Housing

[Peppers49]

The drive down 400 is brutal.

Forsyth is growing, there are several new mixed use developments and I can think of a at least a dozen neighborhoods on my drive home.

It's pretty expensive in general. The $400k price range isn't purchasing a new single family home in Forsyth.

Forsyth has Its political issues, but it has definitely gotten better since they scared Oprah off in the 90s.

To clarify, my wife is from the area originally and we go to visit family there maybe once or twice a year. Obviously the county leans red, but my comment about the particular type of conservative is just based on anecdotal evidence interacting with some of the people in her family’s wider social sphere over the years, so probably not fair for me to draw conclusions about the entire community based on that lol.

Definitely a growing area, and I agree that they’ve done a decent job by the standards of most major city suburbs of building mixed use areas. We go to Vickery Village quite often.

 

[UNCatTech]

To clarify, my wife is from the area originally and we go to visit family there maybe once or twice a year. Obviously the county leans red, but my comment about the particular type of conservative is just based on anecdotal evidence interacting with some of the people in her family’s wider social sphere over the years, so probably not fair for me to draw conclusions about the entire community based on that lol.

Definitely a growing area, and I agree that they’ve done a decent job by the standards of most major city suburbs of building mixed use areas. We go to Vickery Village quite often.

Man, I love Vickery Village, we looked at a home there years ago before it expanded. I sort of wish we had moved there, but two-lane roads cause me anxiety.
We know a couple of people that live there, and they love it too. And they have a YMCA basically built in.

Of course, around the same time we looked at townhomes in the Avalon. They were $400K at the time. I so wish I had purchased one, they are over a million now.

 

[LosPollosHermanos]

Very few people are willing to go from 2.5-3% mortgages to 7%. It makes it near impossible to sell and upgrade to a better house. It means if you want to downsize you're going to make the same payment for a smaller house. Along with a lot of the other stuff mentioned in this thread it's a perfect storm for a terrible market.

 

[UNCatTech]

Very few people are willing to go from 2.5-3% mortgages to 7%. It makes it near impossible to sell and upgrade to a better house. It means if you want to downsize you're going to make the same payment for a smaller house. Along with a lot of the other stuff mentioned in this thread it's a perfect storm for a terrible market.

Good point.

My neighbor and I were talking. I have a 2.25% mortgage, he has a 5.75% mortgage. My payment on a 15 year loan is about the same as his on a 30 year loan.

 

[LosPollosHermanos]

Good point.

My neighbor and I were talking. I have a 2.25% mortgage, he has a 5.75% mortgage. My payment on a 15 year loan is about the same as his on a 30 year loan.

Yeah I did a refi to 2.5% on a 20 year mortgage a few years ago. Same payment, but eliminated the last 7 years of payments. We may never see those rates again. People may be willing to go up a point or two but going up 4-5 is insane.

 

[SmilingJack]

People have to live somewhere. I've been in real estate since the early 1980s when rates were 21% and saw them go to 2.1% prior to the increses. Housing never stopped changing hands. Difference today is the prices are up 40% in 4-5 years. Appreciation is slowing but supply and demand are out of whack. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

 

[UNCatTech]

People have to live somewhere. I've been in real estate since the early 1980s when rates were 21% and saw them go to 2.1% prior to the increses. Housing never stopped changing hands. Difference today is the prices are up 40% in 4-5 years. Appreciation is slowing but supply and demand are out of whack. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Exactly, the rate on my first home was 12.5%, but that was on a house that cost $107K. You cant touch a livable house for $100K now.

 

[mpaer]

People have to live somewhere. I've been in real estate since the early 1980s when rates were 21% and saw them go to 2.1% prior to the increses. Housing never stopped changing hands. Difference today is the prices are up 40% in 4-5 years. Appreciation is slowing but supply and demand are out of whack. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Good point Don't forget that in say the triangle area taxes and Insurance on a modest $400,000 house are $500 a month

 

[UNCatTech]

Considering where interest rates are, the markets, the tariffs, the deportations, etc. I'm wondering if now might be a good time to sell the house and rent for a couple of years.

 

[BubbaOtis]

I guess the solution is for us evil Boomers to croak and our residences go on the market cheap.

I'm having trouble seeing how it could be Constitutionally legal to bar a domestic entity from owning real estate.

Things run in cycles. Anyone else remember the panic over the Japanese buying up big city properties? How did that work out?

 

[superrific]

I'm having trouble seeing how it could be Constitutionally legal to bar a domestic entity from owning real estate.

What right would be violated? Ownership of properties is regulated all the time. A domestic entity that owns a company cannot buy a competitor (in fact, it can't have any overlapping directors). Permits are required for development. Plus, it would likely not be a regulation of ownership but rather a regulation of who can rent what.

 

[genevabuck]

I worked at one of the largest lumber yards in the country. The amount of dimension building lumber that we get out of Canada is massive.

 

[altmin]

I wouldn't buy a new house right now. Building supplies are about to go through the roof thanks to the tariffs. Not to mention th elabor shortage thanks to the racism.

 

[altmin]

People have to live somewhere. I've been in real estate since the early 1980s when rates were 21% and saw them go to 2.1% prior to the increses. Housing never stopped changing hands. Difference today is the prices are up 40% in 4-5 years. Appreciation is slowing but supply and demand are out of whack. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

National corporate ownership of rentals means they buy houses and will let them sit empty till they get a renter. Also Air BnBs do not help.

 

[BubbaOtis]

What right would be violated? Ownership of properties is regulated all the time. A domestic entity that owns a company cannot buy a competitor (in fact, it can't have any overlapping directors). Permits are required for development. Plus, it would likely not be a regulation of ownership but rather a regulation of who can rent what.

If corporations have freedom of speech rights under Citizens United, who is to say they can't have human's property rights?

Also curtailing a corporation's right to buy is also curtailing the seller's right to sell to their buyer of choice.


I'm just spit balling it here.

 

[farce©]

 

[evrheel]

If corporations have freedom of speech rights under Citizens United, who is to say they can't have human's property rights?

Also curtailing a corporation's right to buy is also curtailing the seller's right to sell to their buyer of choice.


I'm just spit balling it here.

See Disney and Ron DeSantis

 

[evrheel]

Hire Paul Volcker

 

[roostra]

I guess the solution is for us evil Boomers to croak and our residences go on the market cheap.

I'm having trouble seeing how it could be Constitutionally legal to bar a domestic entity from owning real estate.

Things run in cycles. Anyone else remember the panic over the Japanese buying up big city properties? How did that work out?

I don't think we need boomers to die and sell their houses to help, but it wouldn't hurt to eliminate disincentives for older folks who have more house than they need from selling and downsizing. Policies like Prop 13 in California provides a powerful disincentive for someone to move out of a large house where they have lived in for many years and raised a family and into a smaller place, perhaps without stairs (don't get me started about my folks in Virginia and their refusal to move into a place where they can navigate after a fall) because their property tax is so artificially low that any move would have them paying an enormously larger amount on a smaller house.

Housing stock in the US is traditionally progressive (not politically) in that you start with an apartment, you move into a better apartment, you buy a starter home, you move into a bigger home, you downsize and move into a smaller home

But this is all just tiny bits around the margins (and only in certain places) - the real problem is that we need to build a lot more housing. There just isn't enough