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

Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 247 posts

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#161

Post by lotsofpulp »

taurath wrote: post #96
nostrademons wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Colorado is now seen as the last "cool" place thats "affordable" and liberal (sorry screaming Coloradan's, you're next). Asheville, NC is coming up after Colorado - I've got one friends-couple that's actively moving there this summer, and a couple others that are thinking seriously about it. > I wonder what this all will look like when we look back 20 years hence There was an interesting throwaway comment in Carlot…

The one thing I have never seen yet of any of that large group is a move to the east coast. It’s as foreign as can be though some have spent a bit of time in NYC for work. I think the cultural “west” is still where these people will stay for the time being.

If you've experienced life on the west coast, the weather (humidity mainly) on the east coast (and midwest) just doesn't cut it. It doesn't snow enough to have worthwhile skiing, and when it is warm outside, it's uncomfortably humid.

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#162

Post by maxerickson »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #161
taurath wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one thing I have never seen yet of any of that large group is a move to the east coast. It’s as foreign as can be though some have spent a bit of time in NYC for work. I think the cultural “west” is still where these people will stay for the time being.

If you've experienced life on the west coast, the weather (humidity mainly) on the east coast (and midwest) just doesn't cut it. It doesn't snow enough to have worthwhile skiing, and when it is warm outside, it's uncomfortably humid.

There's plenty of snow for skiing in the Midwest. There just aren't any mountains. In Michigan the 'big' places have 500 or 600 feet of vertical, with the modest outlier literally in the middle of Lake Superior, so it takes forever to get there (http://www.mtbohemia.com/ ).

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#163

Post by lotsofpulp »

maxerickson wrote: post #162
lotsofpulp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've experienced life on the west coast, the weather (humidity mainly) on the east coast (and midwest) just doesn't cut it. It doesn't snow enough to have worthwhile skiing, and when it is warm outside, it's uncomfortably humid.

There's plenty of snow for skiing in the Midwest. There just aren't any mountains. In Michigan the 'big' places have 500 or 600 feet of vertical, with the modest outlier literally in the middle of Lake Superior, so it takes forever to get there ( http://www.mtbohemia.com/ ).

Yes, I was referring to Northeast about the snow, that have somewhat ski-able "mountains". In general, the quality of outdoor activities is so much greater on the west coast that my friends and I would just fly from NYC for trips than go out locally. Plus you avoid ticks and lyme disease.

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#164

Post by tehlike »

sokoloff wrote: post #157
toast0 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pretty much forget about tax benefits, thanks to the 2017 federal tax plan that limits deductability of state and local taxes and reduces the cap on mortgage interest deductability. You may still get a deduction, but it's not going to be that much higher than the standard deduction.

For landlords, those new limits do not apply; they remain deductible, just like other qualified business expenses (which makes sense IMO, which is why I support the mortgage interest deduction, to keep owner occupants on relatively equal footing with landlords when contemplating purchasing property).

The real q is, why does government even subsidizing home ownership in the first place?

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#165

Post by sokoloff »

tehlike wrote: post #164
sokoloff wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For landlords, those new limits do not apply; they remain deductible, just like other qualified business expenses (which makes sense IMO, which is why I support the mortgage interest deduction, to keep owner occupants on relatively equal footing with landlords when contemplating purchasing property).

The real q is, why does government even subsidizing home ownership in the first place?

US business taxes are based income / profits. In order to do that, it's required to allow profit-seeking entities to deduct business expenses (such as raw materials, wages, etc.).

Logically, interest and property taxes are business expenses for landlords, just as steel and electricity are business expenses for Ford.

Then, there's a question of whether you want to have a level purchasing environment for prospective owner-occupants when they are bidding against a prospective landlord. (I believe that we do want to encourage owner-occupancy, at least to the extent that they are on equal footing with landlords.) Repealing the OO-MID (owner-occupied mortgage interest deduction) would mean that a landlord could literally pay more for a property than an owner-occupant and achieve the same long-run financial outcome, or pay the same and achieve a better outcome. This would amount to a subsidy to renters over owners. Providing a similar (now lessened) subsidy to owners serves to level, not tilt the playing field.

If one believes that a nation of entirely renters is preferable or indifferent as compared to a mix of landlords and end users, then there is no valid purpose for the OO-MID.

I believe there are community and public benefits to owner-occupancy and support the level playing field.

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#166

Post by lukeschlather »

mulmen wrote: post #77
BurningFrog wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that Seattle is still allowing housing construction though?

I believe rent here was stable in January 2018, the first time since 2008. Supply seems to slowly be catching demand. There's still some serious concerns about space to build higher density but the city has not totally locked down new construction or density increases. My neighborhood is largely single-family and there are a number of places that have been demolished recently in favor of town homes and small apartmen…

Rents are always stable for a little bit in the winter. To get an accurate picture you have to compare year-over-year, otherwise you're just looking at noise.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/wa/seattle

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#167

Post by nwah1 »

taurath wrote: post #99
poof131 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s both. There clearly is a bubble. The Fed has essentially dumped easy money into the economy since the dotcom bust. 2008 saw another crash and again the spigots were opened. It only seemed to flow to certain areas though as top down economic policy tends to do. Now as the Fed raises rates, people can borrow less and thereby afford less. We may see zero percent interest rates forever and the government stepping in…

Prop 13 doesn't exist in Seattle, yet prices are rising as fast or faster than the bay (on a percentage basis). There the lesson is supply/demand - there is only 1 month or less of housing stock available, when 6 would be a historically median market. Everyone is going crazy to buy something as fast as possible before they get left behind. Absolutely though Prop 13 hurts liquidity in California though. There's a lot…

Yep, Prop 13 is flagrantly unfair, but the general mechanisms by which land value rises is intrinsic to our system of land tenure.

However, these windfall gains can be recycled into public coffers via the tax system and lighten tax burdens on productive activity.

As a nice bonus, it would make it much harder to be an idle landlord in a prime area... the physical equivalent of a patent troll.

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#168

Post by jostmey »

sokoloff wrote: post #158
Reedx wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. VC -> Startup -> Employee -> Landlord. Everyone blames tech workers, but they're not the ones raising the prices. Most of their money disappears into rent.

If they’re the ones demanding housing at a rate that outstrips the supply, then they are the ones causing prices to rise: they’re just not the ones editing the listings.

The demand for housing is not the problem. It's the supply that is the problem. The supply is being kept artificially low

Re: Home Values Are Rising by $800 a Day in San Jose

#170

Post by ghaff »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #152
mulmen wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an art gallery across the street from me. Many coffee shops and restaurants have locally created art for sale. There are all kinds of quirky performances on the street and in local businesses. I can't even begin to find time to attend all the live music shows I would like. Who are these other "culturally important folk" and why are they so important? Not denying they exist, I just don't know who you are talki…

Seattle in the early/mid 90s had a grittier grungier feel. Before that, I remember when the Alaskan ferry docks were still downtown (today they are in Bellevue), it was much more of a lumber jack/plaid/fishing boat feel back then (early 80s and late 70s). Of course, my dad and mom’s impression of Seattle was quite different from mine own, as well. Change is just constant I guess.

>Seattle in the early/mid 90s had a grittier grungier feel.

Of course, that's true of a lot of US cities that are growing these days. Certainly NYC or Boston were much grittier in the 80s/90s than they are today with a net outflow of population.

Post reply on HN