Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what's my point? If I can do it, in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, so can you. But you have to want it. BAD. Bad enough to work two jobs. Bad enough to skip going out with friends on the weekend. Bad enough to skip vacations. Bad enough to work up a budget, stick to it and watch the funds pile up for your down payment. And you are all right...the first home will not be a palace. It's the first one that you can use to build equity and then move to another if you choose to. Me? If this deal goes through, I'm there for the long haul. I never thought I'd own a home...But knowing I wanted one, and busting my butt to get there, has been an awesome experience. And truthfully, in my opinion, you need to start being a bit more optimistic...About housing...About yourself...About life. LIVE IT!!
i guess you slept through the part about those of us that DID have equity, now don't?
So what's my point? If I can do it, in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, so can you. But you have to want it. BAD. Bad enough to work two jobs. Bad enough to skip going out with friends on the weekend. Bad enough to skip vacations. Bad enough to work up a budget, stick to it and watch the funds pile up for your down payment. And you are all right...
Firstly, I'd have no trouble purchasing a home here, I'm not talking about this from my point of view but instead the view of a mid-income young family in a major city in California. I'm not talking about Southern California as a whole, you can't generalize about Southern California its far too large, it has everything from <$100,000 homes to $20+ million homes.
But as for the rest of your comments, why should someone work two jobs, skip having fun, etc.....all so they can "own" the place they sleep in? That doesn't make much sense to me and my point here is that people will be happier if they just give up on "owning" and just rent.
Silly. Ridiculous. I stated a list of features in choosing as I did. Consider:
• a couple blocks from, and with views of, a tree-lined, navigable waterway that is used both commercially and recreationally and leads from saltwater bay to a lake in the heart of a major city and beyond to another huge recreational lake
• a couple mile walk to the site of a former World's Fair which campus was converted to the city's cultural center -- symphony, opera, art, family and senior's recreation, huge park with fountains and lawns, sports arena for professional teams
• half mile walk across picturesque drawbridge to huge high-tech business park
• half mile walk to one of the city's favorite nightlife neighborhoods
• half mile to a highly respected, mid-sized Christian university campus in place since 1891
• less than three miles to one of America's finer very large universities since 1861
• mountain, lake, canal, city views
• single family neighborhood with lawns, sizable yards, big mature trees within a few miles of center city financial district -- the biggest for a thousand miles. Classic architecture homes in good repair.
None -- ZERO -- of those features are random -- nor are ANY of them ever going to go away in several lifetimes. Mountains, waterways, universities, huge municipal parks, downtown.
You think after growing up in a family associated with studying housing and inner-city issues I didn't notice these things? Random choice? You silly silly argumentative man.
I arrived there as a young man a few years out of military service. No college. Worked in the printing trades for $600 a month. Wife was not employed, a homemaker. We had one child at the time. After six months employed during a recession that had billboards in town saying: "Last one out, turn off the lights" referencing the city. I told my wife: this place is a gold mine. Let's buy a house here and stay. (We had just moved from S.F., to Iowa, to Wash. D.C., to Minnesota, and then back to the West Coast.)
Wife, not one to take risks -- except for marrying a joker like me -- laughed and called me "nuts. We don't have a dime to our names." True.
I studied the neighborhoods. I concluded that there was ZERO chance for failure with the features I cited above. I borrowed $500 from my brother and threw it in a hat to bid on an FHA repo -- refurbished. Won it for $16,500. My father, a nationally renown consultant in the fields of human relations, housing, and urban planning was thrilled for us. He said, to the effect: "Nailed it!"
There are several "down" communities in California's Bay regions currently I could do well with by investing in now too. Can't fail in the long haul. But I am done. No further interest in more properties.
I took the exact same approach to where I bought too. Biggest dump in the nicest hood I could afford.When I was in my 20s I talked to every Senior I could that lived in the area and listened carefully about how they bought for X amount etc. Then the fact that its 1 mile to the beach, 7 to down town, the airport and all major sports venues. It took me 12 or so years to rebuild it and a ton of sweat equity but I knew I'd more than likely come out on top based on the areas history. My only mistake was not buying two.
Real estate in the Central Valley is certainly cheaper than in the Bay Area, SoCal, or the Central Coast. However, it's still expensive when compared to other parts of the country that are similar in geography, etc. So I wouldn't say that real estate in the CV is "cheap."
I regularly go through listings on Realtor.com and many places considered reasonable in other parts of the US are as much as my area (Butte County) for a similar property (The South, most of The Midwest). About the only place cheaper are some communities in Oklahoma and rural Texas. Merced is dirt cheap compared to almost anywhere else in the country. Regardless who's yardstick you're using post-bubble Central Valley (save for possibly Sacramento metro) has quite low real estate.
But as for the rest of your comments, why should someone work two jobs, skip having fun, etc.....all so they can "own" the place they sleep in? That doesn't make much sense to me and my point here is that people will be happier if they just give up on "owning" and just rent.
This has been an entertaining thread to read 1/3 of.
How can you say someone will be happier renting than "owning?" The physical structure someone sleeps in is probably more than just a place to sleep. Maybe for some people it is "fun" to live in a place that has potential to build equity - or a place that doesn't share walls with anyone - or gives them the space and privacy they want?
