Author Topic: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate  (Read 287463 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Geodesic domes
« Reply #750 on: November 07, 2023, 02:12:18 PM »
Haven't looked at the updated site yet, but years ago I had a fascination with geodesic domes.

These here seem wildly overpriced (perhaps IIRC because they are in NY?) but the concept continues to intrigue.

https://ekodome.com/about-us/



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #753 on: November 15, 2023, 11:20:49 AM »
A question to ask and answer:  What should they have been when he took office?  And what should they be now?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #754 on: November 15, 2023, 01:13:13 PM »
A question to ask and answer:  What should they have been when he took office?  And what should they be now?

No one knows the perfect rate, but I think we all can agree interest rates were way low for way too long.  Same people who were wrong then are in charge now, using the wrong tools to fix the same wrong problems.  So in addition to dealing with abruptly higher rates we also have a loss of confidence in the Fed and in the econom. Borrowing, lending and investing end without confidence.

During the time interest rates were too low I wrote on these pages, the economy has three flat tires and we are trying to fix it by putting a larger carburetor on it.  We created an additional time bomb while fixing nothing - and the chickens have come home to roost.

Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods.  Both sides of that are equally important. The Fed adjusts the money supply but no one (during the Obama Biden years) addresses the supply side except to add even more government impediments to production.

We are (still) spending 40% more than we take in. It caught up with us and runaway inflation resulted. Instead of addressing the known causes, the Fed raises interest rates to intentionally slow economic activity, consumption in particular. Former Sen. Fritz Hollings famously said some (decades ago) , "there's too much consumin' goin' on out there."  (That wasn't the problem then or now.)

But you can't smack down consumers with higher interest rates without also hitting producers with higher rates.  Ironically, fewer goods and services produced is a cause of inflation.

Were interest rates too low before, yes. Are interest rates too high now? Debatable. What will they be tomorrow? No one knows.

Uncertain future is the centerpiece of a third world economy.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2023, 07:00:12 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #755 on: November 15, 2023, 02:26:09 PM »
Yes.

How about a rule of thumb for the theoretical ideal of 3% above inflation?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #756 on: November 16, 2023, 07:27:13 AM »
Yes.

How about a rule of thumb for the theoretical ideal of 3% above inflation?

That's about right - for mortgage rates.

Problem is measuring the inflation rate - for the next 30 years.

Current interest rates (roughly) :
Mortgage 7.8
Credit card debt 24%. (Why is this so high?!)
Small business loans 9%?
Savings account interest. 0.58% (Why is this so low?!)
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/average-savings-interest-rates/
T-bills 5%

Current inflation rate 3.2% per "nerdwallet".

If you believe that, mortgage rates should be closer to 6% instead of closer to 8.  To me, that
would be much closer to normal and far less disruptive to housing, to people and to the economy.

It is not the private sector that is mismanaging the budget, the dollar and the economy.

Like the oil shock of the 1970s, why does it all have to be so abrupt?

In sailing (or any other sport), you do not move from the wrong place to the right place on the boat as the wind and conditions change.  You move as needed to always be in the right place. Our spenders, controllers and regulators could learn something from that.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2023, 07:29:44 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #757 on: November 21, 2023, 08:54:02 AM »
More doom and gloom.  They call it a prediction but isn't it already happening?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economist who predicted 2008 housing crash says commercial real estate bubble is about to burst
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/economist-who-predicted-2008-housing-crash-says-commercial-real-estate-bubble-is-about-to-burst/ar-AA1kfmYd?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=79045948274248f58f7c304fa3b4cb1d&ei=31


Home Sales Fell to a New 13-Year Low in October
High prices and interest rates combine to cause purchases to plunge
https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/october-2023-home-sales-fall-ec6b3164
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Doug)  At some point after sales plunge and real incomes drop and stagnate, don't prices plunge?  It's hard to say what could go right in this scenario, a spurt of economic growth in an anti-growth environment?  I don't see it.  When values plunge, loans default, commercial and residential.  When loans default, banks are in trouble.  And so on.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing Bidenomics
« Reply #758 on: December 16, 2023, 07:56:13 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/business/homelessness-highest-reported-level-rents-up/index.html

(Doug)  In a nutshell, we have literally thousands of laws, federal, state and local, against housing being affordable, and then we go "OMG!  I can't believe people are homeless!"

Their definition of "affordable" (cf. Affordable Care Act) is that someone else pays for it.  But what did Margaret thatcher say about socialism.  At some point you run out of other people's money.  We spend 40% more than we take in at the federal level, plus $4 trillion in quantitative expansion and still run out of money.  Maybe there's a better way...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19750
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #759 on: December 16, 2023, 08:31:43 AM »
from article above:

"The biggest numerical growth in people experiencing homelessness was among Latinos. There were 28% more Latinos who were unhoused in 2023 than the year prior. This population made up 55% of the total increase in US homelessness, with 39,106 additional Latinos without housing this year."

thanks Joe.
where did all these Latinos come from ?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19750
    • View Profile
how can squatters get away with this?
« Reply #760 on: December 16, 2023, 01:12:56 PM »
https://nypost.com/2023/12/16/metro/li-squatters-abuse-the-system-to-stave-off-eviction-court-docs/

I am at a loss for words

as I cannot comprehend how this is possible.

