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.
the investor will pay his taxes and hoa fee. He will secure the house. He has a vested interest in keeping it in good condition. He can provide a home for those that can't/shouldn't buy. Reducing vacancies will enable lenders to come back in and loan. The investor will put back the appliances that were removed..................
Perhaps you would be more comfy in a nice government owned housing project. Don't worry, the only investors will be kids on welfare buying and selling crack rocks.
Well homeowners would do the same thing. Didn't you read the post of the woman who wants to rennovate and live in her own home?
Are you saying that once the property is purchased by an owner occupant they will live there without appliances or that somehow it doesn't count as no longer being vacant.
Has nothing to do with Gov't housing... has to do with investors taking opportunity away from those who would live in it. I don't prefer renters next to me, but if you do, thats your thing... hope you get surrounded by investors and you could be in heaven.
]
I am not sure a waterfront property is for us, but thats good advice. Can you kayak on the Val Vista lakes by public access? That would be awesome.
Yes if you live in Val Vista Lakes.
Quote:
One thing that really bothers me is that people like us, able and willing to remodel a distressed property in a nice family area and then LIVE in that property with our family for a good long time, are unable to easily BUY those properties. It seems that the investor with cash in hand or time to wait for banks to fart around on Short Sales are getting all the good deals and then flipping or renting the homes . No offense to investors, but it would be SO much better for the neighborhoods if families bought those short sales to help out other families or if there were loans made on foreclosures with remodeling loans added on so that average people could buy the foreclosures, remodel them with loans specifically for renovation and then live in them for a specified (say3 ) number of years.
We would be happy to buy a foreclosure or short sale and renovate it, and then not flip it but live in it.But the headaches the banks make in getting the loan, accepting the offer might prove too much stress for a family like us....
There are remodeling loans available.
It is the Fannie Mae Home Path Loan that is available on many of their (bank owned) REO's.
We live in a competitive, free enterprise society. Everyone is free to choose the occupation they wish.
If one wishes to risk his funds by operating a business of buying and rehabbing homes, hoping to sell at a profit, or running a landlord/rental business, s/he has that right in this country.
If one wishes to buy a home to fix up and live in, s/he has that right.
When housing was at it's lowest, and there were vacant houses in every block with weeds waist high, and most of those homes were trashed badly by the irate homeowner, it was the investors who went in and bought those homes and began turning these neighborhoods around. Those investors helped to slow the price decline.
Some were rehabbers who made the homes livable and sold to people wanting a move-in ready home. Some were landlords who provided rentals for people needing to rent. Both risked their funds in their chosen business and provided a service to the community.
They took big risks because the market was still declining.
Then as things changed, the first time home buyers came along and they helped to continue slowing the price decline.
Now people who can afford the $300+ homes are seeing value and are coming in to buy homes.
Everyone wants a bargain, and everyone has an equal opportunity. Many investors don't have the cash. They borrow it. It's called short term "hard money" loans with a high interest rate around 18%. Others can do the same thing.
There are also many people buying homes today with cash who are not investors. Some are buying them for their children and paying cash.
Do you really want to see a system set up whereby the government dictates who will be able to have first choice in buying a home? A dictatorship that would stifle a competitive free enterprise?
The headaches that the banks cause affect every buyer, whether it be an investor or an end user. Investors don't have extra time either. This is their occupation, and time is money. Every hour spent in extra work negotiating with a bank is money out of their pocket. And every deal they lose is money lost due to opportunity/time loss.
...I don't prefer renters next to me, but if you do, thats your thing... hope you get surrounded by investors and you could be in heaven.
You're certainly free to have your biases against renters and I'm not going to try and change your mind.
However, we should understand that not everyone can afford to buy a home. Not everyone wants to buy a home yet, and many prefer to always rent. Yet they may be very good neighbors and they do need a place to live.
So why should "renters" be descriminated against?
Many renters today are people who lost their homes because they lost their jobs and couldn't afford to make their mortgage payments. Yet they are upstanding citizens and good neighbors.
Some of my friends either lost their jobs or got salary cuts so they couldn't pay their mortgage, and lost their homes.
Those are wonderful people who deserve to have a place to rent in a community where rent is affordable for them. They have families and they need a house to rent in the area where their children attend school.
In the small sub-community where I live there are 3 rentals. One is leased to a wonderful Japanese family for 3 years. The others are also rented to great people. They are all respected and treated as members of the community.
I would rather have a renter next door to me who is a good neighbor than a homeowner who is an obnoxious individual.
What is important to me is the person; not their ownership/rental status.
Also, we can usually choose where we want to buy, within our price range and other criteria, but we cannot choose our neighbors. And our neighbors can't choose either. So the best we can do is to make sure we are good neighbors and respect the other persons rights.
Last edited by Captain Bill; 02-22-2010 at 09:23 AM..
