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

The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

granolashotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#71

Post by phnofive »

> A property that has four or fewer apartments is treated the same as a single family home for lending purposes. But five or more units requires a commercial loan. So we created a pro forma and told the bank we were investors looking to be slumlords and this building would cash flow.

This is not a difference of perspective - home loans involve significantly more consumer protections than commercial ones; had things gone another way, the author'd be paying substantially more in rent to whatever landlord purchased the foreclosed five-plex.

Most of the article sweeps risk under the rug as do most stories where the winner is also a lucky survivor.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#72

Post by denton-scratch »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #26
rekabis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5) You don’t need as much house as you’ve been lead to believe. For living arrangements, you are mostly correct. I can exist very comfortably in about 1,000ft². Heck, even 800ft² would be comfy and cosy. My problem involves my hobbies and domestic activities: I need a 200ft² cool room for the enormous amounts of fruits and vegetables I harvest every year, canning all that shit needs a 150ft² summer kitchen so I don…

I am so tempted to get rid of my books. I will keep the 1st editions, and most reference books. I feel can toss everyone of my computer books. (Not one did I find well written, or worth keeping. If anyone decided to write a computer/programming book take out every unneeded word. Maybe take a technical writing course if you live near a good university?) It's just hard to get rid of reference books.

My father got old, and had to downsize from a large house to a small flat, which didn't have room for all his books, so most of them went to charity shops. A year later, he advised me "Try not to get rid of your books; you'll regret it."

He's died now, I took over the flat, and moved from a family home into the same flat. I also had to shed a lot of books in the process. I ripped my large CD collection to a media server. I miss some of those books I got rid of; but I like this small flat, and I don't want to dedicate a small room to a library.

The first books I got rid of were computer books. They were all manuals for some obsolescent technology; like, I thought the "Rhino" Javascript book would be useful forever (um, no). I got rid of a few feet of books on Buddhism, and several more feet were books on Western philosophy from my undergraduate days. These were books that had been formative for me, but I was honestly never going to open them again.

So I don't really agree with my father's advice. If you regret ditching a book, you can just replace it.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#73

Post by ausbah »

chmod600 wrote: post #13
stareblinkstare wrote: post #4

Why does this read like a penance?

A lot of people place misdirected blame for unaffordable housing on themselves or others who buy, fix up, and rent out houses. It's pretty obvious that the cause of unaffordable housing is elsewhere. But being the one to actually collect rent is a kind of guilt-by-association.

is one of the incentives for those who rent housing not to keep the available housing supply low (at least to a certain point)?

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#74

Post by denton-scratch »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #18
refurb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, ok? That doesn't change the point this house cleaner was able to get creative and a bunch of property.

He did that on the backs of those trying to get into the housing market now.

On their backs? He bought property on the market, and put it to economic use. He made rental property available in an area where many people can't afford to buy. He hasn't done anyone down.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#75

Post by denton-scratch »

pdonis wrote: post #39
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Generally by doing things that are now illegal (sometimes that were already illegal but not enforced at the time).

What things described in this article are now illegal?

Well, the author described an illegal one-room micro-apartment in downtown SF.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#76

Post by nemo44x »

kiba wrote: post #58
HarryHirsch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive in the way a trainwreck is impressive. There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. But misguided government policies have caused housing to be out of reach for the greater part of the population. Have you seen the housing price index for Pittsfield, MA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q Pittsfield. I…

Land is what should appreciate, not the building built on top of it, which should deprecate. What make land valuable is the collective work and contribution of a community. However, since lands are scarce and a collective effort to maintain, maybe it should be taxed for the benefit of the community and rewards given to the people who put it to the most valuable use, by not taxing buildings and other improvements buil…

> Land is what should appreciate, not the building built on top of it, which should deprecate.

That’s not entirely true. A home structure is worth what the materials + labor - depreciation are worth. A home can depreciate far more slowly that the cost of labor and materials rising. Not to mention that renovations will occur over time essentially removing some depreciation and adding to labor + materials to build a similar structure.

A well maintained home should hold its value well over time.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#77

Post by lmm »

pdonis wrote: post #39
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Generally by doing things that are now illegal (sometimes that were already illegal but not enforced at the time).

What things described in this article are now illegal?

The article explicitly points out that the shed they originally lived in would certainly be illegal now (and quite possibly also at the time, but it was easier to get away with then); building their own cabin would also be a lot more difficult (maybe it's not flat out illegal, but there are a lot more requirements about what kind of qualifications you have to have to sign off on a design, do wiring/plumbing/...).

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#78

Post by tomc1985 »

refurb wrote: post #6
tjr225 wrote: post #2

Lmao, a dude from San Francisco trying to justify his own landlordship back in the midwest. Amazing.

This is not a wealthy SF landlord story, this is an house cleaner . It’s an impressive story of someone slowly building up a real estate portfolio in the Bay Area. Most of it through creative means and living lean. It’s actually an impressive story.

Impressive, but it lost me at "start in the market slump of 2008"

Like that was the time in my life where I was literally the most broke. I had a neighbor try to practically give me his home if I could just take over the mortgage. But I was fresh in school and staring down combined debts well into 5 digits, no assets save for my car and a bunch of tech junk, and no income.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#79

Post by strken »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #53
xboxnolifes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't "need" very much of anything. People get by with a 100-200sqft room shared with other people, but that doesn't mean it's what I would want to live in.

I feel like it's kinda missing the point of the article to say that you "need" 500sqft for canning. That is a want, plain and simple. Wants can be expensive. Indulging wants like this is something that rich people can afford to do, and if you are rich that is good for you! But indulging this want is far from economically efficient, especially in a high cost of living real estate market. It's basically the exact oppos…

You don't strictly speaking need indoor plumbing, a private bedroom, windows, or paint that doesn't have lead in it. If you're rich enough to afford windows, a bedroom you don't share with another family, and to not have your kids die from heavy metal poisoning, then good for you! But indulging many of these wants is hardly economically efficient.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#80

Post by ggsp »

d1lanka wrote: post #40
hellbannedguy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so tempted to get rid of my books. I will keep the 1st editions, and most reference books. I feel can toss everyone of my computer books. (Not one did I find well written, or worth keeping. If anyone decided to write a computer/programming book take out every unneeded word. Maybe take a technical writing course if you live near a good university?) It's just hard to get rid of reference books.

Yeah, get rid of those computer books. That's what the internet + ebooks are for. Unless a book has a special meaning to me personally or is considered life changing, I rarely keep any physical books.

Interesting—I find I have a hard time reading technical books on my ebook reader. When I read fiction, it’s usually a linear process, making the reader ideal: read, swipe, repeat until done.

With technical books, I often need to jump to another section, which is so much slower and more painful than with dead trees. Code formatting also tends to be abysmal on my reader—although books are not the best for this either. Maybe I’m not using my device to the fullest?

Post reply on HN