America, Take Note: New Zealand Has Figured Out A Way To Bring Down Home Prices

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

It’s usually the people from wealthy families who got one of the those low paying art, media or NGO jobs, but still want to live in a prestigious neighborhood.

The rent is too high in Bushwick for their $50K salary, and they could never ever move to the Bronx le gasp or even Queens.

I’ve seen these sorts online, and they’ll ghost the debate once you start pointing out manageable neighborhoods for their income level.

Not to mention the clout seekers who are flat out lying or can’t manage their money. I once saw one in Chicago complaining that they couldn’t afford Chicago on a $200K salary.

I don't think those types would live in Bushwick yet lol. They haven't been pushed out of Williamsburg or Greenpoint as of now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I once saw one in Chicago complaining that they couldn’t afford Chicago on a $200K salary.

That's priceless.

"I can't afford a Gold Coast rowhouse on my $200K salary. Chicago is unliveable! Better try my luck down in Peoria, I guess."

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by SnowFire

This smells like the finland solving its homeless problem. Absurd comparison.

I've solved world hunger by opening a fridge in my kitchen.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

actually, that its country with only 15% minorities, mono or multi doesn’t matter what, is what is odd from an american pov. and i get it. ie., i love visiting japan, but after a month in japan i’m like wait, what? where are the black, latin, other asian, etc. people? and i’m ready to go home.

You can see black people in Japan. Plenty of Nigerians in Roppongi and Kabukicho.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by mhays

Does anyone ACTUALLY live anywhere for "image" aside from a few narcissists? I assume most people choose locations due to career opportunity, activities, family connections, friends, and so on -- including people in expensive cities.

NYC has entire neighborhoods where people live just for 'image'.
Manhattan and Northwest Brooklyn have plenty of those people.

[mhays]

They've SAID that, or you're guessing?

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Primary residences are terrible tools for building "generational wealth". A house only builds generational wealth if:

1. it appreciates wildly in value and doesn't require hundreds of thousands of dollars in upkeep during that time period, which rarely happens
2. the parents die almost instantly and not from a protracted and very expensive illnesses
3. there are only one or two kids

Exactly, all the politicians that proclaim everyone needs access to homeownership to build intergenerational wealth, ignore the fact that most of the appreciation has been due to the last 20-25 years of infinite quantitative easing and negative real rates. It's the ultimate ignorance and recency bias.

A housing bubble is not the key to building intergenerational wealth. Domestic production (not the debt based consumption of goods made in Asia) and living beneath your means is the key, whether you are a renter or homeowner.

[Steely Dan]

For me, not living in one of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 high cost coastal cities, the true benefits of home ownership transcend "intergenerational wealth", IMO.

stability: as long as i live up to my end of the bargain with the mortgage payments, no one can kick my family out of our home and school district. as our neighborhood continues to get wealthier around us, no landlord can ever jack the rent on us or sell the building to a new owner who might force us to move out of our community*. the value of that peace of mind is immeasurable when you're raising a family, IMO.

predictability: unlike rent, which only ever seems to increase over time, my mortgage payments will be exactly the same in 20 years as they are today. yes, property taxes will always only ever go up, but the base payment of my 30 year fixed loan will never change.

pride: because i own it, i take much greater care of my home than i ever did with any of the rental properties that i lived in when i was younger. not that i was some wreckless savage who intentionally destroyed other people's property, but when something is yours, you simply care more about it and take better care of it.

customization: because my home is mine, if i want to make changes to improve it or otherwise better suit my needs/desires, i don't have to seek the approval of some landlord who may not be on board with my plans. if i wanna redo a bathroom, boom, i redo a bathroom. i'm not at anyone else's mercy.



there are better investments than buying a home (in most markets), but for all of the intangibles listed above, especially when it comes to raising a family, i would never again want to be subject to the vagaries of the rental game. i enjoy calling my own shots way too 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 much.

besides, i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many financial planners who would say that home ownership, as ONE piece of a diversified investment strategy, is a bad idea in general.



(*) that exact situation happened to our old neighbors across the street from us. they were tenants in a 2-flat and the owner sold the building a year and a half ago, and the new owner wouldn't renew the existing leases because they were going to occupy one of the units, and another family member was going to occupy the other unit, so our old neighbors very reluctantly ended up moving to a new apartment flat about 1/2 mile north of us, which also put their kids in a different school district. needless to say, we don't see them much anymore, sadly.

[Crawford]

The first two factors can be easily accommodated in rental housing, provided there's some form of rent stabilization. Pride, no, but that's pretty subjective, and I'm not sure why someone cannot be proud of a housing unit, regardless of ownership. The fourth factor seems more of an argument for SFH vs. multifamily. A condo/coop owner doesn't have more rights to renovate a bathroom than a rental owner. Both will generally require some form of board approval.

[SnowFire]

ha no. at least in chicago, the only approvals i would need would be about noise and elevator use.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The first two factors can be easily accommodated in rental housing, provided there's some form of rent stabilization.

Rent stabilization/control laws can only limit the increase in rent. They don't prevent an owner of a two-flat from selling the property to a new owner who may not want to renew existing leases, as in the case of our old neighbors who lived across the street from us and were forced to move when their building got sold to a new owner. They were 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 pissed, but there was nothing they could do about it.

I don't ever want to be in a situation where someone else can force my family out of our home against our will. That's the most important aspect of "stability" to me.

