Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 6:51 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #270

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I moved from midtown Manhattan to western Wyoming. If I could afford to live in Jackson, I would love to someday. But alas, Jackson real estate makes Seattle look cheap.

Really? It's very small, isolated and while there is a ton of outdoor stuff, I don't think there's much else. There are tons of people who enjoy the urban amenities in places like NYC or San Francisco who would have fun for about a week and then be desperate to go somewhere with more going on. Just as there are plenty of people from outdoor towns who would enjoy hanging out in NYC for a week but then miss mountain bi…

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 8:13 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #362

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jackson is a resort town, like Vail, Aspen, Sun City, Park City, etc...you are usually really rich if you live there, or doing service jobs for the very rich. Obviously, you can't just move there and expect to somehow survive.

My point was: would you actually want to live there? I'm sure it's fun to visit, but spend most of the year there?

Post by graycat » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 9:29 PM UTC

mritterhoff wrote: post #359

graycat wrote: post #181

One, maybe not the only one, hands off, automatic, 100% "all-natural", do nothing solution to the "housing crisis": Hope the birth rate , i.e., on average the number of babies born per woman, stays significantly under 2.0 or even 2.1, maybe 2.2. So, the population will shrink but with some maintenance (roof, painting of exterior siding, kitchen/bath, HVAC, windows/doors) mostly the housing supply won't. The Internet…

A decreasing population has a lot of collateral damage economically. I'd rather lessen zoning restrictions and let the market build.

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 10:01 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #366

sokoloff wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is getting your own money back, many years later, without appreciation "equity working in [your] favor"? Without the appreciation (and leverage multiplying that), buying housing would be nowhere near as good an investment. (As it stands today, it's phenomenal, of course.)

The alternative of course is giving your money to a landlord (and zero equity and zero money back). That is certainly less favorable?

Post by deathanatos » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #301

deathanatos wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you're buying a house for a house , then it (mostly, generally¹) doesn't matter that the housing market has moved downwards and you'll be underwater until you pay down a bit on the house. You still have a house! So long as you can afford the mortgage — something you should have already planned for given you bought the house — you can still afford it. You might have remorse at having paid +$100k right befor…

What if your company transfers you to another place, and you need to move, and you can't pay off the remainder of principal on the home with the (now lower) proceeds you get from the sale? Or even if you can, but you don't have enough for a down payment on a house in the new area? Even regardless of that, I don't love the idea that a change in housing policy could make people feel trapped in their current home, unabl…