Author Topic: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate  (Read 259407 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Housing/Real Estate, Eviction moratorium extended to end of June
« Reply #650 on: March 30, 2021, 09:01:51 PM »
It is in third world countries where you can't legally enforce a contract.  More importantly, it's Fascist governments that dictate what private businesses must and can't do.

https://www.news4jax.com/money/2021/03/29/the-federal-eviction-moratorium-has-been-extended-whats-that-mean-to-you/

With an estimated 4 million Americans behind on rent, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extended the eviction moratorium imposed during the pandemic until the end of June.

The moratorium, which halted evictions for people unable to make their rent payments, was set to run out on Wednesday. But the CDC said it felt families across the country needed more time and relief.

The extension was aimed at avoiding having people move in with loved ones or into homeless shelters as the risk of transmission of COVID-19 remains high.

If a tenant meets criteria laid out by the federal government, they’re protected from being evicted.

While the moratorium keeps landlords from forcing tenants out of their homes, it does not stop landlords from filing eviction paperwork in court.

The moratorium isn’t letting tenants off the hook. Once it’s lifted, back rent will still be owed.

Even though the federal moratorium has been extended for almost a year now, [source in the story said] "this will likely be the last time it happens".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2021, 04:58:34 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Real Estate, Eviction moratorium extended to end of June
« Reply #651 on: March 30, 2021, 09:23:38 PM »
"With an estimated 4 million Americans behind on rent, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extended the eviction moratorium imposed during the pandemic until the end of June."

Where in the US Constitution or federal statute does the CDC derive this authority?



It is in third countries where you can't legally enforce a contract.  More importantly, it's Fascist governments that dictate what private businesses must and can't do.

https://www.news4jax.com/money/2021/03/29/the-federal-eviction-moratorium-has-been-extended-whats-that-mean-to-you/

With an estimated 4 million Americans behind on rent, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has extended the eviction moratorium imposed during the pandemic until the end of June.

The moratorium, which halted evictions for people unable to make their rent payments, was set to run out on Wednesday. But the CDC said it felt families across the country needed more time and relief.

The extension was aimed at avoiding having people move in with loved ones or into homeless shelters as the risk of transmission of COVID-19 remains high.

If a tenant meets criteria laid out by the federal government, they’re protected from being evicted.

While the moratorium keeps landlords from forcing tenants out of their homes, it does not stop landlords from filing eviction paperwork in court.

The moratorium isn’t letting tenants off the hook. Once it’s lifted, back rent will still be owed.

Even though the federal moratorium has been extended for almost a year now, [source in the story said] "this will likely be the last time it happens".

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Real Estate, Eviction moratorium extended to end of June
« Reply #652 on: March 31, 2021, 07:37:00 AM »
"Where in the US Constitution or federal statute does the CDC derive this authority?"

Exactly right, nowhere of course.

States like mine will extend their moratorium based on "the science", and state law generally governs evictions.  Still, what gives states the power to ban evictions rather than regulate them?

The Left can find a right to justify the killing of the unborn but can't find a right to legally remove someone doing economic harm to you from your property?

Back to the third world country point, being able to enforce a contract through the legal system is how we minimize having disputes settled other ways.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 09:02:18 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Surging Home Prices
« Reply #653 on: March 31, 2021, 06:36:46 PM »
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 06:40:27 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Surging Home Prices
« Reply #654 on: March 31, 2021, 06:47:43 PM »
https://rumble.com/vf85dj-wall-to-wall-debbie-bloyd-on-surging-home-prices.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=One+America+News+Network&ep=2

So, with higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher interest rates coming, what happens to housing prices?

What about all the foreclosures that haven't been foreclosed on?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #656 on: March 31, 2021, 07:16:55 PM »
I'm guessing housing prices are not going up there , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Surging Home Prices
« Reply #657 on: April 01, 2021, 06:54:57 AM »
Previously:
https://rumble.com/vf85dj-wall-to-wall-debbie-bloyd-on-surging-home-prices.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=One+America+News+Network&ep=2
"home prices rose 11.2 percent in January. That's the fastest annual price increase since 2006"

"So, with higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher interest rates coming, what happens to housing prices?"

"What about all the foreclosures that haven't been foreclosed on?"

"Then there is this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/americas-cities-are-being-turned-crime-ridden-war-zones-murder-rates-are-way-again-2021"
"Unless you have a death wish, there are certain parts of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore that you should never enter night or day. "

--------------------------------------

1. At least in Minneapolis, I think there is a big difference between night and day.  I've only witnessed one murder lately in north Minneapolis in daytime and I rarely go there in night.

2. Besides the crime and home value questions, I'm finding tradesmen like electricians who won't come there anymore.  That creates another layer of danger and buyer avoidance.

3.  We have a home for sale in the area now, wanted it sold before the trial.  Will keep you posted.  Home values up but people are fleeing the city.

4.  The problem isn't 'the neighborhood', it's the people and their behaviors.  When those people move outward, the problems move outward.