Can't they have swat go in and throw them in jail?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Mortgage demand still falling
« Reply #761 on: February 14, 2024, 06:53:23 AM »
https://confoundedinterest.net/2024/02/14/bidens-mortgage-market-mortgage-demand-down-2-3-from-last-week-purchase-demand-down-12-from-last-year-mortgage-rate-up-151-under-bidenomics/

Hey Krugman and the rest of the cherrypicking sycophants, is housing not part of the economy.?

What other parts of food, clothing, shelter don't they study at the Princeton school of partisan economics?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #763 on: February 27, 2024, 05:05:19 AM »
Simpleton question:  How can their both be a shortage and a bubble?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Who You Gonna Call?
« Reply #764 on: March 13, 2024, 05:06:40 PM »
The squatter buster. This gent has made a business out of legally removing squatters from homes; states it’s a growing national crisis:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/handyman-turned-squatter-hunter-atlanta-squatter-crisis-terrorist-act-calls-national-guard

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #765 on: March 13, 2024, 05:12:23 PM »
Far out!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: Realtors stage a $418M tactical retreat
« Reply #767 on: March 20, 2024, 01:40:39 PM »
The Realtors Stage a $418 Million Tactical Retreat
The NAR’s ballyhooed legal settlement is less than meets the hype.
By The Editorial Board
March 19, 2024 4:57 pm ET

The press is heralding the settlement announced Friday by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) as a revolution in what brokers charge to sell homes. Don’t be so sure. On closer inspection, the settlement appears to help the Realtors get out of a legal jam more than it helps home buyers.


The jam is the jury verdict last autumn in a class action by Missouri home sellers (Burnett v. NAR) that resulted in a $1.8 billion judgment against the Realtors for price-fixing. The plaintiffs alleged that the NAR violated the Sherman Act in part by requiring seller agents to provide a blanket offer of compensation to a buyer’s broker in order to list a home on NAR’s affiliated multiple-listing services (MLS).

This rule is one reason Realtor commissions have averaged between 5.5% and 6% for decades, split evenly between buyer and seller agents. Overall commissions are substantially lower in most developed countries, including the U.K. (1.3% average fee), Norway (1.8%), Netherlands (2%) and Australia (2.5%). Few buyers outside the U.S. even use brokers.

Many buyers these days search for homes online. Yet buyer agents earn a 2.5% to 3% commission no matter how little or how much they help their client. They also have no incentive to obtain the best deal for their client because they pocket larger commissions on higher-priced homes.

Empirical evidence also shows that buyer brokers steer clients away from homes whose sellers paid them less than 2.5% to 3%. Ninety percent of transactions on the Missouri MLSs offered buyer agents exactly 3%. The NAR claimed its policies benefit consumers, but the jury disagreed.

After the Missouri verdict, dozens of other class-action suits hit NAR across the country. Plaintiff attorneys and the NAR appear to have settled the suits on a nationwide basis for practical reasons. Plaintiffs knew they couldn’t squeeze more money out of the NAR, which had only $1 billion in assets as of 2022. The NAR wanted to live to fight another day, and it smells victory in this tactical retreat.

“Two critical achievements of this resolution are the release of most NAR members and many industry stakeholders from liability in these matters and the fact that cooperative compensation remains a choice for consumers when buying or selling a home,” the NAR said in a statement. “Cooperative compensation” is the cartel’s code for the seller paying the buyer broker.

Under the settlement, the NAR will pay $418 million over roughly four years. It has also agreed to bar seller agents from advertising a blanket offer of compensation to buyer agents on an MLS. But the settlement notably doesn’t bar seller agents from advertising buyer broker commissions on other home-selling platforms, including those operated by its members. Nor does it forbid buyer brokers from steering clients away from homes whose sellers pay lower or no commissions.

This may not be the end of the legal challenges to the NAR business model, and it shouldn’t be. The Justice Department last month objected to a similar rule change in a different settlement between home sellers and a regional MLS. Justice said that settlement “makes cosmetic changes” that will perpetuate “stubbornly high broker fees” because it “still gives sellers and their listing brokers a role in setting compensation for buyers’ brokers.”

Justice could still intervene to stop last week's ballyhooed settlement. since collusion may be less obvious but still exist in many markets. The savings for consumers may be far less than meets the media hype. There’s a reason the NAR boasted in a statement that Friday’s settlement will “protect our members to the greatest extent possible.”

The Realtors have prospered for decades from a rigged game that pads their pockets at the expense of consumers. They have then parlayed those profits into lobbying to preserve and expand government subsidies for housing. Whenever these columns pointed out the truth, the Realtors reacted with outrage, as if their commissions are a birthright.

The jury verdict and settlement prove the critics were right. Legal scrutiny should continue until there is a genuine free market in the buying and selling of homes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
AL squatters's rights
« Reply #769 on: March 24, 2024, 06:16:02 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing, Mortgage unaffordable
« Reply #770 on: April 03, 2024, 06:47:10 AM »
If not mentioned in the article, housing insurance also going crazy. Property taxes up 10 fold since I've been here.

Just like the war on poverty, everything the government has tried to make more "affordable" has instead made it more subsidized, making it less affordable for everyone not getting it paid for by the government, cf. college costs, health care, and of course housing.