Reason: Typo
There are more than 50,000 foreclosures pending in the Phoenix area.
I also heard that the area may not recover for a few more years. Have also heard how people from other parts of the nation and world are moving here and buying up homes. Prices are amazing right now if you ask me. Would love to be able to pick up a place for each of my kids. Since our youngest is 3 I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
For the most part renters are transient people so the tenants are bound to change every couple years. Furthermore, they are not really vested in the property and don't tend to have well kept yards and I don't blame them.
If you lost your home to foreclosure and were forced to rent, how motivated would you be to keep your landlords investment in tip top shape. Are there exceptions, sure.... but how many buyers have you helped that actually prefer to be located in an area full of rentals?
Be real Capt... I can't discriminate, I have no say in who lives next door, but if we are stating our preferences here, I prefer the homes are sold directly to owner occupants. I don't get any type of thrill from an investor or renter being next door, sorry.
I was also thinking about how investors actually skew statistics as well. Think about all the good news you hear that the market is "rebounding". When almost ALL transactions are investors what happens? They buy the homes its reported as "SOLD". They fix it up, raise price... and resell it. Now it looks like prices are rising.
Next, banks want more for their dumps based on higher comps... Owners end up deciding that the home is too trashy to make sense for the price, the investors decide their isn't enough profit and it stagnates. Ultimately the stagnation primes it for another investor low ball.
I see this cycle happening all over. Don't be too chipper about any good news. Seriously, if you consider how many short sales & foreclosures are still on the market, think of all the local people who CAN NOT buy a home because of their credit. So who's left? Who can afford these higher priced investor owned homes? Not many locals have high enough paying jobs, so after a good try, when the investor can't make enough profit, since its unsellable to another investor at this point, they end up being rentals. And if you haven't noticed, the market is pretty saturated with rentals too.
No thanks, let the banks sell it to the owner and skip the middle man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill
You're certainly free to have your biases against renters and I'm not going to try and change your mind.
However, we should understand that not everyone can afford to buy a home. Not everyone wants to buy a home yet, and many prefer to always rent. Yet they may be very good neighbors and they do need a place to live.
So why should "renters" be descriminated against?
Many renters today are people who lost their homes because they lost their jobs and couldn't afford to make their mortgage payments. Yet they are upstanding citizens and good neighbors.
Some of my friends either lost their jobs or got salary cuts so they couldn't pay their mortgage, and lost their homes.
Those are wonderful people who deserve to have a place to rent in a community where rent is affordable for them. They have families and they need a house to rent in the area where their children attend school.
In the small sub-community where I live there are 3 rentals. One is leased to a wonderful Japanese family for 3 years. The others are also rented to great people. They are all respected and treated as members of the community.
I would rather have a renter next door to me who is a good neighbor than a homeowner who is an obnoxious individual.
What is important to me is the person; not their ownership/rental status.
Also, we can usually choose where we want to buy, within our price range and other criteria, but we cannot choose our neighbors. And our neighbors can't choose either. So the best we can do is to make sure we are good neighbors and respect the other persons rights.
then prices will plunge even further. Easy credit caused the bubble to begin with. What someone is willing to pay with their own money, and what someone is willing to pay with borrowed money are two different things. Let the market reach equilibrium on its own; these Bozo the Clown stimulus Bills are just going to drag this thing on for a long time.
Cmist, I'm an investor (rehabber), but it doesn't bother me that you wouldn't want to live next door to me. Although I would probably be one of the best neighbors you could want.
We don't have loud parties. We don't bother our neighbors. We keep up our yard. We are friendly to our neighbors and are active in the community. And if neighbor needs help, we are always there to help.
To answer your question, I have never had a client ask me how many renters there are in a community. The discussion of renters has never come up. And I don't have the answer to that question anyway. If one wants to know that information, they can get it by calling the HOA.
They all look at the neighborhood to see if they are comfortable in the community. If they're comfortable then they consider a home in that community.
I was also thinking about how investors actually skew statistics as well. Think about all the good news you hear that the market is "rebounding". When almost ALL transactions are investors what happens? They buy the homes its reported as "SOLD". They fix it up, raise price... and resell it. Now it looks like prices are rising.
I don't think it's solely the investors that are "skewing statistics", it is also the poor quality lender owned homes that are skewing some of the statistics to be artificially low. If a bank owned home needs $10,000 worth of repairs, it will be hard to sell at a market price. Owner occupant buyers will perceive the cost to repair to be much higher, and will avoid the property. If I go in, purchase the home and do the $10,000 worth of repairs and clean it up, I can sell it for closer to market price. That way, someone down the street that has kept their house in good condition doesn't have their value dependent on the homes that have been stripped or have substantial damage. When you talk about a market, you should think about homes that are in average/good condition, not distressed properties. The market dictates what the houses are worth. Sure, in some areas, distressed properties ARE the market, but this is not true in every part of the valley.
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.