And beyond that, Chicago has some of the weakest tenant's rights laws (and no rent control) of any major city in the country, so in my case, renting would mean being at the mercy of other people for my family's housing.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pride, no, but that's pretty subjective, and I'm not sure why someone cannot be proud of a housing unit, regardless of ownership.

People can be proud of whatever they want to.

Speaking for myself, I will absolutely be more careful with skiing equipment that I own vs. skiing equipment that I might rent.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The fourth factor seems more of an argument for SFH vs. multifamily. A condo/coop owner doesn't have more rights to renovate a bathroom than a rental owner. Both will generally require some form of board approval.

Not necessarily.

In the case of small scale multi-family condo situations like mine, I don't need approval from anyone (other than my wife ) to renovate a bathroom.

Hell, I wouldn't even need to tell my other building neighbors about it if I didn't want to.

Larger scale condo situations can obviously be different on that score.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

You can see black people in Japan. Plenty of Nigerians in Roppongi and Kabukicho.

There are also a lot of mixed Black and Japanese... At least in Tokyo.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Rent stabilization/control laws can only limit the increase in rent. They don't prevent an owner of a two-flat from selling the property to a new owner who may not want to renew existing leases, as in the case of our old neighbors who lived across the street from us and were forced to move when their building got sold to a new owner. They were 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 pissed, but there was nothing they could do about it.

I don't ever want to be in a situation where someone else can force my family out of our home against our will. That's the most important aspect of "stability" to me.

And beyond that, Chicago has some of the weakest tenant's rights laws (and no rent control) of any major city in the country, so in my case, renting would mean being at the mercy of other people for my family's housing.

I'm not sure about other cities, but in NYC landlords cannot force tenants out of rent stabilized units even when the ownership changes. That's how tenants in stabilized units get such big paychecks to agree to leave their units.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Rent stabilization/control laws can only limit the increase in rent. They don't prevent an owner of a two-flat from selling the property to a new owner who may not want to renew existing leases, as in the case of our old neighbors who lived across the street from us and were forced to move when their building got sold to a new owner. They were 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 pissed, but there was nothing they could do about it.

Not here. Rent stabilized tenants are tenants for life. They cannot be forced out. In many cases, upon their passing, the landlord cannot even prevent their children or loved ones from taking over the lease, again, for life.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

In the case of small scale multi-family condo situations like mine, I don't need approval from anyone (other than my wife ) to renovate a bathroom.

I'm in a relatively small condo building, and we need building approval to do any improvement or repair in our unit. We can't even have someone enter the building without their name and contact info recorded. I don't think it would be different from an equivalent rental building.

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not here. Rent stabilized tenants are tenants for life. They cannot be forced out. In many cases, upon their passing, the landlord cannot even prevent their children or loved ones from taking over the lease, again, for life.

I'm in a relatively small condo building, and we need building approval to do any improvement or repair in our unit. We can't even have someone enter the building without their name and contact info recorded. I don't think it would be different from an equivalent rental building.

has anyone ever been denied approval of such a thing? contact info is for liability.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SnowFire

has anyone ever been denied approval of such a thing? contact info is for liability.

Good question. I mean, if I brought in a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, or a dope dealer, would there be a denial, or later consequences? Could I be forced to sell my unit to the board or something? I guess?

I don't get involved in the condo board meetings, which sound like a shitshow. We're a boring family, so not likely to have trouble. We're doing a major renovation, which had to be meticulously documented to the board (a very costly endeavor) but the main concerns are around workers getting in/out of building and making noise. Many buildings have seasonal restrictions on work and limit non-residents to service elevators.

[SnowFire]

yeah ours is mostly about someone breaking a wall on the way from elevator to unit. there is general liability as if some worker punches someone or something like that, but that is just basic.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The first two factors can be easily accommodated in rental housing, provided there's some form of rent stabilization. Pride, no, but that's pretty subjective, and I'm not sure why someone cannot be proud of a housing unit, regardless of ownership. The fourth factor seems more of an argument for SFH vs. multifamily. A condo/coop owner doesn't have more rights to renovate a bathroom than a rental owner. Both will generally require some form of board approval.

That's literally illegal in the vast majority of the US. Only a very select few areas have any sort of rent control (basically NYC, DC and California and a few cities here and there). Many states completely ban any cities from enacting any laws that might restrict the raising of rent in any way. Its not uncommon in most of the us for a person to be paying like 2k a month in rent and then at the end of their lease to told its going up to 4k starting next month and you have a few weeks to move out and find somewhere new if you dont want to pay it. Thats basically the life of a renter, moving at least every year or 2.

[mhays]

The most expensive places in the US have rent control?! Gosh, what a coincidence!

Condo boards also control the quality of installation...related to potential for water damage during or after construction, acoustics (like whether new flooring is loud below), anything visible from outside the unit....

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dave8721

That's literally illegal in the vast majority of the US. Only a very select few areas have any sort of rent control (basically NYC, DC and California and a few cities here and there). Many states completely ban any cities from enacting any laws that might restrict the raising of rent in any way. Its not uncommon in most of the us for a person to be paying like 2k a month in rent and then at the end of their lease to told its going up to 4k starting next month and you have a few weeks to move out and find somewhere new if you dont want to pay it. Thats basically the life of a renter, moving at least every year or 2.

The same thing has been happening to people in NYC that live in apartments not covered by rent-stabilization. I personally think strong tenant laws are an overlooked factor in NYC's sustained population growth in the postwar era.