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.
Perhaps many folks don't understand that the mortgage is not all you need to pay when you own rather than rent.
I think you are right. Many people are very naïve about homeownership and have no idea of the hidden costs. Where I moved from, the majority of homes are heated with home heating oil. A friend bought a home and nearly passed out after receiving a bill of $700 plus to fill the oil tank!! They had no idea how much heating oil costs!
As fat as the outside of a home, it costs money and takes time and effort to keep the outside of a home looking good.
I think the abundance of new housing in this area has bread a culture of buy new house, live in it for 5 years, do no or little maintenance, move to another new house every 5 years. Maintenance then consists of keeping the yard cut and maybe power washing the north side of the house.
I think the abundance of new housing in this area has bread a culture of buy new house, live in it for 5 years, do no or little maintenance, move to another new house every 5 years. Maintenance then consists of keeping the yard cut and maybe power washing the north side of the house.
That is correct. The junk built here has a good life of about 5 years before bleeding maintenance needs.
My son's A/c compressor died in only 3 years. Cheap crap.
I think the abundance of new housing in this area has bread a culture of buy new house, live in it for 5 years, do no or little maintenance, move to another new house every 5 years. Maintenance then consists of keeping the yard cut and maybe power washing the north side of the house.
One thing I'd like to see is a GOOD homeowners maintenance checklist that really applies to local area homes. I've had to learn many things the hard way over the years. The checklists you find in online searches give some ideas about the stuff that's obvious for most people but I've never really seen good and thorough information summarized.
I just find it kind of baffling. The homes in our neighborhood are approaching 10 years old. Things are starting to need to be done maintance wise. I'm in a very nice neighborhood with $400,000 plus homes. I have one neighbor to the left that has repeatedly painted over wood rot around window sils about 4 times. That entire house is in desperate need of entire home painting and wood rot repair. That owner sold that house and bought a house for $700,000. My other neighbor just powerwashed for the 1st time in 10 years and that home is in desperate need of painting and wood rot repair too. All the homes on the street need painting (faded, streaking paint, and visible wood rot). We maintain our home. We painted at year 8, we powerwash every year, we stain our decks every 2 years, etc. Is it that people don't value home maintenance, or has the construction quality decreased to where homes start really looking aged after only 10 yrs?
In the town where we lived prior to Raleigh (a suburb of a city with a population around a million) they required 4-sided brick or stone on EVERY house. In addition, no siding was allowed on the front of the house at all but you could put siding on the 2nd story on the sides and rear. You can go back there and see homes built in the 50's to the 70's and they still look good. There were some other things, too, but you get the idea.
They also made builders pay for road improvements to prevent bottlenecks at intersections, etc. Lastly, builders can only build on 1/2 of the property they buy. The other half is reserved for green space/roads. This led to much larger lots for everyone.
Here they are so "builder friendly" it just encourages the cheap crap to be built all over.
(Now, before people start spouting off about how this makes homes more expensive we lived in a suburb of a city that was in bad economic shape. The whole area had a major recession starting in 2005 and is just now starting to show signs of progress. These building codes were in effect before and after things went south so I don't think that had anything to do with it. Our old house was a new 1800 square foot house on a 1/4 acre lot and it cost $220,000 so nothing crazy. This was 4-sided brick, etc.)
In the town where we lived prior to Raleigh (a suburb of a city with a population around a million) they required 4-sided brick or stone on EVERY house. In addition, no siding was allowed on the front of the house at all but you could put siding on the 2nd story on the sides and rear. You can go back there and see homes built in the 50's to the 70's and they still look good. There were some other things, too, but you get the idea.
They also made builders pay for road improvements to prevent bottlenecks at intersections, etc. Lastly, builders can only build on 1/2 of the property they buy. The other half is reserved for green space/roads. This led to much larger lots for everyone.
Here they are so "builder friendly" it just encourages the cheap crap to be built all over.
(Now, before people start spouting off about how this makes homes more expensive we lived in a suburb of a city that was in bad economic shape. The whole area had a major recession starting in 2005 and is just now starting to show signs of progress. These building codes were in effect before and after things went south so I don't think that had anything to do with it. Our old house was a new 1800 square foot house on a 1/4 acre lot and it cost $220,000 so nothing crazy. This was 4-sided brick, etc.)
Do you really think requiring all brick homes on at least 1/4 acre lots would not make things more expensive in the Triangle where population growth is a HUGE factor and the cost of build-able land continues to increase annually??
I don't see how your example applies to the Triangle unless your former area was experiencing the same land and growth issues as this area - and from what you described it sounds like it was not.
I think the abundance of new housing in this area has bread a culture of buy new house, live in it for 5 years, do no or little maintenance, move to another new house every 5 years. Maintenance then consists of keeping the yard cut and maybe power washing the north side of the house.
Kind of like those people who buy a new car, then keep trading it in for a new one every two years!
Do you really think requiring all brick homes on at least 1/4 acre lots would not make things more expensive in the Triangle where population growth is a HUGE factor and the cost of build-able land continues to increase annually??
I don't see how your example applies to the Triangle unless your former area was experiencing the same land and growth issues as this area - and from what you described it sounds like it was not.
Might make the homes more fire resistant and longer lasting too.
Growth is not a good thing when it imposes loads on present residents to cover costs imposed by newcomers not charged proper impact fees. Better not have the growth when it fails to pay its way.
Why should the real estate industry and developers profit from putting a drain on the entire area.
Might make the homes more fire resistant and longer lasting too.
Growth is not a good thing when it imposes loads on present residents to cover costs imposed by newcomers not charged proper impact fees. Better not have the growth when it fails to pay its way.
Why should the real estate industry and developers profit from putting a drain on the entire area.
^ Your endless complaining about growth, misrepresentation of facts, and nonsensical "solutions" remind me of the road by Walmart you keep complaining about.... It leads to nowhere.
Do you really think requiring all brick homes on at least 1/4 acre lots would not make things more expensive in the Triangle where population growth is a HUGE factor and the cost of build-able land continues to increase annually??
I don't see how your example applies to the Triangle unless your former area was experiencing the same land and growth issues as this area - and from what you described it sounds like it was not.
Actually, the city I lived in had major growth problems coupled by the fact that a major lake made it so there were only 3 roads into the city. The city was 7 miles wide and the highway was on the north end of it. Below the freeway there was some city land but the lake was right there. There was a road into town on the far left edge, the middle (a bridge) and the far right edge of the town. 80% of the city's land was south of this lake so that is why they put in the restrictions years ago.
The major city we lived near had economic issues, but the burbs were doing quite well. Mine was growing 10% per year largely due to the fact we had a lot of new homes and it was a nice area.
I realize it would make homes more expensive but if another $20K or whatever is the tipping point on whether someone can buy a house or not, then quite frankly they should probably be renters, anyway.
Just one man's opinion.....
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.