So, you can't buy housing because of the high cost and you can't sell housing you don't want because of the punitive tax on inflation. Exact opposite of what economists call a free market. Other than that it's all going swimmingly.

https://confoundedinterest.net/2024/04/03/bidenomics-is-on-the-highway-to-hell-for-housing-affordability-mortgage-demand-applications-down-13-from-last-year-while-home-prices-are-up-39-2-under-biden-and-powell/
« Last Edit: April 03, 2024, 07:05:20 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Government overreach in Housing, real estate
« Reply #771 on: April 08, 2024, 11:26:17 AM »
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/07/new-nber-study-finds-covid-eviction-moratoria-increased-racial-discrimination/

I can say landlords left places empty when government took away all ability to enforce a contract.  I called the policy 'third world' at the time.

Turns out the misguided policy hurt the people it was intended to help.

Always does.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing costs, new home
« Reply #772 on: April 15, 2024, 11:29:15 AM »
According to CBRE data, the average monthly payments on a new home soared to $3,322 in the third quarter of 2023. This marks a sharp 90% increase from late 2020, when it stood at just $1,746 before Biden took office. Rising rent and the end of pandemic-era protections are contributing to the homelessness crisis.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Mortgage/Commercial Real Estate, Everything's fine
« Reply #773 on: April 19, 2024, 05:15:55 AM »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/commercial-real-estate-foreclosures-jumped-march-trouble-looms

Foreclosures up 117%.

The banks can just find another buyer. Oh wait, if there was another buyer it wouldn't have gone into foreclosure.

Last foreclosure crisis I bought homes for 15 cents on the dollar of previous sale. That was for homes. People need homes. People don't need office buildings.

Not enough new businesses starting up and growing into successes is a hard thing to measure, until all commercial real estate is vacant. Then you start to see it.

Of the last 16 years counting this year, 13 were either under either Obama, Biden or Covid. Of the three remaining Trump years, 2 were under the Russian collusion delusion and then Pelosi retook the House.  The private sector has had a hard run, masked by markets doing okay as 5 or 6 huge companies took all the business. But apparently Google, Apple and Amazon don't want or need your local office building.

What do the construction workers and construction firms that build office buildings do when 30% of the existing ones are vacant. Build more? Why? With whose money? Maybe they can learn to code.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2024, 05:47:30 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #774 on: April 19, 2024, 08:52:43 AM »
Important measuring sticks there.

Saw an article yesterday that RE prices in Humbolt County CA (pot cultivation territory) have crashed.  If someone buys, there are responsible for the tax liens pending.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing value and school district, correlation or causation?
« Reply #776 on: April 22, 2024, 09:05:23 AM »
"The average U.S. home value is $353,748 while the average for the best district in every state is 86% higher at $651,662, the study said."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2024/04/22/states-home-price-premiums-top-public-schools/73377109007/?tbref=hp

There are so many implications to this, time permitting I'd like to dive deeper on the education side of it.

Expensive neighborhoods are more likely to have intact families, two parents of higher intelligence and achievement, and kids advantaged by both nature and nurture.  The lower end schools and neighborhoods tend to have the opposite.

They say for investment value, buy the lowest priced house in the best neighborhood. I did. A lot of good came out of that, my daughter went to the best public schools, value went up 10-fold (over a long period, ttime flies).  Taxes also went up 10-fold (but the house is still what builders call 'teardown') so now I can't rebuild because taxes would then be up 20-fold.

I wish it was the humble community it once was.

And now the good public schools are getting worse with wokeness etc.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing/Real Estate, Mortgage Purchase demand down 57% under Biden
« Reply #777 on: May 08, 2024, 05:50:29 AM »
https://confoundedinterest.net/2024/05/08/thats-bidenomics-us-mortgage-purchase-demand-applications-rise-2-over-past-week-but-remain-down-17-since-last-year-and-down-57-under-biden/
----------
(Doug)  Housing is now unaffordable.  Try spinning that in a positive way.  People can't sell.  People can't buy. Higher interest rates are only part of it.  The people who need housing the most don't have full time jobs. 

But mostly, the nation's most highly taxed and highly regulated industry is dysfunctional. Who could have seen this coming?  What is the plan to fix it?  There is no plan to fix it. 

This is a good example of why the majority have no confidence in this President to manage the economy.  Much of the problem comes from blue cities and blue state's having bad policies, but the the leadership stinks from the head.

Shortage of houses?  I have empty houses I would happily trade for cash.  But not if a third or half the proceeds go to the government on a "capital gain" that is really just inflation.

My property taxes cumulatively are now at roughly twice what I paid for the home. How much of that goes to DEI and wasteful social programs and how much goes to finance funding of essential government, roads and classrooms?  It all goes to making housing more expensive, less affordable.
----------
Here's more:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

"For US renters, the chance of owning a home is going from bad to worse."

Mortgage rates over 7.2%, going to 9%, then going over 10%.
This is CNN.

(Doug) A lesson from history, Jimmy Carter had one term only.

Second lesson from history.  Voters gave Reagan a Democrat House, and the recession that followed inflation was painful.  Don't do that with Trump 2024 if you want policies and solutions.

Rent is also getting less affordable. The CNN article goes on to say or imply, my words, the worst this gets the more government will do to make it worse yet.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2024, 07:07:15 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate, Expand the mission of Fannie Mae??
« Reply #778 on: May 16, 2024, 08:24:24 AM »
Biden’s Election-Eve $2 Trillion Stimulus Scheme   (CTUP Newsletter, Steve Moore)

The White House is getting desperate. We noted earlier this week that Joe is airdropping tens of billions of dollars of pork spending into toss-up states.