5.  Yes the foreclosures!  How do you disrupt the entire market that severely and not pay a price when it ends?

6. Interest rates:  Is there an end to artificially low interest rates?  If so, guess what?  A house bought with leverage at 3%interest  loses 1/3 of that value when interest rates go to just 4.5%, (all other things equal). 

7. "fastest annual price increase since 2006'  What does that year remind you of?  Another time when the House and Senate went to the Democrats with the White House sure to follow, and markets coming out of 51 consecutive months of growth - imploded.

8.  Wage growth.  What people will pay for housing is tied to their income.  We had the greatest wage growth in 20 years in 2018.  2019 was a record economic year.  2020 was interrupted by covid, but the emphasis out of that is on the home.  But now the policies causing the income surge are being reversed.

What could go wrong.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 07:02:07 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #658 on: April 01, 2021, 06:23:17 PM »
OTOH if inflation gets going , , ,

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #659 on: April 01, 2021, 08:22:29 PM »
OTOH if inflation gets going , , ,

Real Estate, bought right, makes a nice hedge against inflation. 



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Fed judge tosses national eviction moratorium
« Reply #662 on: May 05, 2021, 07:56:59 PM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/federal-judge-tosses-national-eviction-moratorium/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=23750489

"...finding that the COVID-19 pandemic policy exceeded the authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

   - An unelected, quasi-government "Center" making all contracts in the country  related to one of the largest industries unenforceable - exceeded their authority?  'ya think?  What is their authority?

This of course helps me not one bit.  The Governor here duplicated the order.  What is his authority?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18348
    • View Profile
"protect people of color"
« Reply #663 on: June 20, 2021, 11:51:43 AM »
color has nothing to do with .
yet as like everywhere we look it is turned into that

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jersey-governor-signed-executive-order-142305326.html



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Housing: The eviction moratorium is killing small landlords
« Reply #666 on: June 29, 2021, 04:02:42 PM »
It's like the oil industry.  They get all tough with taxes and regulations. Force out all the low cost suppliers until the price doubles, triples, quadruples.  Then complain about about Big Housing Inc. owning all the housing and charging so much.  Monopolists  need teams of lobbyists and lawyers on a scale no new entrant or low cost supplier can handle. Only the consumer gets screwed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Housing Collapse, literally this time, Surfside FL
« Reply #667 on: July 01, 2021, 08:04:20 AM »
I am late to the story of the surfside condo collapse.  Prayers for the victims and families!

Facts are also slow to emerge.  The engineering and maintenance side of this story would apply to all tall buildings, many are office buildings, but this one falls under housing, and in housing, a 1:30am collapse means people are home.

Here is the most comprehensive story I have seen so far including video of the collapse:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9743079/Video-shows-Miami-condo-garage-strewn-concrete-debris-water-pouring-minutes-collapse.html

I don't understand what holds up tall buildings - but somebody should.  I jacked up a house once.  First thing you do is estimate the weight of the building, then accommodate that is the strength of everything used to hold it up.

I get badgered to death (bad metaphor) by housing regulators over trivial housing issues.  Once in a long while they real ideas that are helpful for structural safety.   

Then THIS happens.

In our cynical society, everyone (including me) looks for a political implication.  Was this global warming?  Was it because Florida is Republican controlled and has laissez faire regulation enforcement?  Is government too small?  Can they finally break the rising popularity of the governor?

Meanwhile, like the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, real facts emerge slowly.  Same for blame and lessons learned.

If these are condos, then the individual units have owners and the condo association is the controlling entity, other than city, county, state and federal government.  I wonder what trivial matters were on the agenda of the last HOA meeting and what life and death issues were not.

More to come, no doubt.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Collapse, literally this time, Surfside FL
« Reply #668 on: July 01, 2021, 08:28:53 AM »
Global warming, structural racism and Trump and/or DeSantis caused the collapse.

I am late to the story of the surfside condo collapse.  Prayers for the victims and families!

Facts are also slow to emerge.  The engineering and maintenance side of this story would apply to all tall buildings, many are office buildings, but this one falls under housing, and in housing, a 1:30am collapse means people are home.

Here is the most comprehensive story I have seen so far including video of the collapse:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9743079/Video-shows-Miami-condo-garage-strewn-concrete-debris-water-pouring-minutes-collapse.html

I don't understand what holds up tall buildings - but somebody should.  I jacked up a house once.  First thing you do is estimate the weight of the building, then accommodate that is the strength of everything used to hold it up.

I get badgered to death (bad metaphor) by housing regulators over trivial housing issues.  Once in a long while they real ideas that are helpful for structural safety.   

Then THIS happens.

In our cynical society, everyone (including me) looks for a political implication.  Was this global warming?  Was it because Florida is Republican controlled and has laissez faire regulation enforcement?  Is government too small?  Can they finally break the rising popularity of the governor?

Meanwhile, like the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, real facts emerge slowly.  Same for blame and lessons learned.

If these are condos, then the individual units have owners and the condo association is the controlling entity, other than city, county, state and federal government.  I wonder what trivial matters were on the agenda of the last HOA meeting and what life and death issues were not.

