Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

buildzoom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#101

Post by rayiner »

lostmsu wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can telecommute a lot, I recommend Maryland b/w D.C. and Annapolis. You can get a 4BR house for what a 1BR apartment costs in D.C., you can be at a farm in 20 minutes in one direction and a downtown bar in 10 minutes in the other, and I've got two different fiber providers available (I'm getting 2-gig installed soon). Unfortunately, the tech scene in the DMV area seems to be mostly in northern Virginia, which…

Care to share a couple of zips?

I'm in 21140. I'd say east to Annapolis, west to Bowie, and north to Glen Burnie are all worth looking at depending on your needs.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#102

Post by m0llusk »

kevinburke wrote: post #17

Would like to say: If you would like to reverse these trends, or live in the SFBA and would like to be able to afford a home or condo without needing to commute from Stockton or hit the startup lottery, please pay attention to your local City Council and their zoning/land use decisions. Local decisions frequently don't get that many comments; your voice makes a difference. - Brisbane may approve 4400 units of housing…

The Brisbane proposal is a great example of the need for public input. Instead of expanding the town the idea is to build high density development on swampland far from town and services in a location so clearly undesirable that it has escaped even proposals for development since the Gold Rush. Reasonable expansion of existing towns is a good answer to this crisis while building large apartment buildings in fetid swamps far from transit, towns, and services is responding to one set of errors with even worse errors.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#103

Post by pascalxus »

They really should normalize the costs on a per square foot basis and the numbers would be even more start. Homes tend to be smaller in areas with really high per square foot costs.

It just seems so sad. When you're driving along the highway and you see all these tiny homes jam packed together like some sort of Gehtto, only 2 feet between each home and yet there's miles and miles of space in every direction, outside the complex. I'm talking about the exerbs that surround the bay area. According to one govt report i read, Only 5% of CA land is currently being used!

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#104

Post by Simon_says »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #87
Simon_says wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Whoever goes against this is openly causing suffering,” she said. This quote really stands out to me. Is this demonization of opposing viewpoints a new thing, or am I just noticing it more in the last two years?

I think that this is probably a logical extension of the underlying logic. Sales taxes are inherently harder on people with less money than people with more money. That's demonstrable just based on simple math. Any argument for sales taxes over income taxes that doesn't recognize that fundamental mathematical truth is not being intellectually honest (or doesn't know the topic very well).

It doesn't seem like it logically follows to me. The government having more money is often a good thing, but it has to be weighed against the damage government programs can do and the costs to the people of higher taxation. It's debatable, and people like the woman in the article want to short-circuit the debate by calling the other side the devil.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#105

Post by pascalxus »

emodendroket wrote: post #56
carlivar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago and Illinois in general are in rough financial shape. Taxes are very high with no end to raises in sight.

I looked it up and Illinois just raised its income tax rate to just below that of Massachusetts.

Me too. That's one less state we can escape to.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#106

Post by emodendroket »

pascalxus wrote: post #105
emodendroket wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked it up and Illinois just raised its income tax rate to just below that of Massachusetts.

Me too. That's one less state we can escape to.

I don't know about you but income tax isn't my main concern

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#107

Post by pascalxus »

emodendroket wrote: post #106
pascalxus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. That's one less state we can escape to.

I don't know about you but income tax isn't my main concern

sure, its not the first concern. but, if you're going to pick everything up and leave all your friends and family behind, don't you want to find someplace ideal (consider all your choices and all factors involved) ?

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#108

Post by bhickey »

rspeer wrote: post #74
bhickey wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably remember a few years back when the well-heeled Green candidate ran on a platform of bussing in homeless. https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/3pd9k3/my_note...

Those are my notes! That candidate was amazing. Of course I didn't vote for him, but at least he was honest about his plan to lower the rent.

I enjoyed his cynical schtick: a JD/PhD from West Cambridge pretending to be a blue collar guy.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#109

Post by kevinburke »

m0llusk wrote: post #102
kevinburke wrote: post #17

Would like to say: If you would like to reverse these trends, or live in the SFBA and would like to be able to afford a home or condo without needing to commute from Stockton or hit the startup lottery, please pay attention to your local City Council and their zoning/land use decisions. Local decisions frequently don't get that many comments; your voice makes a difference. - Brisbane may approve 4400 units of housing…

The Brisbane proposal is a great example of the need for public input. Instead of expanding the town the idea is to build high density development on swampland far from town and services in a location so clearly undesirable that it has escaped even proposals for development since the Gold Rush. Reasonable expansion of existing towns is a good answer to this crisis while building large apartment buildings in fetid swa…

> "far from transit"

The proposed development is literally next door to a freeway (101), a Caltrain stop - Bayshore Caltrain - and a Muni stop. SF has proposed extending Muni into the new development for free.

"The public" largely wants new housing in the Baylands, if the city meetings were any guide, where a large majority of the speakers wanted to approve the housing proposal. You may have seen the signed letter from 40 different tech CEO's asking for housing on the Baylands, as well. The people who oppose it are Brisbane homeowners, because they have no incentive to add new housing.

> so clearly undesirable that it has escaped even proposals for development since the Gold Rush.

The choices are to build an office park and new apartments, or an office park; something is going to get built there. As part of the plan, the developer is proposing to spend $200 million cleaning industrial waste in the area. The only reason that pencils out is because of the new development.

Re: Paying for Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached from Construction Costs?

#110

Post by nowarninglabel »

boardwaalk wrote: post #89
nowarninglabel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the book "County Property: Dirt Cheap". It has some good tips. Note Lake County is high in fire danger, so depending on where you buy you'll want to take that into account for insurance cost or building style. Neighbors are also pretty critical to whether or not you'll be happy with this dream of yours.

This is a pretty old book, being >20 years old. I wonder if anyone knows of a good book that takes into account searching via the internet.

Well, the principles still hold from the book, you'd be surprised. For internet searches, just looking at landwatch.com and Zillow. Between those two you will pretty much see all there is out here.
Post reply on HN