But that’s chump change compared to the latest stimulus scheme.

The Biden administration wants the federal government via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide taxpayer backing for home equity loans. Talk about mission creep. These agencies are supposed to support homeownership – not juice consumer spending.

Home equity loans — or second mortgages — use the equity in the home as collateral for quick cash. We have nothing against them. But how in the world is this in the interests of taxpayers?

It isn’t.

It’s especially inappropriate at a time when Americans are already over-leveraged up to their eyebrows. Have the Biden brainiacs looked at the record-high credit card debt of over $1 trillion? Overall total household borrowing has reached an all-time $17 trillion. The last thing the feds should be doing is encouraging more debt.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #779 on: May 16, 2024, 09:15:26 AM »
 :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Gimme Government Shelter
« Reply #780 on: May 19, 2024, 07:58:31 AM »
Housing, Healthcare and College Costs.  Tell me what the government has taken over with subsidies and control, squeezed out the profits, and costs went down.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/gimme-government-shelter

They didn't just destroy the market, they destroyed our language.  Affordable now means subsidy required (unaffordable).  Lower cost means costs twice as much.  Smart growth means stupid.

"Without a major shift in thinking, the result will be billions more dollars squandered—and a housing crisis still unsolved."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing/Mortgage: Monthly Payments Roughly Doubled in the Last 4 Years
« Reply #781 on: May 29, 2024, 08:18:01 AM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmj66r4lvzzo    Excerpts:

"The median home sale price in the US has jumped by nearly 30% since the end of 2019, hitting $420,000 this spring."

"And that's not factoring in the added costs from higher interest rates, which now stand at roughly 7% for the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage that is typical in the US, up from about 3% in 2020."

"Homebuyers today need an annual income of more than $100,000 - well above the country's household median of about $75,000 - to comfortably afford a home in most places in the US, research firms such as Zillow and Bankrate say, and face monthly payments that have roughly doubled in just four years."

"Just 40.1% of renters expect to ever own a home one day, according to the New York Federal Reserve, the smallest share since the bank started asking renters the question in 2014."

"Nearly one third of all households now spend more than a third of their income on housing - the standard cut-off for affordability - the highest level since 2015, according to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies."

"A recent Harris poll found more than 70% of Americans believe the market is only going to get worse."

"Inflation has been a political noose for Biden in recent years," says Brian Connolly, professor of business law at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, whose work focuses on housing issues. "Housing costs are another place where people are experiencing this financial squeeze."

"With more people priced out of homeownership, rental rates may prove more resilient than expected, keeping inflation elevated."

"No matter what happens - whether they raise, lower or hold them - I feel as though the next decade is probably just going to be difficult no matter what for most people," he says. [Senior economist at Zillow]
-----------------------------------------------------
[Doug] They say housing prices are up.  I say, value of the dollar is down.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
housing market existential threat to the middle class
« Reply #782 on: June 17, 2024, 06:56:38 AM »
https://fortune.com/2024/06/16/housing-market-crisis-impossibly-unaffordable-cities-california-feudalizing-land-home-prices/

It probably didn't take a new study to know this.

Priced out of some markets, in California and elsewhere, middle class will have to go somewhere else.

Question remains, who works the jobs in the communities that have priced out the lower and middle class? Where will the teachers and nurses live, and plumbers and electricians and so on.

At least the homeless will always have a place to live. (Insert photo of homeless encampment blocking sidewalk). And more secure income than the lower middle working class.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Foreclosures Up, NO ONE could have seen this coming
« Reply #783 on: June 17, 2024, 07:40:49 AM »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/home-foreclosures-rise-again-nationwide

(Doug)  Frankly, they aren't up very much but it's sure to get worse.

"Housing affordability worst in decades", worst since carter-obama-biden's first term in the late 1970s.

Umm, what happens when you can't afford your house?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2024, 07:47:47 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Biden Proposes Nation Wide Rent Control Policy
« Reply #784 on: July 16, 2024, 09:44:20 PM »
President Panderer. First student loans, now rent control. Bread and circuses no doubt loom:

Biden's Badly Flawed New Housing Plan
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Ilya Somin / Jul 16, 2024 at 2:54 PM
 Wooden block homes with a ban sign | Andrii Yalanskyi/Dreamstime.com
[It combines nationwide rent control with modest supply-side measures potentially freeing up "underutilized" federal property for housing construction.]

Model houses |  Andrii Yalanskyi/Dreamstime.com
( Andrii Yalanskyi/Dreamstime.com)
 

Today, the Biden Administration issued a new housing policy plan. It combines a really awful idea -nationwide rent control—with a modestly good one: using "underutilized" federal government property to build new housing. Here is the White House summary of the rent control proposal:

President Biden is calling on Congress to pass legislation presenting corporate landlords with a basic choice: either cap rent increases on existing units to no more than 5% or lose valuable federal tax breaks. Under President Biden's plan, corporate landlords, beginning this year and for the next two years, would only be able to take advantage of faster depreciation write-offs available to owners of rental housing if they keep annual rent increases to no more than 5% each year. This would apply to landlords with over 50 units in their portfolio, covering more than 20 million units across the country. It would include an exception for new construction and substantial renovation or rehabilitation.

