Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:36 PM
 
7,912 posts, read 7,744,400 times
Reputation: 4146

Advertisements

www.scag.ca.gov/housing/pdfs/trends/agingbabyboomers_ghb.pdf
The Journal of The American Planning Association already talked about this back in 2007.

Basically here's a few things to keep in mind. By the time someone is 65 they will not be buying homes. Maybe selling and moving into apartments. The amount is low, certainly by the time someone is in their 80's they really do not move. Given demographics they illustrated that 2011-2015 in Mass is when the market would be changing as not all states have the same amount of baby boomers.

If it is cheaper to live somewhere else then that frankly is where someone will probably go although other factors do add up. Cities and towns have to prepare themselves for this because if they don't they will lose out. For example once baby boomers cannot drive are there enough sidewalks? Heck are there sidewalks? How about town taxi's? Bus services? I know this might be a bit off but what a bout training services for those that still don't know how to use the internet or cell phones?

I would also argue that vs the past there is less demand for space. Sure post ww 2 when everyone wanted a few kids, some pets, a few cars and everything took up space sure..but not now. Remember huge speakers back in the day?Stacks of LP records? Huge car like sized projection tv's. Book collections..etc. Now you have ipods, ipads, kindles, flat screens etc. Sometimes there was too much of a emphasis on look rather than function. I inherited some furniture from my grandparents that looks great and will last probably centuries. But the weight and ergonomics on this makes it hard to really warrant owning it. I rather get something from Ikea!

The concept of ownership of fair amounts of items is also lessening. No dvd's just netflix, email has replaced mail, no land line phones - cell phones, maybe car sharing services etc. There's simply less "stuff" to move and thus makes it much easier to move. Moving was a much bigger deal long ago but not so much now (depending still on how far).

There's also about 19 MILLION empty homes in the country. You could add up very man women and child in Cuba and Austria here and give them a house and still have some left over!
Number of Vacant Homes in U.S. Hits 19 Million Now some of these are time shares and rentals and most of these are not on the market. The reason is mostly because they are bank owned and if they did so the market would decrease further (concept called shadow inventory)

I'd also add that although there's nothing wrong with updating homes but overcustomization can slow a sale. For example if you have a pool should you get rid of it or not? It can be a big plus if it's a place that really gets warm but the liabilities if children are around can be pretty high. In some cases I think ones can sell better if they anticipate a bit more for an older generation. For example is everything that is important on one floor (bathroom w/ shower, laundry, drier etc?) otherwise if someone cannot climb stairs it limits them. Can you get into the house without using steps? Is there ample amounts of lighting?

By the way in terms of "do it yourself" there are strict laws in mass that prevent doing a fair amount yourself. For example you cannot reroute plumbing in walls, ceilings and floors. Anything exposed is fine (toilet, sink, basin, bidet etc). Other states allow this. Maybe some might pressure the state to change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 01:42 PM
 
1,768 posts, read 3,220,332 times
Reputation: 1592
Mdovell your post made me think of this. It is very real issue as of late in some parts of MA. Partly for mismanagement, partly for lack of resources, or both.
I will take an example of Belmont that I know well, and is fairly old-er town. More people are 45-50 and over, than younger.
There is new and very big Senior Center, "Belderbus" to transport senior citizens, reduced taxes for senior homeowners. It is actually not bad at all being senior citizen in Belmont.
Older folks want to keep taxes low and lower, but property values sky-high. Many are still living in big-four plus bedroom homes while complaining of COL and being priced out. Younger families are of similar mindset about taxes, but understand that appeal is in strong schools, and are interested and vested in maintaining strong school ratings and general maintenance (even if taxes go up it is still cheaper than private schools). There is very polarized atmosphere in the town, and many other towns as well. I am very curious if Newton will pass override this spring. Belmont's one failed. People were "sick" of town government mismanagement and town government's "priorities".
This is going to be big fight going into the future and not just for silly Belmont. What are the priorities? What is reasonable investment in supporting "past" while growing "future"? There is huge value in both. How you make entrenched/corrupt town government more responsive and transparent to general public? Why in the richest country in the world we even have to fight about these things? Why can we not have both?
But, I am bit miffed at some older residents, and their huge resistance to support anything but themselves. Most of them had it pretty good so far, but they are very hostile to younger families with kids, or anything that has to do with investing in schools and other infrastructure. There is lot of "towny" vs. newcomers mindset there as well. On the other end, younger families are paying 700K plus entrance fee into the town, and expect some level of service for their tax dollars.
It is very complicated situation, and although I can sympathize with both, I am discouraged with level of civility and what stupid fights and detours we have to endure while boat is slowly sinking. Where is that famous common sense, we in the NE are supposedly famous for? Is our veneer of civility really that thin? Is it everybody for themselves nowadays?
Between COL and RE, student debt, including aging population, municipal health and benefits liabilities, it will be very interesting seeing what happens in the next decade. It will be bumpy ride for sure.