It should be obvious that some people WANT to rent. Some people WANT to buy. I don't question either group.
Firstly, I'd have no trouble purchasing a home here, I'm not talking about this from my point of view but instead the view of a mid-income young family in a major city in California. I'm not talking about Southern California as a whole, you can't generalize about Southern California its far too large, it has everything from <$100,000 homes to $20+ million homes.
But as for the rest of your comments, why should someone work two jobs, skip having fun, etc.....all so they can "own" the place they sleep in? That doesn't make much sense to me and my point here is that people will be happier if they just give up on "owning" and just rent.
Everybody's situation is different. Not only am I much happier living in a place I own, I paid off my loan thanks to a corporate buyout of my employer that involved some stock options paying off big for me. So now I have no rent and no mortgage.
How can you say someone will be happier renting than "owning?" The physical structure someone sleeps in is probably more than just a place to sleep. Maybe for some people it is "fun" to live in a place that has potential to build equity - or a place that doesn't share walls with anyone - or gives them the space and privacy they want?
I'm not sure why people equate "renting" with "renting an apartment", but if you want to live in a single family home you can rent one. I say that people will be happier because it will be more financially liberating in the case of the major cities in California. Making huge sacrifices in your life just so you can "own" the root over your head doesn't make sense, there are other (more sensible) ways to generate wealth.
Firstly, I'd have no trouble purchasing a home here, I'm not talking about this from my point of view but instead the view of a mid-income young family in a major city in California. I'm not talking about Southern California as a whole, you can't generalize about Southern California its far too large, it has everything from <$100,000 homes to $20+ million homes.
But as for the rest of your comments, why should someone work two jobs, skip having fun, etc.....all so they can "own" the place they sleep in? That doesn't make much sense to me and my point here is that people will be happier if they just give up on "owning" and just rent.
Someone must own the property you are going to be renting, in almost every case it is more profitable to be on the owning side of this equation.
Be it a small place or some giant sprawling construction matters little, the impact ownership has on the family as a whole is huge.
May I be so bold as to suggest that a home purchased, and paid for, is a spectacular thing in this day and age. For one, the home can be kept, not as an investment mind you, but as a place to call home.
When I die, I want it to happen on a bit of land that I can call my own, a place I worked hard for, a place that reflects who I am not who I am renting from. I want to pass this on to my offspring, not a bunch of callously packed boxes tossed out to the curb by a disgruntled landlord wanting the next tenant to move in as quickly as possible so as to keep the money flowing.
Someone must own the property you are going to be renting, in almost every case it is more profitable to be on the owning side of this equation.
Be it a small place or some giant sprawling construction matters little, the impact ownership has on the family as a whole is huge.
May I be so bold as to suggest that a home purchased, and paid for, is a spectacular thing in this day and age. For one, the home can be kept, not as an investment mind you, but as a place to call home.
When I die, I want it to happen on a bit of land that I can call my own, a place I worked hard for, a place that reflects who I am not who I am renting from. I want to pass this on to my offspring, not a bunch of callously packed boxes tossed out to the curb by a disgruntled landlord wanting the next tenant to move in as quickly as possible so as to keep the money flowing.
Maurice
I appreciate your sentiments, Maurice ... although I would point out that it is possible to unfetter one's self from the concept of "ownership" altogether -- and thus achieve the same sense of connection to anywhere you stand. No reflection of self in "things" is required.
I appreciate your sentiments, Maurice ... although I would point out that it is possible to unfetter one's self from the concept of "ownership" altogether -- and thus achieve the same sense of connection to anywhere you stand. No reflection of self in "things" is required.
Earlier this year I took a vacation with the extended family, we vacationed in a beautiful waterfront cabin in Wisconsin. The cabin was built by my wifes sisters husbands family, he helped build a run of stone stairs leading to the main entrance. The cabin was sold contents included to a couple of investors when Dave was 15ish, his older sisters were not interested in the property at all.
As I mentioned we vacationed there, for something like $3000 per week, to stay in a cabin loaded with family photos that do not belong to the family. There is sadness in my heart because of this, sadness that permanency is no longer respected. I believe a home is the foundation of a family, a place to retreat to when all else in the world is going utterly wrong.
Dave and his family go "home" on vacation every year, he gets to rent his families history one week out of the year. I truly fear the day the new owners decide all that old stuff needs to go. I'm not certain Dave could make it through the loss, even though technically speaking there is no real loss on his part is there (<-- sarcasm )
Its not so much that the reflection of self in stuff is needed, it is a path to impress upon our children the nature of our existence and impart a continued stream of education long after our time here is done. This is of course my own personal opinion.
I like old stuff that will pass down several more generations prior to wearing out, and when I eat dinner with pre great depression era utensils I can't help but recall my wifes grandmother and how sweet she was, and how frugally she lived.
If I understand your ideology at all I see it as very idealistic, and maybe unreachable by me. I like the idea of being remembered simply based on my actions, words, and criteria that are devoid of mass yet contain volumes of substance. I'm not that guy, I'm far to simple to even try to believe my legacy should stand the test of time in the minds of mortals.
Maurice
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
