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

191–200 of 247 posts

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

#191

Post by ryandrake »

CalRobert wrote: post #189
ryandrake wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live in South Florida (Ft Lauderdale area) and it has so many advantages: warm-to-hot weather year round, plenty of water based recreation, zero income taxes, great dining and entertainment, growing but still reasonable housing prices... Yet I still moved to the crowded and insane Bay Area because jobs. In FL I was always running that risk that if my current job didn’t work out I’d have few remaining option…

Today's hiring market is tough? I don't know what sector you're in but I think most people would say it's a developer's market at the moment. 2009 was horrible by comparison.

Well, sure, in 2009 it was far worse, maybe 1000:10:1. However today isn’t exactly a walk in the park.

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

#192

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ghaff wrote: post #170
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Also, I worked at the downtown McDonald’s then (3rd and pine), which was pretty run down and a hangout for homeless at night, so my impression is pretty biased. Not sure if this is still true, but back then many of the homeless were Native Americans, which is unique to the PNW (and Vancouver) grit, I guess.

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

#193

Post by BurningFrog »

blondie9x wrote: post #98

We need to build much more dense places that people can actually own. The housing situation is not sustainable. Many people end up living on the streets because affordable housing isn't available. There is too much demand and we aren't building dense enough to utilize the land available.

Are there places built that nobody owns? What are you saying?

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

#194

Post by jiveturkey »

mulmen wrote: post #63
jiveturkey wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Prop 13 only has effect when houses do NOT sell. Whenever a property changes hands, which is the only event that matters wrt demand, it is assessed at current market value. Prop 13 does have an effect but only in the manner in which it supresses sales.

I'm not an economist but if property tax growth is effectively capped at 2% and teachers are paid out of property tax then any time housing price grows by more than 2% teachers are at a disadvantage to buy a house.

It’s not tho. It adjusts to market at each sale. In between sale it moves slower but then it readjusts.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

nwah1 wrote: post #167
taurath wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by jandrese »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #169

Looks like it's all about inventory. No one is selling their home in Santa Clara County (San Jose)[0]: Homes for sale in March 2016: 1,254 Homes for sale in March 2017: 934 Homes for sale in March 2018: 516 [0] http://scc.rereport.com/market_reports

Why sell when your home value is increasing by $292,000 a year and property taxes are not going up? This seems like a very strong HODL time for real estate as an investment. The fundamentals are sound, there are tons of people looking for a roof over their head so they can continue working their dream job and supply constraints that prevent the production of new homes to accommodate them.

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

#197

Post by jandrese »

counterpoint1 wrote: post #188
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.

Landlord -> Property taxes -> Government benefits receivers, service providers and employees The real beneficiaries are the people who gain from the increased tax revenue.

I thought Prop 13 prevented taxes from rising with property value?

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

#198

Post by kenning »

mulmen wrote: post #136
kenning wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never even been to seattle but i can at least tell you that grunge started there. Can you imagine a new genre of music starting in seattle now? Also, > There's an art gallery across the street from me. Many coffee shops and restaurants have locally created art for sale. There's a ton of those in SF, too. Gentrifiers enjoy the old culture and all its signifiers; that's why they moved there in the first place. (ID…

There’s a dude who dances on the corner by my bus stop because he likes it. No shortage of buskers either. The bar up the street does rope dancing on I think Tuesday night. I’m not sure how to reconcile “all the artists are leaving” with “gentrifiers like art” and the presence of many forms of art all over the place. Which is it? Are artists not supposed to sell art? I really don’t get it. Grunge didn’t really start…

Really just warning you, it sounds possible that it's where SF was 10-15 years ago. I personally knew multiple artists who lived in SF, tried to sell their art to techies, slowly noticed that all their friends were becoming techies (and all their artist friends were leaving), their rent continually rose, and had to move out. These places are friendly to artists right up until they aren't.

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

#199

Post by oxymoran »

ynniv wrote: post #183
charlesdm wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you're a landlord with significant property holdings, what would you do? You'd lobby the government not to increase supply, of course.

No, you would build more if you could.

Landlords do not build they own. Contractors and developers build. If you could own one building and charge $2500 or own 5 building and charge $600 each, what would you choose? You would make $500 more owning more buildings, but you would also have more overhead and work managing them all.

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

#200

Post by jandrese »

jostmey wrote: post #168
sokoloff wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why not both? This is classic Supply and Demand curves.
Post reply on HN