Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very strange. Typically banks try to sell foreclosures ASAP to the extent that most go the 'short sale' route where they just force a sale. Given it has been only 3 years and it's already inhabitable; something probably went very wrong preventing it from being sold. It's possible the previous tenants just destroyed it... it's really surprising how bad some people treat their home.
How often do people trash a previously un-trashed residence on the way out when being evicted or foreclosed? I suspect it’s much more common behavior than anyone wants to admit.
If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
591–600 of 1001 posts
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#592This is what happens when you keep printing money and keep mortgage rates incredibly low. All that money's gotta go somewhere. Hey, at least the CPI isn't going up right? Its only the most expensive thing in most people's lives that has doubled in cost in about 10 years. Same thing for stock prices, and slowly other commodity prices are catching up as well. Non-homeowners are being shafted by this fed/ecb policy. Eve…
Given supply constraints, I agree that easy money probably does drive up prices. But without artificial constraints, any rise in price would just dissipate back into higher supplies. That's why you see QE result in higher housing costs, but not higher car prices.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. Why? That's kind of an important point. For example, unless this is NYC or similar, 49 townhomes is going to need a minimum of at least 110 parking spots (just to hold the occupants alone, assuming no one ever has guests ever). A realistic parking minimum should be 2.5 spots per townhouse. A lot of builders outsource their pollution to the local neighborhood,…
If you can only build dense housing in the places where there are no few jobs and few people it doesn't help much. The fact that the locals are by definition negatively impacted by new development is a great reason to take virtually all say away from the locals. Anyone who is already a home owner will find that increasing supply of homes a necessary function of the society decreases the value of the asset in which th…
They aren't throwing dollars over the fence, they're throwing debt over the fence.
Sure, my property is on-paper worth more. If I cash that out, I just have to spend it all (every other house got more expensive by an equal amount, and I have to live somewhere). And the new person who buys it now has to cover all that extra debt directly in their mortgage, they get soaked too!
Property values are not real wealth, it's not real money. It's fake. Coastal folks can treat it like it's real, because they can play markets against each other, they can depend on moving to some "low COL" area as their cash-out-to-real-money exit strategy. Those of us in low COL already (or who can't play markets, because they have to stay here for family/work reasons) don't have similar luck, the chain ends here, there's nowhere left to go.
> Presumably if someone did something like build a crack house and halved the value of your property you wouldn't thank them for halving your tax bill!
I would thank them, actually. Property should depreciate. It's the only way housing will ever get affordable for real humans again. I don't expect to get every dollar I paid for a house, back again. No one should.
> locals have interests that are almost always out of alignment with the rest of society.
Locals are the "rest of society". Locals don't all own property, half of our locals rent. Locals who own, still often have kids who need to buy houses, and they want them to be able to afford to live near them. The selfish behaviour seems to be coming entirely from developers or 'urbanists' who think if they just keep ignoring the ramifications of their actions, they can strongarm society into accepting forever-increasing housing costs. Why you paint "Locals" with that brush, when Locals carry every penny of those increased costs, I have no idea.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmmm this just seems like a bad decision on your part. I bought my house in 2018 and it was expensive, yes, but definitely manageable on my salary. I definitely would not buy a house right now, especially if it required spending 'my entire net worth plus a good chunk of my future net worth'.
It's a vicious cycle – OP and others are forced to commit most of their wealth to own a home because of all the NIMBYs that came before them, and on and on.
It's like the American opposition to pedestrianization of blocks. Pedestrianized blocks increase local business footfall and increase high margin economic activity.
New developments in your community increase value of your home, far better than restricting development.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#595Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just experienced something similar to this and it makes me wonder if much of this is just perception. We recently dealt with an out of state builder pushing to have a property that was zoned Neighborhood Commercial to be rezoned to something more flexible so that he could build 49 town homes with 49 parking spots on 5 acres of land. Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. The project would have been…
I had to laugh at “the most dense development”. 400sqm is absolute luxury in Europe, and plenty of space for a massive detached house with a garden and garage. A house on the high end here sits on less than 150m2 (northern europe).
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#597Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#598In my neighborhood the bank owns a house and has owned it since it was foreclosed upon about three years ago. The house is completely falling apart. It is unlivable. The house is tarpped. Apparently also filled with mold. The yard has rotting wood and weeds that are taller than my head. And no one will do anything about it. The city will fine the bank $100 for each infraction and that is it. The bank could care less.…
Very strange. Typically banks try to sell foreclosures ASAP to the extent that most go the 'short sale' route where they just force a sale. Given it has been only 3 years and it's already inhabitable; something probably went very wrong preventing it from being sold. It's possible the previous tenants just destroyed it... it's really surprising how bad some people treat their home.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#599Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…
> Support groups like https://yimbyaction.org/ if you want to 'stick it to the investors'. I’m pretty sure you’re not sticking it to investors if you support development. You might be sticking it to different investors.
Developers aren't passive asset investors, they ... you know ... actually create things.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…
It also means you can get walkability and nice things like shops and leisure activities without having to buy a car and drive literally everywhere.
I lived in an area that, for years, refused to let an old railroad track be converted into a trail because it would connect a working class area of the town to an upper middle class area via a miles-long footpath.