Economists and housing policy experts across the political spectrum recognize that rent-control is an extremely harmful policy, because it reduces the quantity and quality of housing. Don't take my word for it. Take that of such progressives as Paul Krugman, and Jason Furman, former chair of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who condemns the Biden proposal because "Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit. The idea we'd be reviving and expanding it will ultimately make our housing supply problems worse, not better." A recent meta-study in the Journal of Housing Economics reviews the extensive evidence of rent control's negative effects.

In fairness, as Reason housing policy writer Christian Britschgi points out, the plan includes a number of mitigating elements that might reduce its harmful impact. It only applies to landlords with over 50 housing units, and exempts new housing construction and renovation. Also, it limits rent increases to 5% per year, instead of imposing a tighter cap. Still, the plan would apply to many millions of housing units (the White House claims the figure is 20 million), which will predictably reduce quality and supply.

If the rent control plan has a saving grace, it's that even the White House admits it would have to be enacted by Congress. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. But, as Britschgi notes, the president putting the idea of nationwide rent control on the political agenda increases its profile, and makes it more likely it could be enacted at some point.

The Biden plan does include a countervailing good idea: the proposal to free up "underutilized" federal property to build new housing. Privatization of federal land could potentially do much to alleviate housing shortages. But it is far from clear how much land the administration actually proposes to make available for this purpose. It's also not clear whether they plan to privatize the land in order to allow private developers to build on it, or whether they envision some form of public housing, or a combination of both. Public housing has a terrible track record. Privatization is a much superior option.

Another frustrating element of the Biden plan is that the president knows - or at least used to know - that the best way to alleviate housing shortages is to cut back on zoning rules and other land-use restrictions blocking the construction of new housing. In 2020, he ran on a platform of using federal grant conditions to pressure state and local governments to do just that. But he has largely failed to carry out those ideas during his time in office.

In his article on the new Biden plan, Britschgi notes that Trump and newly minted VP candidate J.D. Vance also have some awful housing-related policies. Most obviously, their plan to implement mass deportation of undocumented immigrants would wipe out much of the housing construction work force, and thereby predictably reduce construction and make it more expensive (this effect, plus other negative impacts of deportation on housing outweighs the potential benefit of a reduction in demand). Unlike the Biden rent control plan, the GOP deportation policy could likely be enacted without major new legislation, which makes it even more of a menace. Vance's idea of restricting corporate investment in housing would also predictably reduce supply.

But the awfulness of Trump and Vance's ideas in no way justifies Biden's rent control plan.

The primary goal of the Biden rent control plan may not be to alleviate housing shortages, but to bolster the president's reelection campaign. Studies suggest rent control is popular among voters, many of whom don't understand basic economics. Exploiting widespread public ignorance is a ubiquitous, time-honored political strategy. But that doesn't make it right.

The post Biden's Badly Flawed New Housing Plan appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/16/bidens-badly-flawed-new-housing-plan/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Biden proposes Nationwide rent control
« Reply #785 on: July 17, 2024, 04:37:31 AM »
Subject line should read, Biden wants more and more homelessness.

This proposal is a really big deal in so many ways.  Like "minimum wage" laws and Modern fiscal policy, it is one more example of Left policy and politics willing to go against all economists, all economic experience and all economic science.  Unlike stupid City laws, a national law makes the effects inescapable.

Does anybody remember the Nixon price wage freeze. Bureaucracy could make exceptions but either way the government sets the price, as is the case here. That was the most extreme of the inflation fighting policies of the 1970s.  Gerald Ford's policy, "whip inflation now" was the lamest. In any case look at the results. At the start of the 1970s inflation was 7%. At the end of the 1970s inflation was 14%. How effective where all these government programs that didn't get at the underlying cause?

Biden no doubt was briefed thoroughly on his new policy of a 5% limit for corporate-owned housing, but he read the 5% as 55 (dollars) off of his teleprompter and not know he got it wrong.. Think about how far out of the loop and out of touch he is on such an important issue. Do people think our enemies can't see that?

Like minimum wage laws, the left will want to paint Trump and Republicans as wanting rent increases greater than 5% when the issue is who sets the price. Rent increases our problem only because of Democrat policies. The only exception to that is when Republicans Implement Democrat policies.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2024, 04:50:31 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #786 on: July 17, 2024, 06:53:17 AM »
As a born and raised New Yorker I have a visceral sense of how destructive this would be.

Life lived by a bureaucracy instead of the market.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
Re: Biden proposes Nationwide rent control
« Reply #787 on: July 17, 2024, 11:01:36 AM »
Subject line should read, Biden wants more and more homelessness.

This proposal is a really big deal in so many ways.  Like "minimum wage" laws and Modern fiscal policy, it is one more example of Left policy and politics willing to go against all economists, all economic experience and all economic science.  Unlike stupid City laws, a national law makes the effects inescapable.

Does anybody remember the Nixon price wage freeze. Bureaucracy could make exceptions but either way the government sets the price, as is the case here. That was the most extreme of the inflation fighting policies of the 1970s.  Gerald Ford's policy, "whip inflation now" was the lamest. In any case look at the results. At the start of the 1970s inflation was 7%. At the end of the 1970s inflation was 14%. How effective where all these government programs that didn't get at the underlying cause?

