Minneapolis Occupancy rate

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Chi-turtle

Well, technically every government propped bubble is a scam. They're inflating a market that will eventually collapse when the time comes for the market correction. Also, the GSE's Fanny Mae/Freddie Mack paired with the Fair Housing and Lending Acts that allowed mortgage lenders to make high risk loans to people who couldn't afford them had a huge effect. It wasn't just dumb people who got "scammed" by the real estate agents, the government caused this problem by guaranteeing all the bad investments and bailing out the banks while many other people lost their homes.

The people who got screwed are the ones that just couldn't get off the bubble in time. Usually those tend to be lower and middle class americans.

Government policies and "encouragement" didn't cause the ethical failures we saw on Wall Street and among the major lenders. Sorry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/op...-lie.html?_r=1

Daily Kos: The Big Lie About The Financial Crisis: Phony Factoid Of The Day

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post

I think this is also interesting reading:

http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/...e-mortgage.pdf

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

...(also for what it's worth, Minneapolis is the ONLY place we've ever had a lease that required 60 days of advance notice prior to moving out, and from the leases I've seen, I think that's somewhat normal around here) That results in fewer units sitting empty on the market between tenants; it's far more likely that one person moves out, and very shortly the next tenant moves in. I'm assuming that impacts the vacancy rate, too, as I don't think vacancy rates are based on upcoming vacancies, but rather current units sitting empty. Not good for those looking for a place immediately or very near future (as is normal in many parts of the country), but just fine for all those current Minnesotans who are stuck giving 60 days notice to their current landlord.

I can back up at least the 60 day notice deal in the area. I currently am under a lease that is with such. Actually, I've done the initial term and now am under only a 60 day notice (technically, two calendar months - so not just any 60 days. ie - I would have had to give notice by 2-29 and offer all of March and April to end the lease by the end of April). This raises the thought that perhaps 60 days is the norm here as there is more fear by landlords of units sitting vacant without the opportunity to find a new tenant, unlike what seems to be the case in San Fran.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Government policies and "encouragement" didn't cause the ethical failures we saw on Wall Street and among the major lenders. Sorry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/op...-lie.html?_r=1

Daily Kos: The Big Lie About The Financial Crisis: Phony Factoid Of The Day

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post

I think this is also interesting reading:

http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/...e-mortgage.pdf

I haven't the interest to get in a link war or spend the time to find the links, but if we going to make the assertion, I'm not sure I would use an Opinion article (and especially the NYT) plus an article from a self-admitted liberal perspective that refers back to the opinion piece of the NYT. To be fair, I have not had the time to read the Post or UNC articles to get a sense of objectivity or lack thereof on those articles...

I would likely posit that the mess may not have been caused purely by government intervention, but rather what you get when Big Government colludes with Big Business. The answer would be divorce the two from each other and demand the free market be the free market. It doesn't seem that much a stretch to think banks would necessarily be much more leery of loans if they would have seriously thought they would take the full brunt of bad decisions instead of the easy bailout - then again, that can be said for much of society.

[Beenhere4ever]

We're losing the point here. No one had to buy real estate on spec. The govenrment had nothing to do with that. It was entirely the foolhardy notion that you could get rich in a market that makes hardly anyone rich. That what the "big guys" are doing, you can do, too. Anybody who had occasion to be awake in informercial time got to see one snake oil salesman after another "explain" how it is nearly foolproof. But the fools found out that it is insane to believe these hypesters on late night TV. And now they have large investments on their hands that may never be worth what they paid. Heck, I had investments exactly like that, in green technology. It has worth, but the excessive prices paid for shares before the bust did not reflect the worth. And when I came to realize that I had permanently lost a share of my investment, I JUST SOLD. The bubble fooled my socalled expert investment advisor at the bank, too. Not once did he say "Don't believe these values, funny money is flooding the market". Don't know if that was selfishness on his part or just ignorance. Alan Greenspan got "fooled".

