Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
After reading a few pages of drivel, AS does have a point here RE: everybody partially shoulders the burden of the extra tax, not just the 1% and .01%.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
After reading a few pages of drivel, AS does have a point here RE: everybody partially shoulders the burden of the extra tax, not just the 1% and .01%.
Wrong. Employee housing, here, is funded through the Real Estate Transfer Tax; there isn't a crossover to lodging/sales/food taxes. The people who come here for vacation DGAF about a lodging, food or sales tax like you. They're paying $1000/day to have their kid ski with an instructor so they can go do the same, or party or whatever. Stop trying to conflate your POV with the detached reality of the super wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Assets are verified when you submit your packet to become eligible to bid in the system, along with your employment verification. The office does their legwork - with a credit check and checking taxes, but ultimately the accuracy is based on an applicants honesty. They go through everything (including retirement, trusts, etc): https://www.apcha.org/DocumentCenter...lation20201118 then give you a category level based on the numbers. You have to update your packet every year or two as you continue to bid on units, but once you were to win something (for most people that's a 5-10+ years of bidding and losing) you wouldn't have to resubmit anything unless you wanted to bid on a different unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Yes, vehicles are accounted for but a used, depreciated "deenafit" setup is not. I know a lot of people in the system and my sense from that is that there are not a particularly high percentage of people hiding major assets and trying to sneak in. I realize it's easy to continue to paint the whole situation here as a Welfare Queen scam, but I haven't experienced it that way. The unlikely reality of winning something is a relatively high barrier for people to continue attempt to cheat their way in. Most people with reasonable assets, trust funds, etc are just going to buy a free market place and take advantage of the much more appealing appreciation from those properties. Obviously there are some/many outliers and abusers, but your continued hangup about how this all works remains off-base.
That's not what APCHA says:Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinevibes
"the City funds its subsidy from one or both of its dedicated housing funding sources, a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) and a small portion of sales tax."
https://apcha.org/FAQ.aspx?QID=74
And the Aspen Times:
"The city generates tens of millions of dollars annually through real estate transfer and sales taxes and is a major provider of affordable housing in the valley."
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/pitk...dable-housing/
So appears the county is not using sales tax to fund affordable housing but the city is.
Anyway, thanks for the info. I really am curious about it because as far as I know, we don't have deed restricted low income housing in Washington state. We also have a ban on rent control, unlike CA. It's interesting to see how different parts of the west are dealing with exploding real estate prices. Seattle is trying to learn from San Francisco's mistakes and has been building like mad for the last decade. Some would say it is not working but we are still quite a bit cheaper than the Bay Area. There's also a shit ton of new housing currently under construction here (even a shit ton in Tacoma).
I thought this comment from that Aspen Times article was telling:
“I wonder sometimes if APCHA has gotten so big that we are becoming a company town, and I don’t like the smell of that."
That seems to be the end result of this to me. Free market Aspen will continue to become even more expensive and the only way for a middle or lower income person to be able to live anywhere remotely close is to score a place with APCHA. I'm sure there are plenty there that are ok with that. The high prices will keep Aspen from getting ridiculously over crowed, and the community can utilize APCHA to "throttle" the amount of worker bees they need to keep things humming along.
Just to throw out an anecdote, I'm in the process of buying a new house and am shocked by how much variance there is in rate quotes right now. The mortgage broker my agent initially set me up with quoted me a 7.5% par rate w/ 1% orig fee, and after shopping around myself I just got quoted a 5.375% par rate w/ 0% orig fee. There is no logical explanation for that big of a spread (other than that first broker is greedy and my agent was getting a kickback).
Moral of the story = always shop around
Sent from my SM-S908U using TGR Forums mobile app
100%Quote:
Originally Posted by Dshack89
I’d lock that 5 and 3 eighths pronto.
I’m hearing a lot of 6.5% on 30 year fixed conforming notes, less on Jumbos and FHA products.
Edited to add: relationships between real estate and mortgage professionals is highly regulated and it is expressly forbidden for a real estate agent to receive monetary compensation for a referral to a preferred lender. I know some unscrupulous real estate agents but none that would ever admit to taking a kickback from a lender. Any time you get a professional referral it should be at least 3 providers.
Ice, I don't remember anything about appreciation being reduced if they sold it. So what once started as a helping hand to those not showing much on their tax returns has turned out ok for them. They played by the rules, so why be pissed Core Shot? It was not "worker" housing, just low income and after 20 years they are cashing in. Big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Interesting, I didn't know that on the regulation but makes sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
And yep I locked that rate down ASAP. To be fair, I got my rate lowered by .25 for having my business checking at this bank for a while. And Im doing a 7 ARM jumbo. So I've got the ideal scenario for the best rate.
Sent from my SM-S908U using TGR Forums mobile app
Every single time it's some scumbag realtor that gets caught gaming the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Whether it’s low income or worker, it’s subsidized to help the local economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
If you can sell it at market rate, it’s gone.
If you restrict it to be resold only to similarly situated buyers, then it stays in the pool forever.
They’re playing by the rules. But those rules suck.