Last edited by kingeorge; 03-10-2013 at 01:50 PM.. Reason: flow
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:55 PM
 
613 posts, read 937,682 times
Reputation: 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharencare View Post
Do you think MA retirees will sell their homes en masse around 2015?

I was wondering because my in-laws are thinking of retiring and moving in the next few years. They are in California, and their home is still worth much more than they originally paid for decades ago despite the Recession. Perhaps now might be a good time to move to a sunnier location with lower cost of living.
I've lived in the metro_Boston area for about 30 of the 40 years since 1972. In all that time, I've never seen prices in the more desirable towns go down much, if at all. They just go up, over time. And I have no idea why "MA retirees will sell their homes en masse" in some specific year?? The economy is just too strong here, & there are always people moving in to chase those high-paying jobs, & the limited supply of housing.

Also, the more desirable areas around the country--LA, Bay area, San Deigo, NYC, Boston, on & on--again, prices go up, over time; they have for decades, at least. I remember a story in the NYT in 2008 about buyers forfeiting big deposits on condos in Manhattan, b/c they thought they could then buy cheaper. Maybe some of them made that work, but look at the NYC RE market now......

(Did I miss why or how: the in-laws in California, possibly moving to a "sunnier location", are concerned with MA retirees "selling their homes en masse"?? I must have, it's a long thread.)

One other thing: in my expensive surburb of Boston, in my neighborhood, yes, retirees have been selling their crummy homes (like mine), AKA "tear downs", for about 20 years. I don't know if it's "en masse", but close. Almost faster than the tear downs can be sold, builders are putting up McMansions that go for $1.3 to $1.5 mil. They sell almost instantly to Yuppies.....the demand is there.....I bet it will still be there in "2015".....& the existing McMansions hold their value when (rarely) one of them is re-sold.

Meanwhile, the supply of tear downs has dwindled.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2013, 07:15 AM
 
4,423 posts, read 7,333,234 times
Reputation: 10934
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell View Post
www.scag.ca.gov/housing/pdfs/trends/agingbabyboomers_ghb.pdf
The Journal of The American Planning Association already talked about this back in 2007.

Basically here's a few things to keep in mind. By the time someone is 65 they will not be buying homes. Maybe selling and moving into apartments. The amount is low, certainly by the time someone is in their 80's they really do not move. Given demographics they illustrated that 2011-2015 in Mass is when the market would be changing as not all states have the same amount of baby boomers.

You're kidding, right? Age 65 is the time to get it right, the nest is empty and you can go for the house you always wanted, maybe more space, maybe less space, get rid of stairs, less land to care for, maybe a townhouse. But to flat out say 'By the time someone is 65 they won't be buying homes,' is an ageist fallacy. We all want to lesson the load and free ourselves up for travel but a paid up house will always be better than an apartment with perpetual rent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2013, 07:43 PM
 
7,912 posts, read 7,744,400 times
Reputation: 4146
Well the data pretty much illustrates it well enough. There are a higher percentage of those buying vs selling until the age of 65.

A paid up house might be better than an apartment with perpetual rent. Make no mistake actual true "ownership" does not exist. Otherwise you would not have to pay a property tax to the town. In addition the amount of time, money and energy that it takes to maintain a home will INCREASE as it becomes a empty next. I personally know people that have let their homes lapse because they did not do this. If the house is not sellable then it will not sell and thus not everyone can move. Those I know that did let it lapse ended up selling for much lower amounts vs what it would have sold for if it was maintained. I'm not talking about 5-10%. Try 30-60%!

It is much easier to rent a place then to own it. Consider the following
If you are late on property taxes it can prevent you from voting in local elections
If you are late on property taxes your name might end up being published as delinquent (late rents never will)
As a tenant if you rent there are various rights and protections if things fail. You have no such rights when you are the owner.General Laws: CHAPTER 186, Section 15B
To lower property taxes often times might mean working for the local government for a low wage. To lower a rent you can shop around.
To get out paying property taxes you have to sell the house, to get out of an apartment rent you move out and find another so the liquidity is much faster with an apartment.

Also the next *might* be empty. As I stated before having a house means being responsible for everything. Water isn't running? You have to call, cable screwed up? You have to call. Heat problems? You have to call etc. An apartment is just cutting the check and calling the superintendent.

Otherwise a growing amount of labor will be due which can often be a burden. It recently came out that home help aides are on the same scale as a baby sitter in terms of a wage America's Fastest Growing Job Pays Poorly - Yahoo! Finance Some states have a care program that costs the state $12/hr (vermonts is called choices for care) that pays a relative or someone the person knows to take care of them. That might work.

One thing for sure and I think we can agree is that no one should lose their home due to nursing home care. It is very expensive, they aren't even nurses and it can be performed much cheaper.

