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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 440 posts

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

#381

Post by larrywright »

ssanders82 wrote: post #374
larrywright wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to make this same comment - renting forever is probably fine for people who are willing to accept a certain kind of lifestyle, but for most people it's too limiting. Got kids and want a playset in the backyard? Not in an apartment. Want a wall where there isn't one, or remove a wall that you'd rather not have? Again, nope. Want a home theatre with a big subwoofer so you can watch movies at home (one of my…

"Want a home theatre with a big subwoofer so you can watch movies at home (one of my favorites). Nope, not unless you want some angry neighbors." How is that buy vs rent? Sounds like just house vs apartment?

Yes, that’s what I meant. The GP was specifically talking about an apartment. So yes, this one only applies if you’re not renting a house.

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

#382

Post by tathougies »

jandrese wrote: post #357
tathougies wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, most HOAs will kick you out if you are deemed to be a nuisance, as can a city council.

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.

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

#383

Post by tathougies »

zcid wrote: post #379
tathougies wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why federal? The federal government has no authority to do so. Housing is literally, more than any other market, an intra state matter, and the feds cannot regulate intra state trade.

Then we need to fix that. No state will pass legislation along these lines because it will put them at an economic disadvantage to every state that doesn't.

I mean, and if a country does that it puts them at an economic disadvantage to every country that doesn't?

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

#384

Post by larrywright »

jandrese wrote: post #313
larrywright wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to make this same comment - renting forever is probably fine for people who are willing to accept a certain kind of lifestyle, but for most people it's too limiting. Got kids and want a playset in the backyard? Not in an apartment. Want a wall where there isn't one, or remove a wall that you'd rather not have? Again, nope. Want a home theatre with a big subwoofer so you can watch movies at home (one of my…

The way I see it renting will always be more expensive because you have all of the same costs but you add in one other person to pay: the landlord. Maybe the landlord can hire less expensive maintenance staff than you can, but maybe they can't. Is it really that different to have the house plumber come down and fix something vs. hiring a plumber from the yellow pages? The landlord has to pay the mortgage same as you…

Right, this is another downside to renting - landlords will tend to optimize for cost. So when a refrigerator or dishwasher breaks, it will be replaced with something reasonably priced. In my house, when the dishwasher breaks I can choose to replace it with something inexpensive, or I can spend a little more and replace it with a really quiet one that I can’t even tell is running (BOSCH are whisper-quiet, and totally worth the extra $$).

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

#385

Post by zcid »

clairity wrote: post #324
zcid wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need some stronger regulation on renting. I'd like something along the lines of federal rent control. Limit the rent that can be charged to reduce the profitability of buying up house after house. This would be unpopular with the current owners of homes as it would lower property values, but over time they would remain much more stable.

i agree with your sentiment, but i don't think that rent control is a federal concern. we need to hold our state legislators accountable here. living in CA frustrates me in that regard, because we cannot pass a single f'ing bill about housing affordability generally, even though democrats have a super-majority and every politician and news outlet talks a big game on the topic. i'm ready to vote against every incumben…

There are too many loopholes with holding property. You can create and diversify among enough companies and eventually you won't have to pay tax at all.

No politician will vote for this because they know where their bread is buttered. It would be suicide as they would find out when they lose every large donor. I doubt we'll ever get people into office that would vote for anything to disadvantage property holders.

Even if you vote it in through a referendum, I expect a judge will crush it through some weaselly interpretation of the constitution or other precedent. California in particular has had several major referendums reversed by the courts. Will of the oligarchy, not that of the people.

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

#386

Post by zcid »

tathougies wrote: post #344
zcid wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need some stronger regulation on renting. I'd like something along the lines of federal rent control. Limit the rent that can be charged to reduce the profitability of buying up house after house. This would be unpopular with the current owners of homes as it would lower property values, but over time they would remain much more stable.

Why federal? The federal government has no authority to do so. Housing is literally, more than any other market, an intra state matter, and the feds cannot regulate intra state trade.

I can't seem to reply to your other comment so I do so here.

It is entirely different to move your company or business to another country vs another state. Most people are not going to expatriate and most companies wouldn't gain much from doing so. Property is already much cheaper in Mexico, but you don't see anybody with a high-skill workforce moving there.

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

#387

Post by Aloha »

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…

Everyone is different man - I'm tired of dealing with rent that only goes one direction, up - I'm tired of neighbors who do shit like bang on my ceiling or seemingly do some sort of bowling in their living room, I'm tired of repairs that take forever too.

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

#388

Post by rifung »

secabeen wrote: post #356
rifung wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume you mean adjusted for inflation here? Even then that hasn't been true. I used the numbers from here: https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.... Specifically in section IIIA "The stylized fact from the studies on long-run housing capital appreciation is that over long horizons, house prices only grow a little faster than the consumer price index" > The problem with renting is that you'r…

The thing that pushed me over the top on renting was purchasing a house with an accessory dwelling that we could rent. Houses with rentable space often don't sell for that much more than those that don't have said space, but they come with an income stream.

That's an excellent point. Like I said in my original comment, it is comparable if you buy a place outright. I suspect if you are able to both extract rent while also save on your own rent, that may be the best of both worlds.

Perhaps I should take your idea and use it myself =D

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

#389

Post by woofie11 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #102
low_poly_shiba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20223267 maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are n…

>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 transient driving the economy into the stone age. But if one were starting form scratch, that's definitely the way to go. It's more economically efficient and more equitable.

It's actually less about the houses on the land as about the land itself, but it's hard to decouple the two. Rent-collecting resources work best as a public good.

Private sector+heavy regulation isn't a mid-point between private and public. In many cases, including real estate and medicine, it's less efficient than either extreme.

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

#390

Post by jandrese »

refurb wrote: post #331
jandrese wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over the long term on average home prices don't increase. I assume you mean adjusted for inflation here? Even then that hasn't been true. The problem with renting is that you're still paying the mortgage, only in the renting case you're also paying the middleman who then pays the mortgage. This is why rent per month is higher than mortgage per month for the same house. So the returns from that downpayment you inste…

The problem with renting is that you're still paying the mortgage, only in the renting case you're also paying the middleman who then pays the mortgage. This is why rent per month is higher than mortgage per month for the same house. That statement is very location specific.[1] In SF, it's cheaper to rent than to buy (on a monthly basis) and because of rent control, it's often cheaper to rent versus buy over your lif…

Well yes, Prop 13 continues to be a huge mistake.
Post reply on HN