More to come, no doubt.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #669 on: July 01, 2021, 01:29:00 PM »
Head of the condo committee resigned in 2018 or 2019 because continuously blocked from dealing with this by residents dicking around with process and complaining about repair costs.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #670 on: July 13, 2021, 06:11:57 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/05/biden-housing-dilemma-low-income-497921

From GM, Political Economics discussion.

If they really wanted housing to be more affordable :
a. End government policies that drive the price up unaffordably, and
b. Bring back the widespread wage growth of the Trump administration policies.

Won't happen without regime change.

People are buying homes like guns.  Buy them while they're still legal.  Maybe you'll get grandfathered in to private housing before our Castro like revolution has the government decide what housing you'll live in.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
With one week to go on the moratorium, the Court gets it right
« Reply #671 on: July 23, 2021, 04:09:56 PM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/23/eviction-moratorium-exceeds-cdc-authority-federal-/

My snarky subject line apart, it is a good thing to establish this.






DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9alsxM8SOM

Why are no Democrats and no moderates offended by this?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
WSJ: Dem tax plan would sink real estate
« Reply #679 on: October 25, 2021, 03:20:26 PM »
Pretty technical, and damn important

The Democrats’ Tax Plan Would Sink Real Estate
We’ve seen it before. The 1986 reform led to the savings-and-loan crisis and the 1990-91 recession.
By Dan Palmer and David Williams
Oct. 25, 2021 1:45 pm ET

The most lasting effects of government policies are often the unintended consequences. Americans learned this lesson the hard way in the aftermath of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The tax proposals in the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget-reconciliation bill have the potential to kick off economy-crippling events similar to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s.

The landmark 1986 Tax Reform Act reduced the top personal income-tax rate from 50% to 28%. The politically divided Congress paid for these cuts, in part, by raising the rate on capital gains from 20% to 28% and limiting the deductibility of real estate losses for passive investors. The unintended consequences were many and profound.


As the new rules were phased in, investment capital dried up and asset values collapsed. Rents rose as landlords refused to pay their mortgage interest with nondeductible cash. Many other landlords “mailed back the keys” to the S&L associations holding their mortgages. The lack of investment capital, sharply lower valuations, and the resulting flood of foreclosures and “deeds in lieu” took down the S&L industry.

Before the 1986 act, the S&Ls were the primary source of loan capital for local property owners, developers and builders. After 1986, 747 institutions with assets of more than $394 billion (about $1 trillion in today’s dollars) collapsed into the federal Resolution Trust Corp. When the S&Ls failed, community-based lending and much of the local home-building industry vanished. The fallout was ultimately felt up and down Main Street during the recession of 1990-91.

Even before the 1990-91 recession, Congress knew it had blundered, and reinstated real-estate tax benefits for genuine professionals only. Those benefits still don’t apply to a casual investor who buys a small apartment block or enters a real-estate partnership. The lesson? The capital-gains tax rate has a larger effect on real-estate investment than limiting deductions does, but increasing rates and limiting deductions at the same time is deadly.


Wall Street was the big winner, filling the void left by the S&Ls with commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. Today, most commercial and multifamily real-estate funding is done by CMBS loans. All major financial institutions—including banks, insurance companies and pension funds—participate heavily in CMBS markets. Consequently, we are all in this together. When the CMBS market collapsed in 2008, it plunged the global economy into the Great Recession. Taxpayers funded huge bailouts.

Real estate is a long-term, risky and labor-intensive investment compared with stocks and bonds. Without tax incentives, real estate can’t compete with other investments for essential capital. Currently, real-estate professionals get depreciation deductions against taxable income, and long-term capital-gains rates when they sell. When an owner dies, his heirs get a free step-up in tax basis—that is, they don’t pay taxes on appreciation during the decedent’s lifetime.

Under the House bill, taxation of real-estate operating profit would soar from 29.6% (37% less 20% business deduction) to nearly 46.4% (39.6% basic maximum plus 3.8% investment tax plus 3% surtax for some, with no business deduction), and real estate capital gains would spike from 20% to 31.8% (25% basic capital gains maximum plus 3.8% investment tax plus 3% surtax for some). For a successful investor, that’s an extra 16.8% tax on operations and an extra 11.8% tax on capital gains. At the same time, new limitations are phasing in to reduce mortgage-interest deductions and depreciation. Increasing rates while limiting deductible losses is the same deadly recipe as in 1986.

Adding to the toxic brew, President Biden proposes a radical change to the way real-estate assets are treated when an owner dies. He proposes to tax the step-up in basis on death that has been a tax-code constant for a century. It is a foundational reason why families make multigenerational, long-term property investments. Taking away the free step-up in basis creates a disincentive to invest for the long term and ensures even less capital flowing to real estate.

Whether a generational property transfer is taxed at death at the proposed 31.8% capital-gains rate or the higher proposed ordinary-income rate of 46.4%, it may also face a proposed 45% death tax. And that is before state taxes. The huge aggregate tax bill on death will force estates to sell properties to cover what they owe. As 1986 and 2008 proved, forced selling in real-property markets creates havoc in financial markets.


