Is Real Estate back in decline? (Miami, Tampa: fit in, insuring, high crime)

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

You had previously stated that if we had to jail the bankers we would also have to jail the homeowners, I am saying the homeowners for the greater part did not commit fraud or any jail-able offense. The foreclosure mechanism has existed for a long time, mortgages being secured loans the bank take the property and end of story. The garnishing of wages doesnt apply in a foreclosure. My point is as a head of household you have the same obligations the head of a company has to its shareholders to your family, if a strategic default on a loan makes more sense financially than staying in the underwater property then thats your choice, you have consequences associated with that decision and if that is what makes sense then be it, I dont get the personal responsibility sermon, I am not talking about laws per se, I understand business have certain rules/benefits that a household doesnt and viceversa, but a strategic default, a foreclosure, short sale all those are financial tools available to you should you feel you cant meet your financial obligations, the same way a business has their tools, I just dont know why one has a stigma and the other doesnt.

Sorry if I was not clear enough but I never said that a borrower in default should be jailed due merely to debts as I don't believe that. Though I do believe that fraudulence demands punitive action which discourages abuses and safeguards victims.

What I said in that regard is:

Originally Posted by housingcrashsurvivor

If one bankster and three fraudulent borrowers stick a knife in an innocent bystander, then there is no lion's share of the kill. Nor does any get a 25% share of the blame. Rather each is 100% responsible for murder and ought to be held accountable.

which speaks particularly to responsibilities but also to fraud

&

Originally Posted by housingcrashsurvivor

So why for the most part has no one been held accountable? Because if we started jailing the banksters, we'd have to jail the public too. Well what a convenient coincidence that.

which jokingly but perhaps also observingly speaks to how well thought out this might seem to be in a conspiring sort of way, paranoia be damned. But, again, not calling for jailing mere debters who committed no fraud.

That, as you say, "The foreclosure mechanism has existed for a long time, mortgages being secured loans the bank take the property and end of story. The garnishing of wages doesnt apply in a foreclosure." as I understand it applies only in non-recourse states. I haven't looked into this in a long time but I think there's only about 7 of them, Florida being one. So in this country that is not the norm.

Now I was just reading that there are some entire countries which are non-recourse and others where the security is merely some security but that foreclosure does not wipe out debt. And it is interesting how either way can screw things up when at the bubble scale because if non-recourse, then banks can collapse which can bring down an economy or wind up too big to fail, public bailout plus inflation, etc., or, if there is recourse then subsequent garnishment and lack of that money feeding the economy. So at that scale, either way could be quite damaging overall.

You keep insisting that a house is a business. It is not. A house not being rented by one person to a separate and different entity is not a business. Just as a house is not a religion. Just as you can not claim your house to be a religion to avoid paying property taxes, you can not claim your house as a business to default free and clear in recourse states. The distinction is clear.

Recourse vs. Non-Recourse Debt... What's the ... - Zillow Real Estate Advice

And there is good reason justifying that distinction. It encourages lending at lower interest rates so people can afford to buy nice things if they want them when they don't themselves have immediately all the cash. And because housing values can go up and down, why would a lender take that risk when they can make just as much money lending to safer ventures. It's not a $20 loan from a relative. It's 100s of thousands that your relatives don't even have to lend you. And at that level of lending, your loved ones would want some guarantees too, because, again, they would not be sharing in additional equity should you later sell high.

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Originally Posted by bentlebee

...I wonder how much of an increase many of the short sale group and foreclosed group had to pay for other items since their credit was shot...that would be interesting.

Good points and the reverberations are felt not just individually but throughout society. Thus Japan lost 20 years of appreciation. We're probably at 10-15 years lost (depending on location) if you look at CPI figures. And that's money people not only counted on but were paying taxes on. If that wasn't real value, then can I at least have my tax money back that I paid for years on value now gone? Never mind appreciation, a lot of this, particularly in places like Tampa which likely crashed through bottom didn't even keep up with inflation whereby homes are selling for less than construction costs with land and infrastructure thrown in free. Yet that bubble is still making its way around the world.

Housing bubble 2.0 can only end badly | Nouriel Roubini | Business | theguardian.com

Economist Nouriel Roubini picks NZ housing bubble - Business - NZ Herald News

etc.
etc.
etc.

[TampaKaren]

Sorry I don't have much time to read all these posts, but wanted to stop in and report back to the OP. This past Friday, I had two listing appointments. One of them, I was approached by a neighbor and got an accepted offer before leaving the neighborhood. The other one, I entered in the MLS later that afternoon and before close of business, I had two cash offers. I don't know if that's indicative of the entire market, but I'm hard at work. Too little time to hang out here and post...maybe later.

[EngGirl]

Has anyone ever heard from real estate professionals anything other than "now it's the best time to sell/buy"?
Just asking...

[gulfer]

Actually YES. Realtor told me in 2007 to wait. House I was looking at went from 418K to 175K over the next 18 months.

Since you HATE everyone associated with Real Estate, why do you ever care to reply here? Please add something useful.

[EngGirl]

anybody esle?

[redrocket2]

I'm seeing nice homes selling for $200,000-250,000 in the Tampa Bay area. That seems dirt cheap to me. Equivalent homes here in Southern California are selling for $800,000 and up.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by redrocket2

I'm seeing nice homes selling for $200,000-250,000 in the Tampa Bay area. That seems dirt cheap to me. Equivalent homes here in Southern California are selling for $800,000 and up.

You are lucky enough/successful enough to live in paradise...You can't compare Tampa Bay's steam bath climate to gorgeous San Diego...It's the price you pay for the lifestyle...

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by redrocket2

I'm seeing nice homes selling for $200,000-250,000 in the Tampa Bay area. That seems dirt cheap to me. Equivalent homes here in Southern California are selling for $800,000 and up.

Now let's compare living expenses including salaries

[D-R-B]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

You are lucky enough/successful enough to live in paradise...You can't compare Tampa Bay's steam bath climate to gorgeous San Diego...It's the price you pay for the lifestyle...

Agreed......

Plus you get a much wider variety of things to do outdoors and better weather to do those things out doors.

In addition, the variety of landscape and related activities within a day's drive or for weekend trips is a thousand times better in California....

"You get what you pay for" applies in this situation in my opinion.

I spent 70+ days exploring SOCAL when I was in the Air Force and really, really liked it.