Ahahahaha, they bumped the price from $550k to $600k. Getting kind of close to giving up on moving to B'ham.
Printable View
“It’s not selling, what could be wrong?”
“Well, at this price point and based on the area’s comps, it might be priced too low and prospective buyers probably think something is seriously wrong with the house. Let’s trying raising the price and see if we get some showings.”
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
That's why I was questioning that number. I can't find a quick answer to what percentage of homes in America are short term rentals. But I can't imagine it is enough that banning them would dramatically change home prices on a national scale. And banning them would fuck with the economy is so many other ways. Whether it is a ski town or a major city, tourism and short term stays are a major part of the economy. You try to solve one problem but don't really solve it and instead create another problem.
Others have mentioned there are success stories in communities that have banned short term rentals. I am curious where those success stories are?
I think the successes are less obvious, and affect the lower earners more. Much of the housing stock that got turned into STRs used to be LTRs, LTRs that housed folks who are unable or unwilling to buy, your service industry types, or in ski towns your lifties, or young home buyers.
While banning STRs would shift the demand onto hotels there by increasing the value of that commodity, you would increase housing available to the lower income folks, who are by and large being displaced currently with reverberating consequences in small communities. Larger towns are better insulated from this.
The changes wouldn't dramatically change home prices, but they would open up spaces to renters that isn't currently available.
And yes, the good long term answer is build more housing, but until you can undo years of restrictive zoning, asinine permitting processes, and lucrative tax streams, not to mention NIMBYisim from the boomers with money that's a pipe dream even further from reality than banning STRs.
The average American outside of trophy cities is unaffected by STRs. This is such a TGR bro problem in their trust fundy world.
benny with the solid
03 was a good year to buy property in a trophy city bro
it's been proposed a number of times by developer speculator types
they don't have any water or sewer so when these clowns talk a big talk then start actually adding up the cost of infrastructure it doesn't work out
a family in summit county (not local, but they pretend to be) has owned a lot of land for a long time, they fought tooth and nail for a 100 unit development and finally got it, well that was almost ten years ago and they have yet to break ground cause the morons didn't realize a bank wasn't going to hand them 10 million just to build roads water and sewer and power
So if refiing best to lock a rate immediately or are there any downward fluctuations anticipated?
That place has been the talk of the town. It was owner occupied for years (rumor is old lady and her adult kid(s) and when mom passed the son lived there). I guess the guy had some troubles, the place fell into disrepair, and was eventually foreclosed upon by the bank. A foreign buyer bought the property as an investment, and intentionally left it empty. Meanwhile, squatters moved in. He's tried to sell it privately a few times to no avail, but now that the value of the dirt has exceeded his purchase price, he's apparently ok with paying a commission.
Predatory capitalism at its finest.
And the agent deserves an honorable mention in the breathless bullshit dept. The building is clearly a tear down, but the value of a 13k lot within city limits is probably a half million at this point. Subdividing to flag lot the back portion, and building two SFRs both with ADUs wouldn't be all that difficult. Someone with some wherewithal - and deep pockets - could probably get a rezone and build apartments.
Because it doesn't matter if (insert ski town/trophy city of your choosing) becomes more affordable by banning short term rentals if the rest of America is still unaffordable (they'll all move to this new suddenly affordable oasis).
You can't ban short term rentals at the national level (zoning is controlled by local and state governments). So we have the current status quo, where one little bourgeoisie ski town bans short term rentals, but the towns down the road don't. The net effect is zero change in housing prices. It's just shuffling around the winners and losers without moving the needle (similar to rent control).
I still can't figure out exactly how many short term rentals there are in America, but over 2 million is a reasonable guesstimate. Banning short term rentals doesn't make this demand go away. You would need to build 2 million non-short term rental places to absorb this demand. Which comes back to my main point, we need more housing built. I have nothing against increasing high rise hotel supply, but that construction faces the same impediments as does small, dense, multi-family housing. Red tape, high cost of land and construction, NIMBY's, ect.
Really, wages need to rise.
Your guess is as good as anyone's else's out there as they can fluctuate a little as they march higher.
Attachment 402205
But the government can't snap their fingers and make wages go up. The only thing the government can do in this is cut out the red tape and tell NIMBY's to eat a dick so we can bring down new construction costs, and incentivize new development (preferably centrally located, small, dense, development that will actually have an affect on supply).
uhm... the government can snap their fingers and make wages go up, but they won't.
But it's going to happen either way. If you aren't willing to pay $20/hr in this town you won't get any applicants.
We definitely fell way behind on building because money dried up after the financial meltdown, and I agree that incentivizing density/disincentivizing sprawl would be the smart thing, but this country is so "I got mine so fuck you" I don't see any meaningful change on that front. Especially where the wealthy control the local government.
Simply increasing wages won't make a lick of difference. You'll still have 10 people trying to buy the same house, just now the offers will be higher.
You paid any ducking attention to the supply chain problems? Building out of it ain’t gonna happen for years. Of course not all of those 9 million investor homes aren’t STR, but you’d have to come up with a definition of what a STR is, the you can answer “how many are there”. Seasonal rentals count as STR to some. But there’s estimates fo between 1-3 million, which old be a lot of supply.
and hotels are doing worse than they were before the pandemic, because business travel is still largely in the shitter.
Certainly wages for local government employees could go up, no?
I'd support doubling my property tax if it would mean local teachers and public servants got a 100% pay increase. Unfortunately nothing like that would be politically tenable where I live.
My buddy that coaches community college swimming had total compensation of $196k in 2020 and will retire with $10k a month income and medicare deductible paid. Teachers and government employees in California are well compensated and that mantra of unappreciated should change..at least in California.
My mortgage would be costing me $300+ more a month than when I got it last summer.