What Congress did in 1986 to real-estate tax shelters was deliberate. What it did to S&Ls, community lending, investors, capital markets and Main Street was unintended. This time, it’s much the same, but the effect will be broader. Everyone is directly or indirectly exposed to the CMBS market, and sharply declining real-estate values are highly disruptive. Total CMBS loans today are approaching $4 trillion.

If passed, the Democrats’ real-estate tax proposals will tank property values. This sudden, broad decline will be recessionary. Recessions hit all Americans, not the few that Congress and the president are targeting with this legislation. Washington is at serious risk of replaying a historic economic blunder.

Mr. Palmer is a Republican strategist, activist and fundraiser and founder of Palmer Investments Inc., a real-estate investment firm. Mr. Williams is a tax attorney, certified public accountant, real-estate manager and investor.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Dem tax plan would sink real estate
« Reply #680 on: October 25, 2021, 04:20:13 PM »
At this point, I want them to do it. Let it burn.


Pretty technical, and damn important

The Democrats’ Tax Plan Would Sink Real Estate
We’ve seen it before. The 1986 reform led to the savings-and-loan crisis and the 1990-91 recession.
By Dan Palmer and David Williams
Oct. 25, 2021 1:45 pm ET

The most lasting effects of government policies are often the unintended consequences. Americans learned this lesson the hard way in the aftermath of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The tax proposals in the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget-reconciliation bill have the potential to kick off economy-crippling events similar to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s.

The landmark 1986 Tax Reform Act reduced the top personal income-tax rate from 50% to 28%. The politically divided Congress paid for these cuts, in part, by raising the rate on capital gains from 20% to 28% and limiting the deductibility of real estate losses for passive investors. The unintended consequences were many and profound.


As the new rules were phased in, investment capital dried up and asset values collapsed. Rents rose as landlords refused to pay their mortgage interest with nondeductible cash. Many other landlords “mailed back the keys” to the S&L associations holding their mortgages. The lack of investment capital, sharply lower valuations, and the resulting flood of foreclosures and “deeds in lieu” took down the S&L industry.

Before the 1986 act, the S&Ls were the primary source of loan capital for local property owners, developers and builders. After 1986, 747 institutions with assets of more than $394 billion (about $1 trillion in today’s dollars) collapsed into the federal Resolution Trust Corp. When the S&Ls failed, community-based lending and much of the local home-building industry vanished. The fallout was ultimately felt up and down Main Street during the recession of 1990-91.

Even before the 1990-91 recession, Congress knew it had blundered, and reinstated real-estate tax benefits for genuine professionals only. Those benefits still don’t apply to a casual investor who buys a small apartment block or enters a real-estate partnership. The lesson? The capital-gains tax rate has a larger effect on real-estate investment than limiting deductions does, but increasing rates and limiting deductions at the same time is deadly.


Wall Street was the big winner, filling the void left by the S&Ls with commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. Today, most commercial and multifamily real-estate funding is done by CMBS loans. All major financial institutions—including banks, insurance companies and pension funds—participate heavily in CMBS markets. Consequently, we are all in this together. When the CMBS market collapsed in 2008, it plunged the global economy into the Great Recession. Taxpayers funded huge bailouts.

Real estate is a long-term, risky and labor-intensive investment compared with stocks and bonds. Without tax incentives, real estate can’t compete with other investments for essential capital. Currently, real-estate professionals get depreciation deductions against taxable income, and long-term capital-gains rates when they sell. When an owner dies, his heirs get a free step-up in tax basis—that is, they don’t pay taxes on appreciation during the decedent’s lifetime.

Under the House bill, taxation of real-estate operating profit would soar from 29.6% (37% less 20% business deduction) to nearly 46.4% (39.6% basic maximum plus 3.8% investment tax plus 3% surtax for some, with no business deduction), and real estate capital gains would spike from 20% to 31.8% (25% basic capital gains maximum plus 3.8% investment tax plus 3% surtax for some). For a successful investor, that’s an extra 16.8% tax on operations and an extra 11.8% tax on capital gains. At the same time, new limitations are phasing in to reduce mortgage-interest deductions and depreciation. Increasing rates while limiting deductible losses is the same deadly recipe as in 1986.

Adding to the toxic brew, President Biden proposes a radical change to the way real-estate assets are treated when an owner dies. He proposes to tax the step-up in basis on death that has been a tax-code constant for a century. It is a foundational reason why families make multigenerational, long-term property investments. Taking away the free step-up in basis creates a disincentive to invest for the long term and ensures even less capital flowing to real estate.

Whether a generational property transfer is taxed at death at the proposed 31.8% capital-gains rate or the higher proposed ordinary-income rate of 46.4%, it may also face a proposed 45% death tax. And that is before state taxes. The huge aggregate tax bill on death will force estates to sell properties to cover what they owe. As 1986 and 2008 proved, forced selling in real-property markets creates havoc in financial markets.


What Congress did in 1986 to real-estate tax shelters was deliberate. What it did to S&Ls, community lending, investors, capital markets and Main Street was unintended. This time, it’s much the same, but the effect will be broader. Everyone is directly or indirectly exposed to the CMBS market, and sharply declining real-estate values are highly disruptive. Total CMBS loans today are approaching $4 trillion.

