Another report says housing prices will not return to 2007 levels until 2020 (Tucson: short sale, apartments) - Phoenix area - Arizona (AZ) - City-Data Forum

Jkgourmet · 10-02-2011, 03:12 AM

Howard Roark · 10-02-2011, 04:40 AM

Good. There are still a lot of people not paying a dime of mortgage living in homes that have not foreclosed yet. It will take time to put them out on the streets where they belong. SFH neighborhoods belong to responsible people, not people using OPM. I would like to see mortgage interest deduction disappear. Banks need to shorten up and toughen up the loans and require 40% down payments as well. Home ownership is not a right.

It will take a few years to get the deadbeats out of houses. Either by the houses rotting if they are vacant (causing bank stocks to drop to penny stock status) or by eventual laws catching up to them.

Ponderosa · 10-02-2011, 07:47 AM

I would be happy to get to 2003 levels in the near term. 2007 was close to the peak. I would be thrilled if my house went back to what it was in 07 by the end of decade. That would be at least double what they are today and represent about a 8% appreciation for the remainder of the decade.

MotleyCrew · 10-02-2011, 08:03 AM

We are still seeing a few neighbors deciding to walk away from their home instead of paying their mortgage. Two just returned to San Diego to live the life. They have good jobs, but just don't want the bad investment. I think laws should be tightend up for those who can pay vs/ those who have had a job transfer or loss of a job and can't pay.

mikeauto1 · 10-02-2011, 09:39 AM

there are certain times when people loose there job or have to leave work for a few months that is beyond there control. I was one of them the bank would not help me with nothing i was forced to short sale the property because i could not pay. So all of the people who are not paying i would have to say with some its not totally there fault. So i would not classify them all as DEADBEATS. Having people putting 40% down is a hard fro some people these days i agree on 10-20% down. If you want them to put 40% down all the houses that are empty and that are going to be empty will stay empty and you house values will only go down. Sounds like some people might have stock investment and are pissed off because they are losing a bunch of money!!

MotleyCrew · 10-02-2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeauto1

there are certain times when people loose there job or have to leave work for a few months that is beyond there control. I was one of them the bank would not help me with nothing i was forced to short sale the property because i could not pay. So all of the people who are not paying i would have to say with some its not totally there fault. So i would not classify them all as DEADBEATS. Having people putting 40% down is a hard fro some people these days i agree on 10-20% down. If you want them to put 40% down all the houses that are empty and that are going to be empty will stay empty and you house values will only go down. Sounds like some people might have stock investment and are pissed off because they are losing a bunch of money!!

Who called you a deadbeat? I said folks who have situations beyond their control should be given a pass. Sounds like you have some sour grapes of your own. But yes, some of us did lose stock investments, but dont let that concern you. I also agree with the poster that suggests banks tighten the standards some and people should put some skin in the game to keep them from just walking because some reporter is running off at the mouth about being underwater. This has nothing to do with your situation since you were out of work or underemployed. Banks are ruthless and on that we agree.

Ponderosa · 10-02-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

Who called you a deadbeat? I said folks who have situations beyond their control should be given a pass. Sounds like you have some sour grapes of your own. But yes, some of us did lose stock investments, but dont let that concern you. I also agree with the poster that suggests banks tighten the standards some and people should put some skin in the game to keep them from just walking because some reporter is running off at the mouth about being underwater. This has nothing to do with your situation since you were out of work or underemployed. Banks are ruthless and on that we agree.

That would ensure that we go into a long term depression with housing prices tumbling even more. One of the main impediments to housing recovery to date is overly cautious lending. We hardly need more of that medicine. Low down home loans worked for decades (I bet that is how YOU bought your first) until ever-greedier investors demanded more and more mortgage derivative products encouraging brokers, lenders, and ratings agencies to ignore or lie about their quality.

If we want to get out of the housing morass, we need to return to what worked - low down loans to young people with good credit, jobs and good prospects for income growth and not some knee-jerk over-reaction/over-regulation that makes things even worse.

Howard Roark · 10-02-2011, 12:45 PM

No. We need far more cautious lending. There is no law that says you must have a SFH by age 30 or by age 40. There is no law that says you have to become a father no later than age 40 either. 18 years out of college is enough time for a degreed person to save up 40% down payment for a house. I make good coin and I've been living like a college student for most of my adult life - i.e. by renting apartments. I'm 52 and I enjoy freedom more than things, although I do have "things" in the form of savings that would allow me to retire comfortably to a studio apartment in Tucson and just ride my bike around - like to morning masters swimming at U of A. The important thing is to have enough money later in life for your health and long term care insurance, not to accumulate material possessions.

MotleyCrew · 10-02-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

That would ensure that we go into a long term depression with housing prices tumbling even more. One of the main impediments to housing recovery to date is overly cautious lending. We hardly need more of that medicine. Low down home loans worked for decades (I bet that is how YOU bought your first) until ever-greedier investors demanded more and more mortgage derivative products encouraging brokers, lenders, and ratings agencies to ignore or lie about their quality.

If we want to get out of the housing morass, we need to return to what worked - low down loans to young people with good credit, jobs and good prospects for income growth and not some knee-jerk over-reaction/over-regulation that makes things even worse.

No we were not that lucky. We had to put down the max and we managed to squeeze into a condominium...seriously, squeeze. I am not opposed to low down loans for "qualified" buyers, but the 0 down, variable rate loans were being handed out like candy. The banks do need to start lending again and I agree with you on that. Tell me Ponderosa, did someone hand you your first house?

Ponderosa · 10-02-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

No we were not that lucky. We had to put down the max and we managed to squeeze into a condominium...seriously, squeeze. I am not opposed to low down loans for "qualified" buyers, but the 0 down, variable rate loans were being handed out like candy. The banks do need to start lending again and I agree with you on that. Tell me Ponderosa, did someone hand you your first house?

If I remember that far back, my first house was a VA loan. I had to put down a very small amount for PMI or something. I was fresh out of college with an Engineering degree, a good job, and the prospect of increasing income but no money in the bank and no credit history. No one ever lost money on a mortgage they gave me (not yet anyway) and I have never had anything less than a 95% LTV mortgage. Like I said, that presciption worked just fine until Wall Street got greedy.