. A more interesting thing for me however was that owner occupied (which is to say the person buying the house lives there) has not been growing[1]. Instead third parties are buying the houses as investments and renting them. That is a really risky strategy in a place like SF with rent controls as the floor can fall out…
A significant number are bought as investments, but NOT rented out, making the housing situation worse. Investors from more volatile economies (China) really see a few % up or down as incredibly stable compared to their native currency fluctuations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit off topic, but how was your experience with Redfin? I'm thinking of using them.
I don't know anything about this company. I have an idea what market they are trying to crack. I can't believe it's taken this long. I've always felt paying a Realtor 3% on the biggest item most of us will buy in our lives is crazy. I just don't know what they do for that commission. I don't know what makes one successful--just because he/she sold more than the others? Pay them more because they know how to network?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you're not paying rent because you have hundreds of thousands of dollars locked up in tye house? The real question is, how much money would you have made if all that equity was in the stock market? Sometimes that can be more than what rent would be.
And sometimes the stock market crashes and takes everything with it. See: every ten years. At least with a house, even if the value goes down, you still have a home.
Every market crash in the US has been follow by a even bigger boom.
Why? I want a 50% bigger/nicer house in the same area. But bigger/nicer houses have increased in price proportionally to mine. So the gap in absolute dollars between what I have and what I want has expanded quite a bit. My income has increased, but not really enough to cover the gap.
Strong increasing prices really only help homeowners to the effect that they're eventually willing to downsize or move to a lower-cost area.
If prices rise strongly and proportionately I suspect it just causes stagnation. I can't really upgrade without a windfall, thus my house stays off the market. So other folks can't upgrade to my house.
Reaffirming once again that if "nobody can afford to buy them" the actual prices start coming down. A more interesting thing for me however was that owner occupied (which is to say the person buying the house lives there) has not been growing[1]. Instead third parties are buying the houses as investments and renting them. That is a really risky strategy in a place like SF with rent controls as the floor can fall out…
Remember that rent control only applies to buildings built before 1978, so it's not _all_ rent controlled.
That said, if the market falls it is easy to end up with a mortgage that costs more than rent, a fact that I am unfortunately familiar with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"SF on the other hand is just seeing their ceiling come into play. Only so many people can justify raising a family and purchasing a home in The Bay. Why not change jobs to Seattle or Portland and make around the same money, but spend half on a house? I think that's what we're seeing. " It's more than just tech workers. SF real estate prices have been influenced significantly by foreign speculation (especially from C…
Why isn't this drying up in Canada then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: >> "...historically low inventory" >> "...many sellers are sitting this year out." >> "...The median sale price ... fell by 1.8 percent..." The article's authors are confused. Their explanation for falling prices consists entirely of "Supply is down." That's exactly the opposite of how supply, demand, and prices are related. If they wanted to claim that low prices are scaring sellers out of the mark…
In Cambridge, a faction of candidates for city council promises that they will make housing affordable by opposing the construction of new housing. Apparently you can just tell people that supply and demand work the opposite way in the housing market, and people will believe you.
This kind of line of reasoning is happening in East New York (far east neighborhood in BK). The local population / community board / local city council people were protesting re-zoning currently mostly industrial stretch of land. But it looks like the rezoning got pushed through.
If it didn't happen folks who no longer had money for the spaces they wanted in eastern Bedstuy & Bushwich already have started pushing more eastward into East New York / Cypress hill area. This can be evidences by the increase in housing prices in those area in the last few years and number of new smaller buildings and gut renos happening.
Weirdly, I own a house and think I'd be better off if prices fell-- fell a lot. I bought a few years ago and would be happy if prices uniformly dropped to those levels. Why? I want a 50% bigger/nicer house in the same area. But bigger/nicer houses have increased in price proportionally to mine. So the gap in absolute dollars between what I have and what I want has expanded quite a bit. My income has increased, but no…