If passed, the Democrats’ real-estate tax proposals will tank property values. This sudden, broad decline will be recessionary. Recessions hit all Americans, not the few that Congress and the president are targeting with this legislation. Washington is at serious risk of replaying a historic economic blunder.

Mr. Palmer is a Republican strategist, activist and fundraiser and founder of Palmer Investments Inc., a real-estate investment firm. Mr. Williams is a tax attorney, certified public accountant, real-estate manager and investor.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #681 on: October 26, 2021, 06:17:06 AM »
Contrary to comment expressed by my friend G M:

No, we don't want Democrats to implement the worst of their radical policy ideas and destroy our country, destroy my life's work, for what benefit?  To prove they were wrong? 

They've already been proven wrong, across the world, throughout history.

Ibn Khaldun saw it and wrote about it in the 1300s. See economics thread.  See Thomas Sowell.


What's happening today is not radicals being radical.  That's a given.  The rise of this bullshit comes from the sane and responsible people being weak, ignorant, passive and silent about this EASILY AVOIDABLE DEMISE.

IMHO.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #682 on: October 26, 2021, 09:20:03 AM »
The country you grew up in is deader than canned tuna. TPTB have plans for us, and the end state is slavery at best.


Contrary to comment expressed by my friend G M:

No, we don't want Democrats to implement the worst of their radical policy ideas and destroy our country, destroy my life's work, for what benefit?  To prove they were wrong? 

They've already been proven wrong, across the world, throughout history.

Ibn Khaldun saw it and wrote about it in the 1300s. See economics thread.  See Thomas Sowell.


What's happening today is not radicals being radical.  That's a given.  The rise of this bullshit comes from the sane and responsible people being weak, ignorant, passive and silent about this EASILY AVOIDABLE DEMISE.

IMHO.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
They are just getting warmed up!
« Reply #683 on: October 26, 2021, 12:09:48 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #684 on: October 26, 2021, 04:58:52 PM »
Relevant here, but better yet in the Money thread.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
You probably have until Friday
« Reply #685 on: October 26, 2021, 06:35:18 PM »
To do whatever you can do to try to protect your real estate holdings. I figure Manchin and Sinema will sign off on the Amerikan Socialist transformation bill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: You probably have until Friday
« Reply #686 on: October 26, 2021, 11:14:22 PM »
To do whatever you can do to try to protect your real estate holdings. I figure Manchin and Sinema will sign off on the Amerikan Socialist transformation bill.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/088/773/909/original/0a966d7813ce494a.png


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
home prices up 19%
« Reply #687 on: October 27, 2021, 03:46:13 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: home prices up 19%
« Reply #688 on: October 27, 2021, 05:25:18 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2021/10/26/home-prices-jump/

Since the house didn't move or change, they could just say your dollar went down 20% with all the new printing.

Keep printing money and what was 200k becomes a billion, and under new unconstitutional law they can just take the assets of the wealthy, meaning everyone.

Meanwhile we are told it is fruitless to campaign against all this and 'voat harder".

I don't buy it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: home prices up 19%
« Reply #689 on: October 27, 2021, 06:46:29 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2021/10/26/home-prices-jump/

Since the house didn't move or change, they could just say your dollar went down 20% with all the new printing.

Keep printing money and what was 200k becomes a billion, and under new unconstitutional law they can just take the assets of the wealthy, meaning everyone.

Meanwhile we are told it is fruitless to campaign against all this and 'voat harder".

I don't buy it.

Ask Governor Elder how that works.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: St. Paul
« Reply #693 on: November 14, 2021, 08:54:28 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: St. Paul
« Reply #694 on: November 14, 2021, 10:35:01 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/st-paul-rent-control-initiative-backfires-unleashes-chaos-in-housing-market/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=25698466

“We said this would happen. This should be no surprise,”

Likewise on the forum.
https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Rent-Control-Report-Njolomole.pdf

From the NR article:

St. Paul Rent-Control Initiative Backfires, Unleashes ‘Chaos’ in Housing Market
By RYAN MILLS
November 14, 2021

Democratic leaders in Minnesota’s capital city are scrambling for solutions after developers put several large projects on hold across St. Paul in the wake of last week’s election, when residents approved what may be the strictest rent-control policy in the country.

The rent-control ballot initiative in St. Paul was overshadowed nationally by an effort in neighboring Minneapolis to disband that city’s police force. But while the Minneapolis police initiative went down in flames, left-wing activists on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River succeeded in their effort to cap rent increases at 3 percent annually, including on new construction, a step most communities that have imposed rent-control policies have specifically avoided out of concern that it would discourage future investments.

The St. Paul initiative passed last week with 53 percent support.

Opponents of St. Paul’s rent-control initiative warned before the vote that developers and financial investors would pull the plug on projects if the ballot measure were to pass. And that appears to be exactly what’s transpired over the past week. Large developers who spoke to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press told reporters that they’re pausing their projects across the city, and they are “re-evaluating what – if any – future business we’ll be doing in St. Paul.” Lenders are pulling out of new projects, they say, worried about the impact of the new policy.

