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 just wanted to vent on this board that for people (especially families) searching for homes, it is very frustrating to see so many newly constructed 55+ communities cropping up while us families have to resign to buying homes that are listed from circa 1890 or having to pay more than a half million dollars to get a decent house in a nice school district.
If I was 55 or older, I would never be paying for such a high price just to live in an elderly community and be paying mortgage. Isn't that one of the purposes of an American dream, to own your home by the time you reach retirement, not to start a new mortgage?
I'm sure these 55+ communities serve some purpose, but there is too much of them lately and in ideal locations that are really meant for families with children. The homes are 2+ bed and 2+ bath, which is more ideal for young families searching in these prime locations, not for adults who aren't getting any younger!
Instead, can't we start a movement for 25+ communities where families with children or young professionals can reside in these locations instead?
These kind of developments are appealing to cities and towns because they generally don't have to provide for the maintenance of the roads and they don't add to the burden of the school system. The residents contribute to the tax base, though.
When you think about it, the new residents are vacating their former homes leaving them available to new buyers so young families like yours will benefit.
That's exactly part of the problem. The new 55+ resident is vacating their current home to move into this new community that's been constructed from year 2013+. They get all the bells and whistles in this new community at a reasonable price in some prime locations I've seen (2 bed, 2.5bath under 500K, recent constructed), while the rest of us (some with families) have to settle for crappy homes that is need of a lot of updating. Even if the home was updated by the seller, it is selling for close to half a million or more, and even THEN, there are still sometimes updates to be made with the home foundation (remember these homes are old). Add more insult to injury, we are paying to get the short end of this stick in our higher taxes.
We moved out of MA a year ago. The community wasn't built as 55+ but its construction was only attractive to empty-nesters: Two bedroom condos, in rows of three four and five units; no place for children to play, etc. Casey hit the nail on the head with regard to the benefits to the town: We contributed to the tax base far in excess of the services that us older folks use, etc. Also, as a managed community, there is assurance to the community that every owner will maintain their home up to a certain standard, at least, something the town doesn't get from regular single family home ownership.
I read a report on 55+ community development in Massachusetts a few weeks ago, which outline other advantages. A lot of it emphasized that towns get use of out land that is inappropriate for families. Our community had a mess of land but agreed to keep 80% perpetually a wild marsh, habitat for deer, coyote, etc. Definitely not a place for families. Furthermore, since it is our land, not the town's, it would take a multi-step process, including both us agreeing to sell the land to a developer and the state agreeing allow development on the wetlands, for that land to ever get developed. This provided the town even more assurance that that land would remain undeveloped in perpetuity (yet they're still getting tax revenue from that land).
Furthermore, the land that we are using is used with much higher density than would be appropriate for a community of younger families, allowing the state to add more taxpayers, albeit perhaps paying tax on capital gains more so than earned income. I think New England, especially, has to concern itself about managing density. Excess, unmanaged density is what leads to the insane traffic we see on MA 128, MA 114, I-93, etc. Filling in available space with people who generally don't commute works against those problems more so than chasing older folks out to Charlton or Keene.
OP's issue exists with or without 55+ communities. I'm not trying to defend them but high housing cost, old houses, exuberant prices for prime locations are not caused by 55+ developments. It just is inherent to living in eastern MA, unfortunately.
For every person who thinks like you, there is someone (like me) who loves older homes and would hate living in a soulless new subdivision.
Sort of. I dumped just about what I paid for my house into remodeling. I get to contemplate the financial lunacy of only getting about 30 cents on the dollar for all that remodeling money. This is the second time I've bought an older house that needed work and poured money into it. You'd think I would learn.
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.
