A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses • Hacker News Board

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#401

Post by downrightmike » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #152

LarryDarrell wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I call the super they drag their feet, do a half-assed job, take a dump in my bathroom, and then I get a rent increase for "improvements" they've made to the property. I used to own a 1000 sq ft cape cod that was built in 1942. I fixed everything myself and since it was small, nothing could really get out of hand. I believe most of the pain involved in home owning lately has come from bigger houses with more com…

Even worse, they make them bigger for the same price by cutting quality.

Little boxes on the hill side made of ticky-tacky.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#402

Post by partiallypro » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 1:52 AM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #321

partiallypro wrote: post #274

I generally wonder what is going to happen to the real estate market once retirees are forced to sell their homes to stay in nursing homes, or just pass away, etc. The kids could inherit the homes, but that will still leave a flood of houses on the market. It will be interesting to see play out.

>The kids could inherit the homes, but that will still leave a flood of houses on the market. It will be interesting to see play out. Investors will buy them, and get the city/county to rezone those properties for multiple houses. They will tear the house down, and build N houses on it and sell it. In the short term, there might be a local HOA that will fight it. But when the oversupply gets large enough to really im…

Or it could be like Japan, and the real estate market is flat for decades. In fact, Japanese median home prices are lower than they were in 1992. The stock market had flat phases for decades in US history...I don't see why housing as an asset class is immune to it.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#403

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

newsoul2019 wrote: post #139

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #93

One of the trends that I can only hope continues is getting rid of this idea that home ownership (especially single family home ownership) is the American dream. I live in and own a detached single family home (was a compromise with my spouse) and to be honest, I hate it. I hate having to take care of the yard, to deal with unreliable tradespeople when things break, to deal with the huge expense of minor home repairs…

Am I the only one who has always seen renting as a temporary arrangement only? If you don't own something, somewhere, doesn't that mean the same as being homeless? Not trying to offend anyone. Genuinely wondering, are there people who really don't want to own real estate ever in their lives?

There's lots of places (entire countries) where people of ordinary means have little chance of owning real estate.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#404

Post by santa_boy » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

Deviating perhaps ... but I always wonder if having a big house makes a family happier or more efficient?

Small house have their own problems but bigger houses instinctively don't seem to be the right solution to me.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#405

Post by jnwatson » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:29 AM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #382

jandrese wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HOAs don't have the power to evict you from your own house. They might act like they do, but they don't. Their power basically ends at sending sternly worded letters and in exceptional cases putting a lien on the property. If the homeowner just ignores their letters they can't do much.

Yes, they can? An HOA is added to the deed agreement. A typical HOA will be allowed to put a lien on the house if you do not pay them the agreed upon fee, and -- crucially -- whatever other fees they determine. Thus, if an HOA wants to kick you out for any reason, they mostly just have to continue to fine you until you can no longer pay, at which point they ask a judge, and take the house.

You can’t foreclose a house due to a lien. It only impacts selling the house.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#406

Post by jnwatson » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #214

cblum wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>housing security There is no such thing unless your home is paid off. If you have a mortgage and are hit by a catastrophic life event that leaves you without a job and depleted of your emergency fund, your home is gone.

If you stop paying rent your ass is on the street in days. Stop paying your mortgage and it can be months or years.

It takes at least 60 days in most areas of the US to evict a tenant.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#407

Post by refurb » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:45 AM UTC

treis wrote: post #342

refurb wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you live in Phoenix[1], Miami[2], Las Vegas[3], Chicago[4] or a host of other US cities. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PHXRNSA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MIXRNSA [3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LVXRNSA [4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CHXRCNSA

You're not accounting for equity changes. Even if you lost 20% of your house value you've paid down more of your mortgage than that.

On a typical 30 year mortgage you haven’t paid much principle in the first 5-10 years. So if you’re still down 10% (as some of those cities are), you could still be in the red.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#408

Post by gruez » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

woofie11 wrote: post #389

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all? Many people (dare I say the overwhelming majority) on HN agrees that real estate needs a heck of a lot less regulation so supply can do better meeting demand and costs can drop. We may argue about the minutia but pretty much everyone on HN als…

Real estate is most efficient when it's managed in the public sector. The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes. Free markets tend towards a land-owning aristocracy and peasant renters being charged what the market will bear. I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. I know of no way to move real estate into the public sector without the short-term trans…

>The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes.

I for one don't enjoy soviet apartment blocks.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#409

Post by SwellJoe » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:53 AM UTC

secabeen wrote: post #377

SwellJoe wrote: post #190

Several of my younger friends live in cooperative housing, where they rent a big house, and individually rent out the rooms. Sometimes as many as 8 or 10 people live in a "single family" home. This seems like a great solution for all parties involved (including cities with very high rents), until you learn that the cities they're in often consider this an illegal use of the property and will force their landlord to e…

There's fun history to that here in California. There was an older woman here in Santa Barbara that ran a house like that. Lots of rented out rooms, they ate communal dinners, but you didn't have to come, etc. The city tried to shut it down, she took it to the state Supreme court, where they ruled in the homeowners' favor, saying essentially "the city doesn't get to decide what a family is. If these people want to ca…

I just finished watching Tales of the City (the new one on Netflix), and that sounds lovely.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#410

Post by gdfasfklshg4 » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 9:50 AM UTC

Blackstone4 wrote: post #80

gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo... Cruel. There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home.

I guess it depends on your perspective. It may mean pain for some and relief for others with a view to moving towards a more optimal solution for society as a whole. How can we use our housing stock more effectively? As things stand, people defend the status quo when young people and those on lower incomes are struggling with high rents and property prices. Some have kids and have to share rooms and live in small pro…

> If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals.

Except that you are. There are plenty of old people in London and the South East with very modest pensions that live in homes that have exploded in value through no fault of their own. They are not wealthy they just happen to live in a home that has become expensive.

I don't know if you have seen how confused a someone with dementia becomes when you move them to a new environment but it can be pretty horrible. And cheerfully saying that now this formerly independent person has to now pay for care because you took a policy decision is cruel.

The solution to a problem with society is not to hurt other people. This isn't a zero sum game where pain should be apportioned. We could actually come up with solutions that help everyone. Like simply building more homes...