How on earth do people afford to buy in SF? (rant) (San Francisco: new house, tenants)

[Lockdev]

Originally Posted by beb0p

There IS a shortage of land in the Bay Area!!
.

Available, buildable land, yes.

Actual land, no.

There is a ton of buildable land, but it will never be built on because it is government protected.

I'm all for keeping some green space, but the amount of protected land in the Bay Area compared to the amount of people here is ridiculous.

As long as this place continues to refuse to build, it will forever have issues with affordability.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by beb0p

What do you mean "You don't own the land"?? Of course condo buyers own the land - it's a shared ownership with other condo owners.

Shared land has almost no value because you can't do anything with it. When you own something, you should have full control of it. Not the case with the land under a condo building so it's the same as not owning it. It has almost no value.

As I said earlier, land on which you cannot build on nor do anything with has almost no value. Owning such land is not much different than not owning it, except that you have to keep paying taxes on it.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by beb0p

You know what, gold has very little useful value and most investors do not have the skill/equipment to turn it into anything useful. So why is gold valuable? Because its value lies in it being gold, not in its usefulness.

The land under the condo has value just because it is land. The fact that it is very difficult for owners to build new things on it is irrelevant.
.

When you own gold, you can do whatever you want with it. You can turn it into a bracelet or belt buckle if you want. You can throw it into the ocean if you so desire. Whatever you want to do is fine because you own it.

Not true with the land underneath a condo building. You cannot do anything with it, so therefore ownership of it is meaningless, and thus, it has little to no value to a buyer.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by EdJS

That's ridiculous. If that were true, condo prices would not essentially follow the market prices of housing in general, they'd be a strictly depreciating asset.

That was my original point!

Condos should not appreciate over time as they get older and more used and worn out, just like most cars and TVs do not appreciate over time as they get older and more used. It really makes no sense that a used condo costs more than when it was new. How many consumer products can you name that are worth more used many years later than when it was brand new?

[scirocco]

It's supply and demand. People will still purchase regardless of condition of property. In fact, properties in poor condition will present the buyer with a perceived idea they are somehow paying less. When we all know that is never the case. Secondly, for many of those in the position to buy an older less maintained property, there is a very real possibility remodeling costs will not be too much of an issue.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

Shared land has almost no value because you can't do anything with it. When you own something, you should have full control of it. Not the case with the land under a condo building so it's the same as not owning it. It has almost no value.

As I said earlier, land on which you cannot build on nor do anything with has almost no value. Owning such land is not much different than not owning it, except that you have to keep paying taxes on it.

No, I get it. You think your interpretation of what value is, is what should be applied to the world.

However, the world disagrees.
.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

When you own gold, you can do whatever you want with it. You can turn it into a bracelet or belt buckle if you want. You can throw it into the ocean if you so desire. Whatever you want to do is fine because you own it.

Not true with the land underneath a condo building. You cannot do anything with it, so therefore ownership of it is meaningless, and thus, it has little to no value to a buyer.

Owning a share of land is no different from owning a share of a gold bar.

Using your logic, if someone owns a 1/10 share of a gold bar, that share should depreciates over time.
.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by beb0p

Owning a share of land is no different from owning a share of a gold bar.

Using your logic, if someone owns a 1/10 share of a gold bar, that share has no value.
.

There's intrinsic value in gold. The intrinsic value in land is that you can either build on it or grow crops on it. Otherwise, it's just dirt. And people spend Saturday mornings trying to get rid of it off their cars. LOL

You cannot build nor grow crops on your 1/50th share of the land underneath a condo building. Therefore, it has very little value. You don't have to be able to build on nor grow crops on a gold bar for it to have value. It can be sitting in your drawer and it will still have value.

Besides, you can cut off your 1/10th share of a gold bar and take it to India and sell it for cash. You cannot cut off your 1/50th share of the land underneath a condo building and take it to India and sell it for cash.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

There's intrinsic value in gold. The intrinsic value in land is that you can either build on it or grow crops on it. Otherwise, it's just dirt. And people spend Saturday mornings trying to get rid of it off their cars. LOL

You realize, do you not, that the land which belongs to the condo owner have already fulfilled the purpose that you set forth?

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

You cannot build nor grow crops on your 1/50th share of the land underneath a condo building. Therefore, it has very little value. You don't have to be able to build on nor grow crops on a gold bar for it to have value. It can be sitting in your drawer and it will still have value.

"You cannot build...."?

It's been built!

I think what you're saying is that even though the land has fulfilled its purpose (been built), you are claiming it does not have value because it cannot be rebuilt. But: 1) it can - you just need all other condo owners and the HOA to agree to it, but it can be done. 2) It still hold value because your definition of value is not how investors around the world defines value.

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

Besides, you can cut off your 1/10th share of a gold bar and take it to India and sell it for cash. You cannot cut off your 1/50th share of the land underneath a condo building and take it to India and sell it for cash.

Essentially, you are claiming that condo land does not have value because being part owner means you cannot make decision on that land on your own.

But you have no issue side-stepping this condition when it applies to gold - you cannot cut off the 1/10 share of a gold bar unless all other owners agree to let you. In fact, you cannot do anything with that 1/10 gold you own without the other owners agreeing to it. It's possible the agreement doesn't even allow you to hold that gold in your hand and look at it.
.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by beb0p

You realize, do you not, that the land which belongs to the condo owner have already fulfilled the purpose that you set forth?





"You cannot build...."?

It's been built!

I think what you're saying is that even though the land has fulfilled its purpose (been built), you are claiming it does not have value because it cannot be rebuilt. But: 1) it can - you just need all other condo owners and the HOA to agree to it, but it can be done. 2) It still hold value because your definition of value is not how investors around the world defines value.




Essentially, you are claiming that condo land does not have value because being part owner means you cannot make decision on that land on your own.

But you have no issue side-stepping this condition when it applies to gold - you cannot cut off the 1/10 share of a gold bar unless all other owners agree to let you. In fact, you cannot do anything with that 1/10 gold you own without the other owners agreeing to it. It's possible the agreement doesn't even allow you to hold that gold in your hand and look at it.
.

His definition of intrinsic value obviously is disproportionate to the real world. The condo building is likely the highest and best use of the land at the time. In 100 years maybe it will be different at which time the owners can vote and figure out what to do with the land. So yes, there is the intrinsic value. Sorry that greatcurve is having a difficult time comprehending this concept.