None the less, a deals a deal, so maybe next time the city does this (ya right) they think it through better and get your guys input so nobodies upset.
There’s a little bit of a workaround where lenders and licensed real estate brokers can share the expense of marketing platforms. So in essence, say you used a big “team” broker and they have a huge website where they’re paying for a bunch of google SEO and paid ad.’s…. they can pass some of that (or maybe all of it?) on to a lender partner as paid advertising by promoting them on their website and sending referrals. They still open the door for a violation of “steering” the customer to a less competitive partner due to this relationship. Some states take these kinds of conflicts seriously and some don’t. Most real reputable brokers are pretty careful about where they fall on the issue. I think in all likelihood you get a referral to an expensive lender because a lot of clients don’t get multiple estimates and the expensive lenders are easy for the real estate broker to deal with during the transaction. Full service (expensive) mortgage brokers may have more staff and a higher percentage of early closings and less likelihood that the deal falls apart due to the financing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dshack89
Recent RE metrics -
Quote:
The median home sale price was $348,000, essentially flat (+0.1%) from a year earlier. That’s the smallest increase since at least 2015. The next-smallest increase was when prices rose 0.3% year over year in June 2020.
Median sale prices fell in 21 of the 50 most populous U.S. metros, with the biggest drops in Oakland, CA (-9.7% YoY), Austin, TX (-9.5%), Sacramento (-7.1%), Phoenix (-6.6%) and San Jose, CA (-6%). Prices increased most in Columbus, OH (+12.2%), Milwaukee (11.9%), West Palm Beach, FL (9.8%), , Miami (9.3%) and Indianapolis (8.5%).
The median asking price of newly listed homes was $381,561, up 1.1% year over year, the smallest increase since May 2020.
The monthly mortgage payment on the median-asking-price home was $2,486 at a 6.5% mortgage rate, the current weekly average. That’s just $20 (-1%) below the October 2022 peak. Monthly mortgage payments are up 26% ($513) from a year ago.
Pending home sales were down 17.4% year over year, the smallest decline in over five months with the exception of the prior four-week period.
Among the 50 most populous U.S. metros, pending sales fell most in Las Vegas (-55.6% YoY), Austin (-49.4%), Nashville (-46.8%), Riverside, CA (-46.4%) and Phoenix (-45.9%). Pending sales rose in one metro: Chicago (18.2%).
New listings of homes for sale fell 18.8% year over year. New listings declined in all 50 of the most populous U.S. metros, with the biggest declines in Sacramento (-43.2% YoY), Oakland, CA (-42.5%), San Jose (-38.9%), Portland, OR (-38.4%) and Seattle (-37.7%).
It's a housing desert. A theme consistent since the end of 2020 and one that has only gotten worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Touche, indeed, there is a .225% of the City sales tax that is dedicated to housing. In 2022 that raised $2.7M, versus the $17.1M from the RETT.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
The advent of STR's, to me, is what has tipped this scale too much here in separating the "working class" from the super wealthy. Many long-term rentals, both cheap and expensive, have dissapeared from the market - either by existing owners capitalizing on greater revenues from STR opportunities or from the massive valuation increases of the last few years that have pushed existing landlords to cash out. Either way, anyone with less than $4,000/mo for housing is in a tough spot to find options.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
The challenge with your concept of the "community utilizing APCHA to throttle" things is the very low turnover in APCHA owned units and the lack of newly built units that actually roll out. Without consistent turnover the community and businesses will continue to struggle to find workers who can stick around living here to work their jobs.
Still early in the scheme of things. The finance markets haven't capitulated yet. Consumers are still loading up on debt. Inflation hasn't been tamed. Plenty of time for the other shoe to drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Maybe it isn't a desert. Maybe it's more like all the rooms are rented. Hard to tell with second home owners, STRs, and institutional ownership.
Santa Cruz has addressed STR's. Non-hosted permits will no longer be issued. Hosted- the owner needs to live there for 6 months. And no new ADU STR permits will be issued.
So again, it always comes down to the town getting its shit together and addressing an issue. May not be perfect and people will try to cheat, but addressing is key in every tourist town
lol. Compliance and enforcement has always been a joke, and the array of truly shitty substandard dwellings was astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
No doubt, but needs to start somewhere. Enforcement would be difficult. Neighbors would have to rat you out. And the array of dwellings in SC is interesting, to say the least. Teardowns are 1m+Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Enforcement is easy. They have someone looking on VRBO and Airbnb all the time around here, and her salary is paid by the ST rental permits that you have to have. People get busted all the time.
Yeah, the data is out there. Airbnb sells it. AirDNA is a good source that congregates a lot of it. I imagine that they work out access to that and go off what they see. I swear that I got "Secret Shopper" called a few times by the town when I had an STR. So they do that stuff too.
