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.
??? a free market should decide who belongs there, but the market is not free, as it is rigged in favor of owners.
No it's not in my case. As I said, zoning laws prevent my building from being used as condos or as hotel rooms, thus I have a great, cheap apartment in an old building, been here 15 years now. If zoning laws went away overnight, I'd probably be getting a notice that I have to vacate when my lease is up because they're knocking down my building to build condos, which would go for at least half a million to a million a piece.
I love how you just ignore cases that don't fit your hypothesis.
I did not either nor did I vote for Prop 13 because I was not old enough to vote.
At least Prop 13 enjoys broad support from the electorate... then and now.
That's the beauty for the California Initiative process... the electorate has the options of by-passing the legislature and going directly to the voters... which is exactly what Prop 13 did.
Also... Prop 13 received more yes votes by a wide margin than there were property owners in the State at that time...
The passage of Prop 13 came about because there was a grass roots effort of property owners and non-property owner that made it law in spite of the over whelming media and print blitz by government officials up to and including a Sacramento competing alternative Proposition.
Housing demand is very inelastic; most people will give up just about everything else before they will voluntarily give up housing.
This has allowed landlords to jack up the rent without pricing themselvee out of the market, renters have given up other types of spending and redirected those dollars to paying jacked-up rents.
Why should renters have to move? Why shouldn't government allow renters the affordable ownership options the private sector would deliver if it were not crippled by government?
Well said. Housing demand is very inelastic (the vast majority of people will not accept homelessness). However, the issue right now that affects pricing is supply, or the lack thereof. When I see the prices some of the landlords are charging I practically want to build my own apartment building. Then I see how hard it is to actually do so due to numerous governmental restrictions.
In my area, it can take 10+ years to get approval to build new housing development, when you go through the endless environmental bureaucracy, NIMBY's, zoning, etc. It's little wonder that waiting lists for apartments in my area can be 1 year long or even closed. Governments have created these issues due to a combination of their lack of understanding of basic economics, and their idealistic utopia vision, which basically involves displacing the lower classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
That's the beauty for the California Initiative process... the electorate has the options of by-passing the legislature and going directly to the voters... which is exactly what Prop 13 did.
I consider the mere existence of the initaitive process a clear indicator of the utter failure of our California legislature to represent their constituents. Of course, California is regularly ranked as the worst (out of 50) states to do business in, so it's pretty obvious that our state government doesn't understand the real issues facing Californians.
No it's not in my case. As I said, zoning laws prevent my building from being used as condos or as hotel rooms, thus I have a great, cheap apartment in an old building, been here 15 years now. If zoning laws went away overnight, I'd probably be getting a notice that I have to vacate when my lease is up because they're knocking down my building to build condos, which would go for at least half a million to a million a piece.
I love how you just ignore cases that don't fit your hypothesis.
On the Shore you are certailnly in an atypical housing market, with a spike in seasonal demand. As a kid I lived for a time year-round on the Long Island South Shore; similar zoning restrictions may have existed there. So yes, your zoning is appropriate for where you live but you live in an atypical place.
Supply and demand,
When the supply is down the demand goes up so does the rent.
People are not buying houses like they use too, a lot of houses are let go, bankruptcy, foreclosed on, etc.
There in itself you have created an increase in demand while at the same time there would also be a decrease in supply.
Landlords get whatever the market will bear.
My suggestion would be...
Look into getting a RV Park Model.
They sell fairly cheap and you can get a spot to park it for pennies on the dollar compared to renting a house. They are available in one or two bedrooms and if you get one custom build you can probably add whatever you want.
Often overlooked, at least where I am... many decided home ownership was no longer worth the sacrifice and walked away... every block in my city had a least one lender owned property and some had several.
These houses didn't just sit empty... investors bought the bulk and either flipped or kept them for rentals.
Some of those that walked away... and I know several... now severely regret doing so... not only did their credit take a hit... the cheap rent is no longer cheap and the home they walked away from in many parts of the SF Bay Area is now going for much more today...
Kind of a loose/loose scenario based on being short sighted.
Note: Many chose to walk... it was not because they couldn't afford to ride it out.
Because of demand caused by tighter lending few can qualify for a mortgage if they want one. Others bad credit.in some areas housing cost are beyond the lower middle class and have been.
Because of demand caused by tighter lending few can qualify for a mortgage if they want one. Others bad credit.in some areas housing cost are beyond the lower middle class and have been.
No, the issue is that most want more house than they can afford. Housing sizes have nearly doubled as family sizes have dropped. We're spending beyond our resources.
I work in a Hospital and the stories of co-workers/their kids being priced out of the market are common.
In most cases the reality is many do not want what they can afford.
I bought my first home the same year I graduated... tried to buy in a "Good" area and found I could not qualify for a loan... I had saved the down payment so that was not the problem.
Anyway... I went on the MLS and checked for the least expensive single family homes and did find one I could buy for cash... I still own it today as a rental.
Several of my friends did similar... we bought within are means and for some... it took 4 or 5 moves to land their forever home...
Some of the biggest detractors were friends and family... my step grandfather told my grandmother he did not have the heart to tell me I would be better off to simply walk away but he couldn't because at age 22 I owned my own single family home outright in the heart of the SF Bay Area...
What is? Rental increases? I ask because the Chicago rental market is stagnant and is expected to remain so for the next couple of years.
this.
Rental market in Chicago sucks balls right now, as a matter of fact.
But rent is more than ownership presently because it is much easier to rent than to own. in terms of the steady jobs, and other requirements imposed by bank system.
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.