Lastly I think this thread focuses a bit too much on just Boston. If you head to western Mass you can get *MUCH* more for your money. Yeah Eastern Mass has the majority of schools, museums and of course professional sports but if you finished school and do not have to go to boston for medical care then why be near boston if you can get more for your money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2013, 09:11 PM
 
1,768 posts, read 3,220,332 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell View Post
Well the data pretty much illustrates it well enough. There are a higher percentage of those buying vs selling until the age of 65.

A paid up house might be better than an apartment with perpetual rent. Make no mistake actual true "ownership" does not exist. Otherwise you would not have to pay a property tax to the town. In addition the amount of time, money and energy that it takes to maintain a home will INCREASE as it becomes a empty next. I personally know people that have let their homes lapse because they did not do this. If the house is not sellable then it will not sell and thus not everyone can move. Those I know that did let it lapse ended up selling for much lower amounts vs what it would have sold for if it was maintained. I'm not talking about 5-10%. Try 30-60%!

It is much easier to rent a place then to own it. Consider the following
If you are late on property taxes it can prevent you from voting in local elections
If you are late on property taxes your name might end up being published as delinquent (late rents never will)
As a tenant if you rent there are various rights and protections if things fail. You have no such rights when you are the owner.General Laws: CHAPTER 186, Section 15B
To lower property taxes often times might mean working for the local government for a low wage. To lower a rent you can shop around.
To get out paying property taxes you have to sell the house, to get out of an apartment rent you move out and find another so the liquidity is much faster with an apartment.

Also the next *might* be empty. As I stated before having a house means being responsible for everything. Water isn't running? You have to call, cable screwed up? You have to call. Heat problems? You have to call etc. An apartment is just cutting the check and calling the superintendent.

Otherwise a growing amount of labor will be due which can often be a burden. It recently came out that home help aides are on the same scale as a baby sitter in terms of a wage America's Fastest Growing Job Pays Poorly - Yahoo! Finance Some states have a care program that costs the state $12/hr (vermonts is called choices for care) that pays a relative or someone the person knows to take care of them. That might work.

One thing for sure and I think we can agree is that no one should lose their home due to nursing home care. It is very expensive, they aren't even nurses and it can be performed much cheaper.

Lastly I think this thread focuses a bit too much on just Boston. If you head to western Mass you can get *MUCH* more for your money. Yeah Eastern Mass has the majority of schools, museums and of course professional sports but if you finished school and do not have to go to boston for medical care then why be near boston if you can get more for your money?
I do think that majority of folks would love to be able to get nicer/cheaper homes in Western MA but it works only for those who do not have to be in Cambridge or Boston everyday. If you are not tied down by your commute, Western MA would make so much more sense. Any other area would, but that thin expensive ring around Boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2013, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Needham, MA
8,525 posts, read 13,910,379 times
Reputation: 7908
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingeorge View Post
I do think that majority of folks would love to be able to get nicer/cheaper homes in Western MA but it works only for those who do not have to be in Cambridge or Boston everyday. If you are not tied down by your commute, Western MA would make so much more sense. Any other area would, but that thin expensive ring around Boston.
Wouldn't it be nice if when the state evolved Worcester had become the center of commerce and seat of government instead of Boston? It would give people a lot more options of places to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:31 AM
 
1,768 posts, read 3,220,332 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU View Post
Wouldn't it be nice if when the state evolved Worcester had become the center of commerce and seat of government instead of Boston? It would give people a lot more options of places to live.
Yes, and I have never figured out why cramming everyone in Boston is preferable, when this state is actually so small that you could have people live and work all over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Needham, MA
8,525 posts, read 13,910,379 times
Reputation: 7908
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingeorge View Post
Yes, and I have never figured out why cramming everyone in Boston is preferable, when this state is actually so small that you could have people live and work all over.
I don't know that I would say it's "preferable." It's just how it worked out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:59 AM
 
18,632 posts, read 33,198,289 times
Reputation: 36952
I think many people (like me) do not necessarily want or need to be able to hop in and out of Boston (I didn't, even when I lived in Cambridge!). But if you own, you have all sorts of service relationships built up over the years- mechanic, vet, dentist, stores where you know people. Many people have church relationships. Etc.
Also, moving away from metro areas often means moving to more car-dependence, which is already a problem for many of us. Where I live (25 mi. NW of Harvard Square) there is no private transport available at any price- no taxi, nuthin'. The Council on Aging has a van for seniors for pharmacy, supermarket and hospital (nine miles away) and I think maybe in-town hospitals with enough notice. I think some 30 percent of my town is over 65, and most don't live in big houses or the new big-box houses on the other side of town, that is, no downsizing to be done.
My back-up plan if I cannot be car-dependent (for the 2-9 miles of necessities) is to move to East Arlington. A great neighborhood for older ladies. That would be apartment living, be it rental or condo. (New townhouses, etc., tend to be quite vertical, lots of stairs).
I would prefer to leave my current dream house (all 1300 sq.ft.) feet first. We shall see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top