Don't even need that, could probably get a direct feed from AirBnB/VRBO. They both have partner apis so you could demand that or just get flat files cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
the political will for enforcement was never there. I knew someone who was offered a driveway sleeping spot and bathroom access for a couple hundred $Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
Yeah, but I think they check so they can also bust people that try to rent out rooms with no egress that were told they couldn't, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by schuss
I have heard of owners that keep email lists (friends, friends of friends, etc) and get all their rentals that way. But there can't be more than a handful like that.
depends on the community. Bunch of people off market thereQuote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
My city got on this early, a few years ago they capped the total number of permits at 225, with limits to how many per block etc. It works well, and they enforce. Google had the picture wrong for an address, and they sent me a very scary no-no letter claiming one of my rentals was illegal. I was all good, but never thought again about pushing that law.
As much as I love the free market, I am all for capping STRs. Good for everyone honestly, STRs in my town are still booked out, STRs in Phoenix for example are struggling to get bookings because the market is wayyy over saturated. The other shoe will drop on the STR thing, and it won't be pretty, but I assume very hot tourist destinations will be somewhat insulated.
I think most everyone agrees that some regulation of STR’s is necessary. It is a commercial activity in residential zoning, so IMO a variance should be necessary to pull the permit. That being said, a lot of STR regulation is “king making” and it’s being determined by pretty esoteric rules. First come first serve isn’t necessarily the best way to allow for the most appropriate land use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukonrider
Average rates for a 30 year fixed mortgage in central Oregon up to 7.1 percent this morning. Folks are going to really start to do anything possible not to change housing. I have clients that are renting their homes and renting a place in a new town waiting out rate changes.
It's just another version of "those who get there first will build the biggest fence." It rewards the old, and the wealthy, at the expense of the new comers. Also, you know how many people run their small "commercial" business out of their house these days? The purpose of no commercial in residential zoning was to prevent things like traffic, pollution, and noise, from residential areas. No one wants to live next to a renter. No one wants to live next to a short term renter. But how is that remarkably different than if someone who actually owns the house was living there? You could live next to a long term owner who parties every night and invites all of their friends and there would be nothing you could do (save noise complaints).Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
Also, what happens when the governments sends someone who is violating the STR rules a nastygram, and that person crumples it up and wipes their ass with it? In that Aspen article, the STRer forced the government to sue them, they took it to a hearing examiner, lost, and are now appealing. They still own the STR through all of this process. There will always be ways for people to get around the STR rules and it is a major expense for the government to have to litigate all the violators.
They better not rent their primary residence for more than 2 years becuase if they do, they will have permanently converted the property to a rental property and have to pay capital gains tax (typically 15%) on the appreciation, plus depreciation recapture tax when they sell. And what do they expect rates to go down to? I could see rates dipping below 5 in the next two years, but not much lower than that. And when rates do dip down and they want to buy, they will have to break their rental lease, and boot out their renters, which all adds costs to them. At some point, they might as well just buy at the higher rate with the expectation they will refinance when rates come down.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
No one is forcing them to depreciate the property, and they only have to claim residency 2 of the prior 5 years to selling.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701
AR, I thought my accountant told me a N/O/O property HAD to be depreciated? And if you do and there is some recapture for what you took, big deal. But I oddly agree with AS, just buy now and refi down the road if the price of the home works for you.
I feel like so many people are going to get burned by this train of thought. Many of my gf's grad school friend group decided to buy houses in the fall. Everyone is at 7% APR on houses in DC. They're locked into $8k to $9k per month mortgages for 30 years when those same houses had a $4k-$5k payment had they bought just a year earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
What could possibly go wrong?
Are they able to make the $8-9k payment? I assume so, since that is what they signed up for. Unless those are 3 year ARMs, where is the hudge problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
They are able to make the payment now using both of their incomes, but the idea that they'll just be able to refi to a lower rate only pencils out if the value of the house doesn't go down in value and if you meet the income requirements for the refi, which means both sides of the dual income household need to keep their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I believe that any time someone pays way more for the same thing compared to what people in their same demographic cohort have in recent history there is a major risk of correction. Then consequences of holding the bag and being stuck with a $9k mortgage when the market figures out that $5k per month is really the max the market will bear is devastating. That kind of delta has the power to destroy someone's financial life for a very long period of time if they live in a recourse state.
They probably should have purchased a smaller house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
:fmicon:
8k a month mortgage?
is that typo come on seriously why you making shit up
my mort on a 800k valuation house $700
a friends mort on a 1.8 million dollar house valuation house $1,100
shit that is crazy shit guess buying twenty years ago pay s off?
Of course, any mortgage that requires your income is a risk, and if it requires 2 incomes even more risk, but getting mortgages based on 2 incomes is hardly uncommon. I will grant you that there is definitely risk in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
But if rates go down significantly, I don't think it likely that house will also go down significantly in value, assuming they bought in a good place (location, location, location).
I think all you are really pointing out is the risk of being house poor, with people making that choice assuming that the landscape will change such that they won't always be house poor. It's a valid point, but I don't see the hudge risk you do. But then, I'm also a renter now sitting on the sidelines because I don't think it's a good time to buy and I don't want to be house poor.
FF, valuation has 0 to do with a mortgage payment. It is loan balance, term and rate. 7% over 30 years and a $8k PITI payment is about a $950k loan amount which is for realz in D.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Kevo, yours is a legit concern, as if the economy is tanking, it is possible home values are too.
You're kinda old to be house-poor, yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
:fmicon: