A Million More People By 2035 (Los Angeles, Orange: renters, mortgage, loan)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Exactly. Who wants to see small apartment buildings being built behind their house?

The owners. It means they can get more money from the property rather than waste space and not make anything from said waste.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Well I feel sympathy for them. If they don't want the Expo line in their neighborhood, why should they have it?

As I've stated before, L.A. has no housing shortage whatsoever. The problem is that there's an oversupply of people trying to cram in here. I don't want to live in a city that looks like Blade Runner where that it's people living in seemingly endless stack & pack housing and almost no room to breathe. Why would any civilized person want to live like that?

When it comes to a big city, it only does more harm than good to not have a transit. Those are the same people that complain about traffic while rallying against the one remedy.

Like go figure..

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

The owners. It means they can get more money from the property rather than waste space and not make anything from said waste.

Majoun, come on. Owning a home is not always about making money. It's a place to live, to raise a family, to know your neighbors, to participate in the community, to....

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Majoun, come on. Owning a home is not always about making money. It's a place to live, to raise a family, to know your neighbors, to participate in the community, to....

Do you really think that no one buys property with the intention of making income from it?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

Do you really think that no one buys property with the intention of making income from it?

You missed a key word in the post above yours: "always."

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Hamsammich

People buy a home to live in. If I wanted to make money, I would buy an income producing asset. Homes are an income losing, but generally appreciating asset.

You don't even own a home, so I'm not sure you're the best person to be telling homeowners how they should be thinking.

Indeed; to my securities portfolio I recently added Welltower which handles medical based REIT's. As a shareholder, I don't need to do anything other than vote yea or nay on members of the board. Welltower has been gradually trending up over the past 16 years, and I'm getting a 5%+ return. Not a bad deal, and it sure beats managing a property on my own -- leave that to companies that specialize in that field.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Hamsammich

People buy a home to live in. If I wanted to make money, I would buy an income producing asset. Homes are an income losing, but generally appreciating asset.

You don't even own a home, so I'm not sure you're the best person to be telling homeowners how they should be thinking.

I think flippers would disagree

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Majoun, come on. Owning a home is not always about making money. It's a place to live, to raise a family, to know your neighbors, to participate in the community, to....

Yes, and to have space for a pool and a hot tub. Or at the very least a fire pit and outdoor pizza oven. Way better than a backyard apartment!

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Majoun, come on. Owning a home is not always about making money. It's a place to live, to raise a family, to know your neighbors, to participate in the community, to....

I agree it's not always about making money. But in an area like Southern California ( or the Bay Area or NYC ) people do seem to expect decent appreciation .

In an area like much of the Midwest it's very different of course .

Many in L.A have become millionaires simply from buying a home to live in .

Anyone that bought pretty much anywhere in Santa Monica or the Westside and has their home paid off or mostly paid off is a millionaire .

That being said I doubt we see the same appreciation of the past.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You missed a key word in the post above yours: "always."

You lived in Venice, so I know youre familiar with properties which have small apartment buildings, duplexes, or even single houses in back of SFRs. You can see this in a lot of older neighborhoods. In many places SFRs got broken up into apartments during the Great Depression. LA's strict zoning was put in place to prevent this from happening again, even though for a lot of people it would have come in handy during the 2008 economic collapse, and will assuredly be able to come in handy when the next recession or depression happens if it is allowed. (Yes I know there's Airbnb now, but the city of LA isn't exactly that fond of it....)

My parents, when they bought their first SFR back in the 1970s, wanted to build apartments on the lot and even sued the city of LA to get the zoning changed, unsuccessfully. The city has been an overregulated mess for a long time but it has definitely gotten worse in this century.