Anyone know how to contact them directly and sell without an agent. Boy that would be easy
If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
621–630 of 1001 posts
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#622Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how you can manage, honestly. The absolute swarm of conspiracies around COVID and the election overwhelmed me and i wasn't even trying to stay informed on them. Furthermore, even if i was trying to stay informed on them it seems like a full time job trying to discern the "maybe not entirely moronic" conspiracies to the completely batshit ones. Most are batshit, it seems. Sounds exhausting.
I find that the times it is exhausting is when I've been overly attached to my own beliefs such that there's an emotional response to being exposed to claims in conflict to them. The best way to overcome this inhibitor to open mindedness in my opinion is to just ensure you have a broad exposure such that it becomes normal and unimpactful to read many things you strongly disagree with regularly.
I don't know if reading about how someone is the devil or how vaccines put 5G computer chips in my arm will ever not be draining.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#623Earlier 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.
Maybe. If zoning is fluid and organic, you might get those. And they are nice things that many people value.
But, in existing zones? Maybe not - you'd have to convince people to change residential to commercial/retail. And changes to parking minimums, which always seem to screw up projects (they almost always require more parking than a "free market" would dictate).
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#624Here'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…
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 wonder if the opposition would be classified as NIMBY
If a protected classification like gentrification or environmental impact can be found, then it isn't NIMBY anymore.
Say for example, if the town homes projected to be priced higher than the neighborhood, there is a gentrification angle. Density often requires some environmental impact review. For example, a change in development density might have significant water runoff impacts that require a retention area large enough to make the development economically unviable.
I think finding a potential habitat for an endangered species is the strongest reclassification from NIMBY because it doesn't require any change to existing structures, mostly freezes things in place and has regulation from redundant inscrutable jurisdictions and the support of outside organizations that are generally successful and seeking new cases to work on.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a red herring when prop 13 was passed, and is a red herring now. 49 other states don't have prop 13, and yet seniors aren't priced out of their homes. There are plenty of other solutions. Some states allow you to just pay the same amount each year and put the difference as a lien on the house until you sell. Some states have something like prop 13, but it is applied to entire counties. ie. They allow the ent…
> This was a red herring when prop 13 was passed, and is a red herring now. 49 other states don't have prop 13, and yet seniors aren't priced out of their homes. Prop 13 is bad in at least half a dozen ways, but I'm not so sure this problem isn't coming elsewhere or even is absent. It seems to me California may have experienced a leading edge of metro dynamics that are going to come for other states soon. > everyone'…
> I think something like this is right (and wasn't this attempted by proposition a few years ago?).
No, a much more limited reform that would have effected some, but not all, commercial and industrial property (but not any, even non-primary, residential) was, and was defeated.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#626This hurts people who already own houses, too - property taxes are assessed on the appraised value of the home, which is a function of what the similarly-sized houses in your area sold for most recently. My property taxes have increased 10% every year for the past several years (and it would have been more if not for a legislative 10% annual cap). I worry that there will come a day when I've paid off my mortgage but…
This can be fixed somewhat by excluding primary residence from such taxes (essentially a tax-free allowance of 1). This cuts at hoarding real estate as investment, is a nice extra tax on people buying second homes, and doesn't (directly) affect 99% of homeowners who only ever own one house. I'm not sure I support land taxes etc. but this at least deals with your objection.
So the people who live in an area shouldn't be the ones paying the taxes to support the area?
Someone else should pay the taxes for them?
Either your tax would come entirely from income - huge handout to homeowners / cost to non-homeonwers - regressive. OR your sales tax would be so crushing that no one would ever buy anything in your community.
Or you could live in a fantasy land.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#627Here'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…
This is a dumb investment. In order for the entier country to not descend into dysfunctional chaos there will have to be statewide laws that prevent this sort of brain damage.
When that happens there will be nothing keeping the prices of individual housing units in these areas up.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#628Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its only the most expensive thing in most people's lives that has doubled in cost in about 10 years. Most people pay for housing by monthly payments, making the nominal value of the house irrelevant if the monthly payment stays the same. Further, you should consider the home owner's "basket of goods" to include the hypothetical rent they'd be paying for an equivalent house. Their mortgage payments and home ownershi…
Non homeowners are paying way more whilst getting less in return. I really dont understand the logic of being OK with paying double for a house, just because the buyer can sell it for the same amount (or higher) afterwards. I could purchase a 150m2 house with my salary a decade ago. Now I could find a 75m2 house that would be too expensive for me. I dont care about being able to sell the house for more money afterwar…
> I really dont understand the logic of being OK with paying double for a house
Double what? The price someone paid years ago under totally different market conditions?
In the future prices might be halved or double again - act accordingly
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like prop 13 isn't the only way to avoid that. Some jurisdictions allow you to defer property tax indefinitely in the form of a lien against the house which seems like a reasonable way to do it.
Some of my neighbors are seniors who are on social security. Their houses were bought for about $160k in the 1970s. Which is expensive back then. Now they are worth $2M but they have no intention to move. Where would they live? And how can they afford the $30k/yr property tax? What stops people from selling their homes isn’t prop 13, it’s the ridiculous rise in house prices in the last 15 years. It creates no mobilit…
The law should take into consideration those cases and not charge them $30k/yr in cash for property taxes if they don't have the money in cash to pay it. One solution mentioned elsewhere is a lien against the inflation-adjusted value appreciation of the house.
The solution isn't to let wealthy older homeowners get away with not paying proper property taxes though, which is how it is now.
Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
#630Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re saying that old people should be driven out of their houses because younger, richer people deserve to live in their houses. I’m sure your feelings will change as you get older.
I own a house in East Bay, and paying >$10k/yr of property tax. While I don't mind tax in principle, it greatly annoys me that I'm paying much more than my neighbors just because I bought it a few years ago. And why would my opinion change when I get older? Prop 13 won't do shit to lower my taxes, I'll have less income and still be paying through the nose, because the city needs money and half of its residents are pa…
> And why would my opinion change when I get older? Prop 13 won't do shit to lower my taxes
It will, in real terms, since the assessment increase limit is the lower of 2% or the rate of inflation each year, guaranteeing that over the long term the assessed value and tax go down in real terms.
Which isn’t to say your opinion should change, just that the self-interest equation does.