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.
I think the reason is none of the kids live close... they all have homes and established themselves.
From all of my High School friends... I am the only one still living in the same area... bought a home a couple of blocks over from my parents...
Both my brothers are in Real Estate and the one that sells residential has about 40% of his listings are elderly downsizing or kids selling the parents home... he covers the East Bay... no idea about other areas.
Even if one of the kids wants to keep Mom and Dad's home... only his or her portion might be able to keep Prop 13... so with 4 kids and one wants to keep the house... only 25% of the tax basis carries forward with 75% going to market...
One sidebar... Oakland and Ghetto... all depends on who you ask... some will say ANYTHING in Oakland is Ghetto and others no better.
My parents neighborhood was almost exclusively African American going back to the 1970's
As these homes sell off... only one was bought by an African American buyer... all the others have sold Asian or White with many going to LGBT couples...
The dynamics of the Bay Area are a changing and especially so in Oakland...
I know very well that large parts of Oakland are not ghetto. (Someone who claims that Montclair and Rockridge are ghetto has never been to Oakland!) I usually defend Oakland on the C-D boards from people who think it's all hood. It's one of the most culturally rich and fascinating cities in the state despite its problems.
Things certainly get harder if there are multiple siblings. But with one or even two children inheriting the property it is not uncommon to rent the property out especially in more affluent areas.
You can keep 100% of the base if the parents don't specify equal shares of house vs estate. My 90 year old neighbor just passed and one of the eight kids is keeping the house. He will have to get a mortgage to pay the siblings their share of the estate from the value of the house but will keep the 40 year old base.
^^^ True... the key is someone will have to come up with money in most cases...
A co-worker just went through a bitter partition suit... doubt they will ever speak to each other... Mom and Dad left a paid for home, the home they grew up in, located in Oakland's Laurel District...
In 2007 the home was appraised at 550k for the estate... two decided the smart thing would be to rent it out... one wanted her cash but went along with it.
Anyway, by 2012 it had fallen to 225k or lost 50%... the two remaining offered to pay the sister her third of 225 and not the 550 when she wanted to sell... she accepted the lower amount just to be free...
So the taxes didn't really change a lot since property was depressed.
The remaining owners ended up in Court because one was doing all the work and the other one had moved to Arizona... it was a mess... at least the lawyers did well...
Operating Residential Rental Property is full of mindfields...
Typically, property management for a single family 40+ year old home doesn't make sense when you combine paying market rates for labor and materials...
Another friend did buy out his 3 siblings at the estate appraised price in 2011... think all would be good... well, it isn't because the property has nearly doubled and the others are bitter...
All I can say is tread carefully when family members own investment or Mom and Dad's home.
Property Management isn't always the answer either.
I have one property I bought out of State and have professional management... always a problem... like 4 tenants in 7 years a 4 new higher end kitchen faucets plumber installed... thing is the faucet has a lifetime guarantee... well you get the picture... plus paying for paint 3 times... no one paid will do as good a job as I do... they have little interest because more time spent dilutes their earnings.
yes there are some different levels...why because different levels produce INCOME
rentals are and should be classified as commercial...why because the produce income.....even a resedntial property IF it was to become a rental needs to be rezoned...it is producing income after all
Under your reasoning, it's time to start all those owner-occupied B&B, AirBnB rentals plus all the homeowners who rent out rooms in their house.
In Michigan, those homeowners enjoy the low low homeowner tax rate even though they are getting rental INCOME.
Gee, why is that? Don't they care enough about their future tenants? Why should it matter what they can afford?
REITs are owned and operated by investors, for investors. They invest out of greed, not out of altruism. (That's what non-profit developers are for.)
Corollary: Under capitalism, goods are not supplied unless there are enough dollars to be made, and low-end consumers are ALWAYS the last to be served. (I experienced this personally in computers and cell phones.)
As long as developers can fill $3,000/mo apartments, the private sector will supply them. In Portland, there is wholesale displacement of low-income renters; the market will not build for them in the foreseeable future. That's right, the whitest large city in the country is becoming whiter and richer.
You're talking about easily hundreds of millions of dollars. I have not met a single government who can afford to have that much money tie up in one area - construction. The cost of construction would exceed some city government's entire budget.
This is not possible.
It'd make much more sense and much cheaper for the government to offer rental assistance; and even with a program like that already in place, we see that the government do not have enough money to assist everyone and there is a long wait list. So thinking that the government is capable of doing massive building projects when they don't even have enough fund to run a rental assistance program is naive.
.
Also, rental assistance programs - unlike TANF welfare, don't have time limits, and many people game the programs by keeping their income low enough, which I consider soft fraud.
Whats to stop me from raising my rent to cover that usury?
If you raise your rent too much, you will have vacant rentals which generate no income.
Under present income inequality, low-end renters are nearly tapped out and close to the limit of rent increases they can pay. e.g. half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income on shelter.
Whole swaths of Oakland were recently down zoned to lower density so in effect driving builders to build large single family homes... and it was the city that pushed for this.
Zoning changes... sometimes more restrictive and sometimes less...
At work it became less restrictive... when the place was completed in 1995 city required 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet... the parking lot has never been anywhere near capacity and yet we must maintain 160 spaces where a 100 would be more than adequate...
Guess what? The city recently changed to now only requiring 3.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet... stating we are on a transit corridor so not all patrons are car dependant... a little late for us.
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.
