Opposition to South Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan

[ATX Wahine]

That's a rather short sided outlook. A home is a long term investment. If you are looking to flip and profit you'd better come to the table with plenty of cash and contacts. But if you buy that 200k home, put 100k into it, and live in it and enjoy it for a decade while starting your family, you'll make a nice profit come sale time.

Instant gratification doesn't work in the home ownership game all that often. Sorry.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by r0ach

So, spend 200k on a home (probably east of 35 and school track) that needs a lot of work, say another 100k, to give you a total outlay of 300k for a home that will never sell for that amount. Ever.

Brilliant. But that's the game.

Just did a quick and dirty MLS check of the areas mentioned above (all over the city, by the way, not just east) where there are homes for $200,000 or less for sale (this time I restricted it to City of Austin addresses) and I found that in those same areas there are houses for $300,000-$350,000, as well.

In addition, several of the homes for $200,000 or less that I found had already had at least some updating done.

As for the East Austin thing, there's a type of loan that helps pay for updating/repair/etc. on a house that needs it. The trick is, the house has to appraise for the amount of the purchase plus the costs of fixing the house up in order for you to get the loan - that is, appraise for that if it were on the market with the updating at the time you get the loan. An example I was given by a loan officer of this kind of loan in East Austin was a house that was essentially a total gut down to the studs, with the cost of renovation being higher than the cost of purchase. There was concern that it would not appraise for the amount that was needed. Once the appraiser had done their thing, the appraisal came in at half again higher than the renovation costs plus purchase price, in that location.

This was before the current market took off, as well.

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by r0ach

"Profit". Maybe you can swing it so that your sale price covers the old mortgage and a down payment on the next one because you still need a place to live after that hypothetical decade, right? Cool, you get to start the whole debt cycle again.

I take it that you have very little understanding of homeowner economics. If you choose to "buy up" then yes, you will begin that debt cycle all over again. For that reason, many people choose to remain in their original home and pay it off. For those who decide to upgrade their home to something bigger and fancier in a better neighborhood, you will indeed begin that process over again. The profit you make off the first sale offsets the increased purchase price of your next home. This is homeowner 101 stuff - no new revelations being brought out into the open here.

[riaelise]

Originally Posted by scm53

Spot freakin' on. The latest homeowners in my brood bought a seventies vintage. First up, just after closing, was 11" of concrete to fill in the sunken living room. Next is to redo the floors, themselves, with some laminate. Won't happen overnight, but the joy is in making it your own.

Like my son said, it isn't the last house he'll ever own. He said it was hard to leave the granite counters and stainless appliances of their apartment. But homeownership was something they were willing to sacrifice for.

why would they fill in the sunken living room? I'd die for a home that has a sunken living room! That's one thing I miss from New York City....


It's one thing to have fixers in the sub 200k price point, but I see homes trotted out that look absolutely unappealing in the higher price points, just because. I smile when I see the numerous price reductions.

Personally, I'm content living farther out to get what I want...

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by r0ach

"Profit". Maybe you can swing it so that your sale price covers the old mortgage and a down payment on the next one because you still need a place to live after that hypothetical decade, right? Cool, you get to start the whole debt cycle again. And when does home ownership end, exactly? Even in the most ideal scenario, it's when you're either too feeble to maintain a home or you're dead. Neither of which seems like a situation where you'd be able to reap such "lucrative" benefits.

Not to mention that type of home in this market is not the kind of investment you're going to come out ahead on.

Family concerns? If I have a kid, I don't want to be in a bad school track. I don't ever care to have any, so that isn't a concern, but why even go through the expense if renting property from a bank for 30 years (aka home ownership) isn't necessary. I've seen way too many people make that mistake.



You and I both know that the supply of homes of this type west of I-35 is very limited and you're just trying to propagate the narrative that people under 40 want things handed to them. Don't confuse these forums with your horse stalls.

Just did a search limiting it to west of I35 in City of Austin and my statement regarding the facts stands.

[DCtoTejas]

Originally Posted by r0ach

How many first-time home owners in the Austin market are going to lease-to-own for 30 years the type of home we're talking about? Not many.

I know lots of people around my age who have taken the plunge on a wide variety of housing, new home construction, older condos, fixer-uppers, and anything else you can think of. Very few have found the effort to be worth it either emotionally or financially. Some even sold at a loss and went back to renting.

I agree that home "ownership" is not truly ownership in the traditional sense of the word, even if you owe nothing to the bank - stop paying property taxes and you'll find out who really owns your home! Not to mention the financing games played by the bank that essentially amount to a tax of your real money for a risk-less ledger entry on their part.

But one aspect you are overlooking is no landlord, in that regard you do truly own your home. Want to have a friend and their dog over? You can do it without violating your lease. Want to have guests for more than 3/5/7/whatever days? Want to hang something on the walls? Want to change a room's color? Sure you could probably get all these things done with a reasonable landlord, but do you really want to have to ask someone's permission to do everything? What if they aren't reasonable? Do you want to move every year? I know I don't.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by DCtoTejas

I agree that home "ownership" is not truly ownership in the traditional sense of the word, even if you owe nothing to the bank - stop paying property taxes and you'll find out who really owns your home!

It's the same with any property. Don't pay your income tax and you'll see anything you "own" go away.

[scm53]

Perhaps the real reasons millenials can't afford to buy a home?

[petro]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's the same with any property. Don't pay your income tax and you'll see anything you "own" go away.

True. And don't forget about the mortgage interest tax deduction. It's a huge benefit to owning a home over renting.