Attempts by National Review to reach those developers for comment were unsuccessful.

B Kyle, president and CEO of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, said her organization is in the process of cataloguing all of the projects killed or put on hold because of the measure. It’s not just new development projects at risk, she said. Kyle said she’s already been told of dozens of buildings that have had 2022 rehabilitation projects stopped. She said there’s now “chaos” across St. Paul because of the rent-control measure.

“We said this would happen. This should be no surprise,” Kyle said, noting that opponents of the initiative were accused of being hyperbolic and pushing a “disaster narrative.”

“The truth is, we’re seeing it. This isn’t about emotion,” she said. “This is about how does a deal get financed, how does a project cash-flow, can you make a fair profit on a deal?”

“Developers will do deals where it makes sense for them to do deals. Our goal in St. Paul is to make this as inviting an environment as possible, so investors . . . want to bring their projects here, because St. Paul desperately needs more housing across the entire spectrum.”

Proponents of the rent-control initiative said it was desperately needed to offer predictability to both tenants and landlords and to advance racial justice in the city. St. Paul would “lead the nation in rewriting the outdated and unfair rules that give landlords unlimited power to economically exploit their tenants,” one rent-control supporter wrote in the online MinnPost.

Proponents acknowledged that annual rent increases in the Twin Cities have averaged less than 3 percent over the past two decades, but “BIPOC renters are the most likely to experience egregious rent spikes well above 3 percent.” They dismissed warnings that rent control would imperil new developments and disincentivize property owners from improving the quality of their buildings, uncontroversial opinions among the vast majority of economists. They argue that the developers are bluffing about pulling the plug on projects, and all they’re really trying to do is scare residents and city leaders in order to change the ordinance.

But Kyle said the concern about the future of those projects is very real. Even nonprofit and senior-housing developers fear their financial models won’t work under the new policy.

It’s not about greed, or good people versus bad landlords, Kyle said. “It’s about math.”

Investors naturally are inclined to pump money into communities where they have a better opportunity to make a return, and into communities that offer them more flexibility.

“New construction will not go where it is harder to do business, and rent control will stop new investment that comes in from outside this market,” Kyle said, noting that a recent Minnesota housing task force report found that the state already is well off the pace of building the 300,000 new homes that will be needed by 2030. St. Paul needs to elevate its image to continue attracting investors, Kyle said, and “this does not help.”

“We in St. Paul do not have the luxury of being cavalier about our housing market,” she said. “We need to be as earnest and inviting and participatory as possible.”

In addition to curbing the development of new homes, Kyle noted that the rent-control initiative also threatens the stock of existing rental homes and the quality of those homes.

St. Paul property owners already are facing a 7 percent property-tax increase next year. Add in 6.2 percent inflation – a 31-year high – employee wage increases, and a 3 percent cap on rent increases, and there are plenty of incentives for owners to sell their single-family rentals and to convert their apartments into condominiums. That’s happened in other cities, and it could happen in St. Paul, too, said Joe Hughes, a local businessman who owns about 20 small apartment buildings in the city

“When these houses that are rented sell, that’s going to be a net loss for the BIPOC community,” Hughes said. “I think there will be a higher percentage of white people buying them than there are living in them now.”

Hughes is critical of another aspect of the rent-control initiative that he says threatens his business. Hughes said he and most of his friends in the rental-property business typically try not to impose significant rent increases on their tenants. “The vast majority of rent increases that we did are $10-, $15-, $20-a-month increases,” he said. As a result, after several years, some tenants end up with monthly rents that are well under market value.

Typically, he said, owners would bring the units up to market when the tenants moved out. But that’s not allowed under the new rent-control policy: The 3 percent limit applies even when turning over a rental home to a new tenant. Proponents of the measure said that was necessary to disincentivize landlords from giving tenants the boot simply so they could jack up rents. Hughes said it will instead force landlords to adjust their business models, potentially passing on larger increases than they normally would to all their tenants.

“I think in the next couple years we’re going to have higher rent increases than we had the last few years,” he said.

Property owners who don’t sell their rental units also will have little incentive to improve their properties beyond keeping them up to code, and small investors looking to buy and refurbish older buildings may think twice if there is no guarantee they can charge a high enough rent to make the math work. The ballot language does direct the city to create a process for landlords to file for an exception to the 3 percent rent-increase limit to allow for “a reasonable return on investment.” But, Hughes said, “we don’t know anything about what that’s going to look like.”

“If you’re looking to buy a building that needs improvement, are we going to know what we’re going to be able to charge before we buy it, what we’re going to be able to charge for rents after the renovations?” he asked. “A lot of these old buildings need a lot of work.”

Hughes said it’s been “super frustrating,” because many proponents of the rent-control initiative don’t understand his business, and they often came to the debate thinking that property owners and other opponents of the rent-control initiative had bad motives.

“We thought the people that voted for it were well-intentioned and were trying to do the right thing, whereas they looked at us as just being non-compassionate, greedy people. That was a frustrating debate to have,” Hughes said. “To think that they’re at a different level morally and ethically and stuff like that is just ridiculous.”

