Real Estate Crash thread

Quote:

---

honestly bring back the trailer park
trailer parks are the answer the initial investment is low compared to a multi family development
price per sq ft of a modular home is much less than a custom single family home track home or an apartment building

but nope trailer parks are for white trash crime and people who use drugs am I right?

---

The few remaining trailer parks in town have been bought by companies that specialize in gaining the best ROI from trailer parks. 1st thing they do is jack up the rates and the people who own a trailer that won't withstand a move or can't afford to move are fucked.

Quote:

---

the problem is the american consumer refuses to pay anything more than the absolute bottom dollar for any product or service

---

You get no argument from me. And yes entrepreneurs deserve to reap what they have developed. But they will also find it hard to man a crew if they don't match the wage for a given area. Buddy of mines 19 year old is making 25 an hour driving a rake for a landscaping company in Big Sky all because that is what it takes to hire decent people in a resort town. I know his boss and his business keeps right on growing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Why wait years and years until interest rates come back down to start building again, when we could just expand a current program that we know works well?

---

I think it is debatable that publicly subsidized affordable housing works. Yes, there are lots who legitimately need affordable housing. But then there is another subset who finagle their way into affordable housing, start making bank, and then refuse to leave while they enjoy tax-payer subsidized living as they travel the world (like my multi-millionaire cousin in law who founded a start up in SF and finally moved out of his rent control apartment after milking it for a couple decades). It takes bureaucracy to manage publicly subsidized affordable housing, and that bureaucracy will never end. Personally, I much rather see more market rate housing and see if that fulfills the demand, and has trickle down effects on old, beater, multi-family, before we throw more money at affordable housing. Seattle is not a dense city. Tacoma is ridiculously not dense (like huge, empty, vacant lots all over the place, including teeny single family homes on massive weed infested lots). We haven't even really tried to infill our cities. WA just passed 4/6 plex in single family zoning. Lets give that a try before we go full Singapore.

Ah yes. Trickle down. That always works!

https://www.rentable.co/bozeman-mt/2...ments-for-rent

$ 2000.00 for a 2 Bdrm apt is the average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

honestly bring back the trailer park
trailer parks are the answer the initial investment is low compared to a multi family development
price per sq ft of a modular home is much less than a custom single family home track home or an apartment building

but nope trailer parks are for white trash crime and people who use drugs am I right?

---

Yep, this would be a great solution. But instead like Bunion said there are investors who get massive tax breaks buying parks and then jack the rents, too. And the NIMBYs definitely don't want mobile home parks. Hell, my dad and his partners owned a park in Silverthorne in the 80's where the car dealership and Target is now. Even back then, he had to fight the city and county who wanted that park out of there, but he always told them "what else is affordable?"

The term you are looking for is Park Model. https://www.suncommunities.com/commu...reek-crossing/

Here is the thing. Nobody running the show wants affordable housing for all the reasons discussed.

In my community, the answer is pretty simple but it ain't gonna happen.

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

The " Tiny home" is the new mobile home,

building one is easy enough I know a young single gal who learned the carpentry on you-tube

but it releases a pheromone and the previuosly very single for years owner suddenly enters into a permanent relationship and so the tiny home is too small

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supermoon

Ah yes. Trickle down. That always works!

---

We've never even tried it in most of the Western US. Our cities are amongst the least dense cities on Earth.

Our solution has never been to increase density, it's just to throw more money, and more bureaucracy, into some token affordable housing here and there.

This isn't trickle down like Reagan, it's basic macro economic principles. If you build enough market housing to meet demand, the price will come down. If you over build housing, price will come down a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

https://www.rentable.co/bozeman-mt/2...ments-for-rent

$ 2000.00 for a 2 Bdrm apt is the average.

---

I don't know how those college kids' parents afford that shit. I won't let my kids go there.

Speaking of which, seems like capping enrollment at MSU would help Bozeman a lot.

Trickier calculus in resort towns, but cities are expensive for a reason, and get more expensive as they grow. It works great to lower the price of widgets, but you are never going to meet the demand for housing by building market rate units in an expensive and desirable city. You are just going to create more economic activity, jobs, and competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

I don't know how those college kids' parents afford that shit. I won't let my kids go there.

---

Roommates, a job, and an allowance that doesn't cover all the rent - it's up to them to figure out the rest...

Quote:

---

Speaking of which, seems like capping enrollment at MSU would help Bozeman a lot.