Biden no doubt was briefed thoroughly on his new policy of a 5% limit for corporate-owned housing, but he read the 5% as 55 (dollars) off of his teleprompter and not know he got it wrong.. Think about how far out of the loop and out of touch he is on such an important issue. Do people think our enemies can't see that?

Like minimum wage laws, the left will want to paint Trump and Republicans as wanting rent increases greater than 5% when the issue is who sets the price. Rent increases our problem only because of Democrat policies. The only exception to that is when Republicans Implement Democrat policies.

Biden’s abject pandering is what gets me. Much like his student loan “forgiveness,” it is a naked effort to buy votes, tossing the economy on the alter of political expediency. It also cleaves the nation into three groups:

• Those in on the scam who understand this for the raw vote buying it is and that will clearly do damage to the economy. These folks likely see this damage as a boon rather than an issue because capitalism is bad. These people are the reason I use scare quotes around the term “Progressive.”

• People who oppose this effort because the see it for the vile pandering it is as well as for the damage it will lead to. This group will never come around and hence earns nothing but contempt and needs nothing but marginalization. They are probably homophobic and racist, too, because reasons.

• Useful idiots. Marxist know what they are good for, and have likely identified the wall they will be forced to kneel before while awaiting a bullet to the back of the head once the glorious revolution succeeds.

These irreconcilable differences are also seen as a feature rather than a bug as anything that weakens the fabric of American society and causes conflict between these three classes is a Good Thing.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Foreclosures; Rents
« Reply #788 on: July 30, 2024, 07:29:45 AM »
Commercial-Property Foreclosures Surge in the Second Quarter
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/surge-in-commercial-property-foreclosures-suggests-bottom-is-near-247bb689?mod=hp_lead_pos6

Over Half of Renters Who Want a Home Fear They'll Never Afford One
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/business/millions-of-renters-fear-theyll-never-be-able-to-buy-a-home/index.html

Let's see, the misnamed "inflation reduction act", (should be called 'meaningless, excess spending act'), caused inflation of course, ("we all knew"), which resulted in tripling of interest rates making housing unaffordable.

This was not an accident of nature.  It is a known, unintended (we hope) consequence of these reckless policies that our short-sighted voters don't seem to mind.

Mentioned previously, commercial real estate is hurt by the shift to remote work but the slack in not being taken up by new businesses that are not starting.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2024, 10:44:41 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
This 23-Floor Manhattan Office Building Just Sold at a 97.5% Discount
« Reply #789 on: August 04, 2024, 01:27:05 PM »
Finding signs of weakness in the Biden Harris economy isn't very hard.

A million square feet, two thirds vacant, world's greatest city (?), only received one bid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/nyregion/manhattan-office-building-auction.html#after-story-ad-3
This 23-Floor Manhattan Office Building Just Sold at a 97.5% Discount
The sale price of 135 West 50th Street in Midtown

“Price discovery” in commercial real estate doesn’t get a whole lot worse than it did this past  week in New York. On Wednesday a glass-clad, 23-story office building in Midtown Manhattan sold for an abysmal $8.5 million.

It sold on the online auction site Ten-X, where anybody with a free account can bid, and the typical offerings are treeless industrial parks, shuttered fast-food joints and motels far from any tourist attractions. It was such a comedown for a gleaming Manhattan high-rise to be put on the block at Ten-X that The New York Times assigned a reporter to cover the event. He observed that the $8.5 million bid was the only bid received, even though the auction’s time window was extended three times. The seller, UBS Realty Investors, had to change its parameters at the last minute to accept such a low bid. It had resorted to Ten-X only after trying unsuccessfully to sell the building through conventional brokerage.

The buyer’s identity will be unknown until the sale closes, probably in about 45 days. The building stands at 135 West 50th Street, a stone’s throw from Radio City Music Hall. It measures nearly one million square feet and once boasted household-name tenants like Sports Illustrated and Verizon.

And now it’s about two-thirds vacant and it seems you almost couldn’t give it away. Is the long-awaited urban doom loop finally at hand?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Evictions Moratorium was a Taking
« Reply #790 on: August 16, 2024, 04:26:24 PM »
« Last Edit: August 16, 2024, 05:01:21 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19750
    • View Profile
Business Insider Lets make the US like Singapore
« Reply #791 on: August 20, 2024, 06:20:48 AM »
Harris plan a good thing!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/kamala-harris-s-housing-plan-is-similar-to-a-singaporean-strategy-where-90-of-residents-own-their-homes/ar-AA1p4av6?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=b7fcf795ce244d7699399c054cbfede7&ei=24

Aren't the inner city projects akin to this?  How does that work out?

I am not panicking but looking at reality.
The fix is in from the powers to be and Trump does not have the capacity to adjust.
We will soon be Europe.

I know we still have time but for what?  A debate?
As much as I know the LEFT machine will not change I also know Trump won't change so why will the momentum.
Plus the ballot harvesting .....

Not optimistic. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2024, 06:22:21 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #792 on: August 20, 2024, 06:26:10 AM »
I have Business Insider filed in my head as "left".