So the idea that "the government did it" is belied by the fact that everybody played on the same field and only some got ripped off. The rest were too eager for quick profits. Not a single thing any government can do except repeat "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." But the marks never ever listen.

[Chi-turtle]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Government policies and "encouragement" didn't cause the ethical failures we saw on Wall Street and among the major lenders. Sorry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/op...-lie.html?_r=1

Daily Kos: The Big Lie About The Financial Crisis: Phony Factoid Of The Day

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post

I think this is also interesting reading:

http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/...e-mortgage.pdf

Ummm, do you know what a Government Sponsored Enterprise is?

Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages. For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ).

What people like you don't understand that Govt "Encouragement" as you call it also has another name: Economic Planning. This never does any good and government involvement in any market creates a bubble of some sort, increase the cost to the end user as well as others, and ends up crashing the market. Everything in terms of economics and free markets that the government touches goes to sh*t. Healthcare, pharmaceuticals, education, housing, banking....

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...arket-failure/

The distortion of the market introduced by government intervention can and must be brought to an end. The market that would take its place after this dramatic and admittedly difficult change would allow Americans to allocate their resources more effectively. It would no longer create an unjust advantage for the wealthy homebuyer.

Here's an interesting read for you: "The Creature From Jekyl Island: A Second Look at the Creation of the Federal Reserve System"

Educate yourself, then talk.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

We're losing the point here. No one had to buy real estate on spec. The govenrment had nothing to do with that. It was entirely the foolhardy notion that you could get rich in a market that makes hardly anyone rich. That what the "big guys" are doing, you can do, too. Anybody who had occasion to be awake in informercial time got to see one snake oil salesman after another "explain" how it is nearly foolproof. But the fools found out that it is insane to believe these hypesters on late night TV. And now they have large investments on their hands that may never be worth what they paid. Heck, I had investments exactly like that, in green technology. It has worth, but the excessive prices paid for shares before the bust did not reflect the worth. And when I came to realize that I had permanently lost a share of my investment, I JUST SOLD. The bubble fooled my socalled expert investment advisor at the bank, too. Not once did he say "Don't believe these values, funny money is flooding the market". Don't know if that was selfishness on his part or just ignorance. Alan Greenspan got "fooled".

So the idea that "the government did it" is belied by the fact that everybody played on the same field and only some got ripped off. The rest were too eager for quick profits. Not a single thing any government can do except repeat "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." But the marks never ever listen.

No shortage of greed between investors, banks, securities companies ...

It is worth noting that the Govt was pushing on banks to lend money for housing to buyers that were essentially sub prime. Considering that these loans end up being backed by Fannie/Freddy, that may be worthy of some scrutiny. Seems to me like speculators were able to milk the system with a variety of tools such as fluffy appraisals, lax verification, and very low equity requirements. Speculation was just a portion of all the things that went wrong.

[Chi-turtle]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

So the idea that "the government did it" is belied by the fact that everybody played on the same field and only some got ripped off. The rest were too eager for quick profits. Not a single thing any government can do except repeat "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." But the marks never ever listen.

And there's some that got bailed out, by the government, with our money.

What did banks get, $25 Trillion?
Adding Up the Government?s Total Bailout Tab - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

[xandrex]

Yikes...this thread has spun off from a reasonable talk about Minneapolis' low vacancy rate to a political rant. Tread carefully, folks.

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Yikes...this thread has spun off from a reasonable talk about Minneapolis' low vacancy rate to a political rant. Tread carefully, folks.

Though I somewhat contributed to it, agreed...

Back to the point...if one wants to find a place in Minneapolis (and certainly if we expand to the "Minneapolis area" to include St. Paul and all the burbs) a place can be found - depending on specific requirements. The situation is not as dire as a first blush of the article might make it seem...

[ManBearPig1]

Actually finding a place isn't the headache it is in larger cities, in part because of the typical 60 day notice that puts places on the market well in advance of move-in dates. But the low occupancy rate is definitely driving rents up. My rent has gone up over 6% in the past 2 years.