In response to the news that developers are pausing projects and that lenders are pulling their money, St. Paul mayor Melvin Carter has urged the city council to work with him to exempt new construction from the rent-control mandate. The ballot language is silent on new construction, though advocates of the rent-control initiative were clear that it would apply to new construction. Because it was a citizen-driven ballot initiative, there is doubt among some city leaders that they have the legal ability to amend it.

“The opposition was concerned about this very detail. Now that it’s passed, our understanding is the language stands,” City Council president Amy Brendmoen told the Pioneer Press. “We can’t make changes that are substantive, and I think this would qualify as substantive.”

Kyle said that according to the chamber’s reading of the ordinance, she doesn’t think the city council can simply amend the policy to exempt new construction.

“I leave that to the city attorney to figure that out” before May 1, when the policy takes effect, she said. “I would say the mayor and the city council have a lot of work ahead of them to figure out what this looks like between now and then. And all I can tell you for sure is there is chaos right now.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: St. Paul
« Reply #695 on: November 14, 2021, 11:30:16 AM »

“It’s about math.”

Math is racist and totally cisgendered and heteronormative!


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/st-paul-rent-control-initiative-backfires-unleashes-chaos-in-housing-market/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=25698466

“We said this would happen. This should be no surprise,”

Likewise on the forum.
https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Rent-Control-Report-Njolomole.pdf

From the NR article:

St. Paul Rent-Control Initiative Backfires, Unleashes ‘Chaos’ in Housing Market
By RYAN MILLS
November 14, 2021

Democratic leaders in Minnesota’s capital city are scrambling for solutions after developers put several large projects on hold across St. Paul in the wake of last week’s election, when residents approved what may be the strictest rent-control policy in the country.

The rent-control ballot initiative in St. Paul was overshadowed nationally by an effort in neighboring Minneapolis to disband that city’s police force. But while the Minneapolis police initiative went down in flames, left-wing activists on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River succeeded in their effort to cap rent increases at 3 percent annually, including on new construction, a step most communities that have imposed rent-control policies have specifically avoided out of concern that it would discourage future investments.

The St. Paul initiative passed last week with 53 percent support.

Opponents of St. Paul’s rent-control initiative warned before the vote that developers and financial investors would pull the plug on projects if the ballot measure were to pass. And that appears to be exactly what’s transpired over the past week. Large developers who spoke to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press told reporters that they’re pausing their projects across the city, and they are “re-evaluating what – if any – future business we’ll be doing in St. Paul.” Lenders are pulling out of new projects, they say, worried about the impact of the new policy.

Attempts by National Review to reach those developers for comment were unsuccessful.

B Kyle, president and CEO of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, said her organization is in the process of cataloguing all of the projects killed or put on hold because of the measure. It’s not just new development projects at risk, she said. Kyle said she’s already been told of dozens of buildings that have had 2022 rehabilitation projects stopped. She said there’s now “chaos” across St. Paul because of the rent-control measure.

“We said this would happen. This should be no surprise,” Kyle said, noting that opponents of the initiative were accused of being hyperbolic and pushing a “disaster narrative.”

“The truth is, we’re seeing it. This isn’t about emotion,” she said. “This is about how does a deal get financed, how does a project cash-flow, can you make a fair profit on a deal?”

“Developers will do deals where it makes sense for them to do deals. Our goal in St. Paul is to make this as inviting an environment as possible, so investors . . . want to bring their projects here, because St. Paul desperately needs more housing across the entire spectrum.”

Proponents of the rent-control initiative said it was desperately needed to offer predictability to both tenants and landlords and to advance racial justice in the city. St. Paul would “lead the nation in rewriting the outdated and unfair rules that give landlords unlimited power to economically exploit their tenants,” one rent-control supporter wrote in the online MinnPost.

Proponents acknowledged that annual rent increases in the Twin Cities have averaged less than 3 percent over the past two decades, but “BIPOC renters are the most likely to experience egregious rent spikes well above 3 percent.” They dismissed warnings that rent control would imperil new developments and disincentivize property owners from improving the quality of their buildings, uncontroversial opinions among the vast majority of economists. They argue that the developers are bluffing about pulling the plug on projects, and all they’re really trying to do is scare residents and city leaders in order to change the ordinance.

But Kyle said the concern about the future of those projects is very real. Even nonprofit and senior-housing developers fear their financial models won’t work under the new policy.

It’s not about greed, or good people versus bad landlords, Kyle said. “It’s about math.”

Investors naturally are inclined to pump money into communities where they have a better opportunity to make a return, and into communities that offer them more flexibility.

“New construction will not go where it is harder to do business, and rent control will stop new investment that comes in from outside this market,” Kyle said, noting that a recent Minnesota housing task force report found that the state already is well off the pace of building the 300,000 new homes that will be needed by 2030. St. Paul needs to elevate its image to continue attracting investors, Kyle said, and “this does not help.”

“We in St. Paul do not have the luxury of being cavalier about our housing market,” she said. “We need to be as earnest and inviting and participatory as possible.”