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19750
    • View Profile
Harris 3 mill homes will drive prices down
« Reply #793 on: August 22, 2024, 06:22:32 AM »
simply supply and demand

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/kamala-harris-3-million-homes-promise-everything-else-won-t-work-unless-we-have-more-supply-says-chief-economist/ar-AA1pbLa3?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=71dafbd55b634faca9ef0d026682835f&ei=30

so building 3 million low income housing will bring national prices way down   :wink:

I wonder if they can do it faster than charging stations.
I wonder who will get building contracts.
I wonder if buyers have to be legal or not.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Re: Harris 3 mill homes will drive prices down
« Reply #794 on: August 22, 2024, 07:25:01 AM »
quote author=ccp
simply supply and demand
...
so building 3 million low income housing will bring national prices way down
   :wink:
...
--------------------------

1st level thinking.  If 3 million homes just appeared, that's more supply.  If the government prints money to do it, that's inflation, drives all prices up, and your real wage down.

Someone said, 'there's no free lunch'.

Who gets the free or subsidized houses?  If they were market value homes, we already have that. Like ccp says, who gets the contracts? 

Who thinks government housing is better than private housing?

I thought we were worried about the environment, and SPRAWL.  Doesn't government want us to all be in multi-unit?  Is that what they mean by homes?

What about teardowns?  https://theconversation.com/when-a-house-is-demolished-more-than-the-home-is-lost-42579

Of course she's not really saying the government will build the homes.  Like, jobs, they will take credit for those already being built.

If the government does build homes, that diverts homebuilding resources from the private sector, drives up the cost of all other homebuilding.

1st level thinking is easier and more fun than thinking this through.

Regarding her economist, I guess economists are like lawyers, you can hire one to argue either side of a case.  They go where the money is.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2024, 07:32:38 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
Housing, I don't approve this message, Tear down these homes!
« Reply #795 on: August 26, 2024, 09:08:04 AM »
 I don't approve this message

Editorial: Tear down to move on: Pittsburgh (all cities) needs to demolish more blight

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2024/08/23/demolition-blight-land-bank-sb149-foreclosure-abandoned-property/stories/202408230044

From the article:
"The city of Pittsburgh owns roughly 5,000 abandoned properties, which often come to city from obscure ownership, and with code violations and complex tax burdens. As Post-Gazette investigations have uncovered, one in every five of these properties has some sort of code violation..."
--------------------------

One out five have code violations?  Four out of five don't?  Tear 'em all down!

And what do you have?  Probably vacant lots.  Maybe housing for rich people ; that's who buys new construction.  Otherwise it's government owned or government subsidized housing.  Is that what we need more of?

Legalize affordable housing and maybe you'd get more of it. These homes are more regulated than heart transplant surgery.  Correct me if I'm wrong on that.  There's no such thing as a fixer upper or sweat equity anymore, unless you're a licensed contractor with time on your hands.

What do they mean, they have "complex tax burdens"?  Whose fault is that and why is it "complex"?  They are levied taxed, have a right of appeal, if they don't pay, at some point the property reverts to the government.  Auction them off, recover some money and get them back into the private sector. 

Cities should loosen up the housing laws a little and give people ample time to comply.  Regulate for safety, but not for perfection, wokeness or whatever else is motivating them.

Cities tear down all these homes and wonder where their affordable housing went.

Government subsidized or owned is not affordable housing - by definition.  But they perverted the language to say only subsidized housing is  'affordable housing', like 'affordable health care'.  Take back our language and take back the homes.  Put the vacant, repossessed homes on the market and let people decide if they are fixer upper or teardown.  When did home ownership become a government function?  Never, I hope.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2024, 09:24:50 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19440
    • View Profile
What went wrong with housing is a shortage caused by excessive government
« Reply #796 on: September 10, 2024, 06:42:21 AM »
https://www.ft.com/content/babc4862-504d-4143-a89d-714336004e01?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9

What went wrong with housing, however, is a shortage caused by excessive government — not a “market failure”

"Since 2000, according to Zillow, the average household income has doubled but the average price for its listings has tripled"

"the least affordable cities tend to be the most heavily regulated, with costs imposed by zoning rules adding as much as $400,000 to the median price of a small property (in San Francisco.)"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WT
« Reply #797 on: September 24, 2024, 07:29:18 AM »



Candidates’ plans won’t solve housing crisis

By Jeff Mordock THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Harris’ idea unrealistic;

Trump needs foreign construction workers

Record-high home prices and soaring mortgage rates have put the dream of homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans and made housing a top pocketbook issue in the presidential campaign. Both major party presidential candidates offer competing proposals to address the crisis, but housing experts doubt either plan will fix the problem. The affordability problem is severe, with home prices reaching a record high in June. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sale price for all housing types was $426,900, a 4.1% increase from June 2023 after 12 months of price gains.

Construction has been unable to keep up with demand. The U.S. is short nearly 4 million housing units. In recent years, construction has dipped as high mortgage rates have cooled developers’ desire to build. Freddie Mac data shows construction rates are at their lowest since the 2008 financial crisis.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, proposed a mix of government spending and tax cuts to spur construction while giving first-time homebuyers extra cash for down payments.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, pledged to reduce demand by deporting illegal immigrants and reducing red tape to lower burdens on housing developers.

Housing experts say both plans are unworkable. “The Harris plan offers more detail but is unrealistic, and the Trump plan has very little detail and is not very serious,” said Cliff Rossi, who held risk management positions at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Part of Ms. Harris’ plan focuses on the supply side of the problem. She has vowed to work with private-sector homebuilders to construct 3 million homes over the next four years. The Harris campaign said she would achieve this goal with a $40 billion innovation fund that offers tax credits to make projects more economically feasible for developers. The theory is that it would fuel a construction spree and close the housing gap.