---

Yeah - seems like capping enrollment around the amount of freshman housing they have would be a pretty decent idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Yeah - seems like capping enrollment around the amount of freshman housing they have would be a pretty decent idea...

---

They seem to have a "grow at all costs" mentality, which to me seems really at odds with what's best for the students and the community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garbowski

cities are expensive for a reason, and get more expensive as they grow. It works great to lower the price of widgets, but you are never going to meet the demand for housing by building market rate units in an expensive and desirable city. You are just going to create more economic activity, jobs, and competition.

---

Another common NIMBY claim, that you can never build enough free market housing to meet demand, and if you keep building, more and more people will just move to the area.

As if there is unlimited population growth. The US birth rate population is declining and the only reason the US total population is not is because of immigration (which we are trying our damnedest to curtail). San Francisco is a bellwether city in the Western US. And in the last couple years, we have seen housing and cost of living in San Francisco reach a tipping point, where, for the first time in our lives, more people are moving out of San Francisco than moving in (at least the city itself). I expect this trend to eventually spread to places like Seattle and Denver, as their cost of living continues to climb (at least the cities themselves, maybe not the entire metro).

I would be more in favor of subsidized housing if I believed we have even made an effort to build dense, market rate housing. CA, OR, and WA just got rid of single family housing. I expect CO and the rest of the West to follow soon. Lets give that some time (like a decade) before we throw up our hands and say we can never build enough market rate housing to fulfill demand.

It is 100,000% true here. (Jackson) All it will do is increase traffic and pollution.
Until, of course, it becomes absolutely intolerable to live here, and everyone wants to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

It is 100,000% true here. (Jackson)

---

Desirable resort towns (like Jackson) are totally different than San Francisco and Seattle. You're right, to meet the housing demand in Jackson you would need to build 1.5 million new homes. That's why I am such a big fan of conservation easements in places like Jackson. They make it impossible to build new housing. Yes, it sucks that only people like rideit, who got in early, can afford to live there. But that's better than 1.5 million people living there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

I don't know how those college kids' parents afford that shit. I won't let my kids go there.

Speaking of which, seems like capping enrollment at MSU would help Bozeman a lot.

---

Yeah, that isn't happening. I am working on 2 projects on the MSU campus, new fire station and extension of infrastructure to service the new Gianforte Computer sciences bldg and a new on campus hotel that will provide lodging as well as a hotel management school.

Housing starts, sales stronger than expected; rent costs softening as Fed hoped
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/b...smid=url-share

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

It is 100,000% true here. (Jackson) All it will do is increase traffic and pollution.
Until, of course, it becomes absolutely intolerable to live here, and everyone wants to leave.

---

Does quality of life really apply in a town where the majority of houses are only occupied part time? Sure, the traffic in Jackson is absolutely terrible around the 4th of July but the average home owner in Jackson can just spend the holiday at their place in the Hamptons or Nantucket. Nobody gives a fuck about quality of life as long as their investment home prices keep doubling every few years. That's how Jackson turned into the gilded shithole it is.

It's not a real town; it's a storage facility for real estate portfolios.

What happens when interest rate hikes no longer influence housing demand because of an increasing number of cash buyers?

Then people who need mortgages will have to rent from the corporate cash buyers of the homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

What happens when interest rate hikes no longer influence housing demand because of an increasing number of cash buyers?

---

See Jackson, where 70% of homes are bought for cash as investments.

Just a soulless pile of portfolios where a ski town used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

We've never even tried it in most of the Western US. Our cities are amongst the least dense cities on Earth.

Our solution has never been to increase density, it's just to throw more money, and more bureaucracy, into some token affordable housing here and there.

This isn't trickle down like Reagan, it's basic macro economic principles. If you build enough market housing to meet demand, the price will come down. If you over build housing, price will come down a lot.

---

Why would any developer want to overbuild and reduce their profits? That's like oil companies building more refineries to produce more gas. And can you imagine the gov't building "affordable" housing. Yikes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

What happens when interest rate hikes no longer influence housing demand because of an increasing number of cash buyers?

---

people want to know
the fed is scratching their collective empty and soulless heads wondering why construction real estate and inflation hasn't slowed down yet
if only the elites knew what it was really like out there

But they're men for and of the people.

Not sure why but inventory for sale in our local market (Helena) has seemingly doubled in the past couple weeks. Only reason I'm paying much attention is because a friend just listed a home for sale that his recently deceased parents lived in, and he was lamenting about the uptick.