In addition to curbing the development of new homes, Kyle noted that the rent-control initiative also threatens the stock of existing rental homes and the quality of those homes.

St. Paul property owners already are facing a 7 percent property-tax increase next year. Add in 6.2 percent inflation – a 31-year high – employee wage increases, and a 3 percent cap on rent increases, and there are plenty of incentives for owners to sell their single-family rentals and to convert their apartments into condominiums. That’s happened in other cities, and it could happen in St. Paul, too, said Joe Hughes, a local businessman who owns about 20 small apartment buildings in the city

“When these houses that are rented sell, that’s going to be a net loss for the BIPOC community,” Hughes said. “I think there will be a higher percentage of white people buying them than there are living in them now.”

Hughes is critical of another aspect of the rent-control initiative that he says threatens his business. Hughes said he and most of his friends in the rental-property business typically try not to impose significant rent increases on their tenants. “The vast majority of rent increases that we did are $10-, $15-, $20-a-month increases,” he said. As a result, after several years, some tenants end up with monthly rents that are well under market value.

Typically, he said, owners would bring the units up to market when the tenants moved out. But that’s not allowed under the new rent-control policy: The 3 percent limit applies even when turning over a rental home to a new tenant. Proponents of the measure said that was necessary to disincentivize landlords from giving tenants the boot simply so they could jack up rents. Hughes said it will instead force landlords to adjust their business models, potentially passing on larger increases than they normally would to all their tenants.

“I think in the next couple years we’re going to have higher rent increases than we had the last few years,” he said.

Property owners who don’t sell their rental units also will have little incentive to improve their properties beyond keeping them up to code, and small investors looking to buy and refurbish older buildings may think twice if there is no guarantee they can charge a high enough rent to make the math work. The ballot language does direct the city to create a process for landlords to file for an exception to the 3 percent rent-increase limit to allow for “a reasonable return on investment.” But, Hughes said, “we don’t know anything about what that’s going to look like.”

“If you’re looking to buy a building that needs improvement, are we going to know what we’re going to be able to charge before we buy it, what we’re going to be able to charge for rents after the renovations?” he asked. “A lot of these old buildings need a lot of work.”

Hughes said it’s been “super frustrating,” because many proponents of the rent-control initiative don’t understand his business, and they often came to the debate thinking that property owners and other opponents of the rent-control initiative had bad motives.

“We thought the people that voted for it were well-intentioned and were trying to do the right thing, whereas they looked at us as just being non-compassionate, greedy people. That was a frustrating debate to have,” Hughes said. “To think that they’re at a different level morally and ethically and stuff like that is just ridiculous.”

In response to the news that developers are pausing projects and that lenders are pulling their money, St. Paul mayor Melvin Carter has urged the city council to work with him to exempt new construction from the rent-control mandate. The ballot language is silent on new construction, though advocates of the rent-control initiative were clear that it would apply to new construction. Because it was a citizen-driven ballot initiative, there is doubt among some city leaders that they have the legal ability to amend it.

“The opposition was concerned about this very detail. Now that it’s passed, our understanding is the language stands,” City Council president Amy Brendmoen told the Pioneer Press. “We can’t make changes that are substantive, and I think this would qualify as substantive.”

Kyle said that according to the chamber’s reading of the ordinance, she doesn’t think the city council can simply amend the policy to exempt new construction.

“I leave that to the city attorney to figure that out” before May 1, when the policy takes effect, she said. “I would say the mayor and the city council have a lot of work ahead of them to figure out what this looks like between now and then. And all I can tell you for sure is there is chaos right now.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Option to buy question
« Reply #697 on: December 15, 2021, 01:59:02 AM »
There is an elderly couple living in the middle of three two acre lots.  They have the lot on each side of them for sale.  Let's say they are in Lot B.  We are interested in buying Lot A and perhaps when they move/pass away, Lot B with the house on it.  Maybe Lot A as well.  The elderly couple is willing to give us an option to buy/right of first refusal on their house/Lot B.

Any thoughts on how to write this up?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18117
    • View Profile
Re: Option to buy question
« Reply #698 on: December 15, 2021, 06:56:47 AM »
There is an elderly couple living in the middle of three two acre lots.  They have the lot on each side of them for sale.  Let's say they are in Lot B.  We are interested in buying Lot A and perhaps when they move/pass away, Lot B with the house on it.  Maybe Lot A as well.  The elderly couple is willing to give us an option to buy/right of first refusal on their house/Lot B.

Any thoughts on how to write this up?

Very interesting.  First I would insist use a local, top notch R.E. attorney.  You would have to pay for the option for it to be binding.  Then you would have to pay market price to get the property when the time comes. Let's say you pay a thousand for the right of first refusal and something goes wrong.  You don't want your 1000 back, you want the deed. State law governs that so only a good local attorney would know how to make it enforceable.

Another idea comes to mind.  Buy it now (on a contract for deed?) and lease it back to them.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69113
    • View Profile
Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate
« Reply #699 on: December 15, 2021, 07:29:18 AM »
I was hoping to avoid the $500 I was quoted for a RE lawyer, but you are making good sense.