The innovation fund would need congressional approval, which is not a guarantee. President Biden proposed a slimmer $20 billion innovation fund that went nowhere in Congress.

Mr. Rossi called the plan ambitious. In the years before the housing bubble burst in 2008, developers

Where the presidential candidates stand on housing

Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump agree that selling surplus federal land to developers can help ease the housing crunch. One problem, however, is that many federal lands are unsuitable for residential construction and far away from areas with the most extensive housing needs.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

averaged about 1.6 homes per year, he said. Last year, only 1.4 million housing projects were started — a 9% decline from 2022, according to data from the Structural Building Components Association.

Analysts say the largest barrier to home construction isn’t developers’ desire to build but rather onerous zoning laws and heavy regulations that can tie up projects for years. Housing developments also need water, sewerage and roads, which can delay construction.

“It’s one thing to create tax incentives to build homes, but the challenge is that they would need to take on local land use regulations, and that is not really the jurisdiction of the federal government,” said Casey Dawkins, who teaches urban studies and planning at the University of Maryland.

Ms. Harris proposed incentives such as withholding federal highway funding if municipalities don’t wave onerous restrictions.

Mr. Trump has proposed targeting local regulations but hasn’t specified which types or how he would incentivize municipalities. He has signaled support for more restrictive zoning in suburban communities to prevent multifamily homes or condominiums from being built in single-family areas. Mr. Trump has not detailed how he would achieve either of these goals.

On the demand side, Ms. Harris has promised $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and more generous support for first-generation homeowners. The Harris campaign said the proposal would put 1 million first buyers in new homes annually.

She did not detail how the plan would work. It is unclear who would be eligible or whether the money would be given to buyers up front or as delayed tax credits.

Experts worry that arming buyers with extra cash while the housing supply is limited would increase competition and prices.

“This might create some inflationary pressure on housing, so it might be counterproductive,” said Michael Bader, who teaches housing policy at Johns Hopkins University.

Mr. Rossi said that giving money to people without the income to meet high mortgage rates and home prices could backfire. He noted parallels to the 2008 financial crisis when the delinquency rate was a record 9.2% because people purchased homes out of their price range.

“You don’t want to give people $25,000 and have them default on their mortgage later on, and that’s exactly what we are going to see. We saw that in the run-up to 2008 when we pushed to get people into the homes that didn’t have the equity to stay in their homes,” he said.

Mr. Bader said guardrails had been implemented since 2008 and that even with the $25,000 assistance, buyers would have to meet more stringent requirements to purchase homes than before the financial crisis.

Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump agree on one solution to the housing shortage: selling surplus federal land to developers. This concept is in Ms. Harris’ housing plan and the Republican National Committee platform.

Under the proposal, the federal government, which owns roughly 28% of the country’s land, would be open to bidding. Developers who bid on the parcel must promise to keep a certain percentage of the units affordable for the local population.

Many federal lands are unsuitable for residential construction. The areas where the government owns the most land, particularly in the West, are far away from areas with the most extensive housing needs. Plus, those areas often lack basic infrastructure, such as water and sewerage.

“I’m skeptical of this idea,” said Mr. Dawkins. “Federal land near major urban areas is pretty scarce. You aren’t going to open up Yosemite Park and build a 1,000-home subdivision, and water supply is limited in some of these areas. It doesn’t alleviate the shortage of housing in more urban areas.”

Previous efforts to sell federal lands have been entangled in litigation. A plan to sell land owned by the Department of Veterans Affairs to build 1,200 affordable units in West Los Angeles has been mired in lawsuits from residents of the wealthy Brentwood area surrounding it. The litigation is continuing.

Mr. Trump promised to lower housing costs by deporting illegal immigrants, who he says are fueling high demand and driving up prices.

“We also cannot ignore the impact that the flood of the 21 million illegal aliens has on driving up housing costs,” he said this month at the Economic Club of New York.

Research is mixed on whether immigration has a significant impact on home prices. A 2017 paper published in the Journal of Housing Economics concluded that the immigration wave of roughly 1% of the area’s population results in a 0.8% increase in rents. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the economic impact of the immigration surge under Mr. Biden concluded that it pushed up prices by increasing the demand for housing.

Housing experts are skeptical that deporting illegal immigrants would significantly impact the housing market.

“This is a problem that has been around for a long time before the immigration issue started to ramp up in a big way,” Mr. Rossi said. “It’s a housing supply issue fueled by a bad series of events like the pandemic and the cost of building materials going up.”

Mr. Dawkins said mass deportations may be counterproductive because it would reduce the labor pool available to build homes and apartment buildings.

“Restricting immigration would affect the supply side pretty severely because we rely on foreign workers,” he said. “If you eliminate those workers, you are going to increase the cost of construction, which would have a bigger impact on the demand side.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly pledged to lower borrowing costs, but presidents have little impact on mortgage rates. The Federal Reserve sets policy rates independently from the White House.

During his administration, Mr. Trump repeatedly pressed the Fed to lower interest rates, but those requests were ignored. He also considered firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, but it was unclear whether he had the authority.

Even without presidential nagging, the Fed lowered a key interest rate by half a percentage point last week to counter a slowing economy