Reduces demand because the housing can only be used for primary residential, not STR, nor left empty 351 nights a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Printable View
Reduces demand because the housing can only be used for primary residential, not STR, nor left empty 351 nights a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
I call bullshit that a roofer that owns his own company in Detroit can't afford a home. There's been a big price upswing recently, but that upswing would correlate with increased demand for roofing. Maybe not in his preferred neighborhood or preferred size/type of house, but there's lots of stuff available, especially to someone who is capable of making repairs (and isn't that kind of the point of the article--people want too much? a bunch of smaller homes could work if you could market them?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
Also it says he is 38 but that he started roofing as a teen in the late 90s...were many roofing jobs available to 12 year olds?
But otherwise, yeah, I see it.
[QUOTE]“Trump can take anything from the left that the right hates and make it cool,” DeHenau said. “Call it ‘Trump housing’ and the right will like it.”[\QUOTE]
Trump won't actually do this unless there's a way for it to line his own pockets, but he could easily make 15 minute cities and walkable neighborhoods cool. The right has some irrational hatred for these ideas (they don't seem to understand that you're not required to STAY within 15 minutes of home...it is just nice to have the option to live somewhere where your daily needs can be met within 15 minutes) and as long as it is perceived as a team sport, no progress will be made.
I think the bit of the criteria you are missing is that the restriction is for use as "full time housing" not for being owner-occupied.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
You're welcome to buy the property and lease it out--but only on an initial 12 month (or whatever threshold) lease. No second home use, no AirBNB, no seasonal furnished summer or winter rentals.
Can do it with deed restrictions on certain properties or can do it with significantly higher taxes on properties that don't meet the full-time residence criteria. Rich folk will still buy vacation homes and eat the cost, but local purchasers will be more competitive (since their out of pocket is lower for the same sale price) and landlords will be pushed towards long term rentals.
That makes perfect sense but that's not how I read his post this morning
The RE tax idea is interesting. Here we get $100k off assessed value for a primary residence. Bump that up to $500k or more.
Helps normies and taxes rich and second homeowners
It does not, however, renters that need more housing.
I guess that could be helped by apartment tax breaks to landlords based on residency and income of tenants.
My hood has so many 2nd homes that are vacant 90% of the year it is sad, but these are multi million dollar homes. Even if you taxed the fuck out of owners for the less than occupied 90% of the time (owner/tenant) all that would happen is those homes would be sold, maybe prices would come down a bit as the 2nd home market would be crushed.
Huh? Not a bad idea half a cup of coffee awake.
Makes more sense here...maybe? Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
9,341
Everybody has a great engineered solution until they see the bullseye on themselves. So we just finger point. The second homos talk about supporting the economy. The STRs talk about use by right. The shit bag non living wage paying employers talk about needing workforce housing. The politicians and the realtors...well those are the same people.
Reduced expectations
Zoning enforcement
Legalize Mother in Laws
Public Transportation
Shame $25/hr. employers
Political Accountability
Eliminate supporting property values as an objective
And so on
More places like this https://www.riverruncolorado.com/
How about we look at the basic needs of survival-food, water, shelter? If it's not your primary residence or you own something that is not providing long term shelter ie a long term rental, you are taxed at a much higher rate. Wouldn't ever fly politically, but it's a pretty easy rule of thumb to follow. If you can't feed, hydrate, and shelter your society, you're kind of fucking it up. Nail those, then move on to healthcare, education, etc.
Yeah, it is certainly not a panacea. I've posted in this thread before about how Maui taxes non-residences ...but plenty of rich people still own multi-million dollar vacation homes in Maui (although Maui property tax rates are low overall...the "high" rate for a 2nd home is 4x the resident rate but may actually be lower than the tax rate they pay on their primary home in somewhere like CA or NY)Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
But it would help on the margin. The row of town houses in my neighborhood that are half owned by Canadians? Maybe that drops to only 25%.
And I think it would help with my pet peeve: developers building houses that are clearly designed to be vacation homes not family residences. That has the effect of making them more appealing to out of towners--even if I could afford the new build, I'm not going to be the high bidder because the layout sucks for someone who actually lives/works/raises a family full time. I'd live there only if I could get it cheap, but for a 2nd home purchaser that design is actually an asset and increases their willingness to bid higher.
A higher tax rate counteracts that and might encourage more developers to build homes designed for actual residents as residents are now slightly stronger bidders.
Yep, exactly. I like the schedule posted from hawaii earlier in the thread that goes low to high on tax of primary res-rented long term-vaca home-short term rental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Oh fuck you, that just makes too much common sense for the political environment we live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Aspen couldn't survive without STR's. It takes 10x longer and cost 5x as much to build, as a normal town. Thanks to government bureaucracy.
Do the under housed, need to be sheltered in resort towns?
How about incentives, instead of lets tax the fuck out of rich fuckers.
Which is everyone that makes more than me. But don't raise my taxes.
Seriously, do you guys really think that the government is efficient and effective at managing micro economics?
If Aspen can’t survive without STRs, does it need to survive?
Yeah, I agree with everything you said Shred but don't get the STR part.
Jeez who woulda thought Aspen was on the brink of ruin without Airbnb. I guess someone should let all the billionaires know. Watch out Jackson...
Would you rather have STRs or vacant second homes?
Just go full on Uber wealth utopia billionaire and slaves only. Own it.
Whatever it takes to keep Aspen breathing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
https://www.elev8fraser.com/
Developers be killing is with this style of high density single family. This is 15mins from the ski area. 5mins from Fraser. No yard. Minimal parking. Piss of your deck onto the neighbor's deck.Quote:
1074 GCR 8, Fraser
2,146-square-foot, three-bedroom, 1.75-bath, single-family residence on 0.0248 acres of land.
Seller: Elev8 Property LLC
Buyer: Maggie and Clayton Kenney
Price: $1,223,450
That last sentence is certainly worth somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
0.0248 acres
doh....
Are you against that style? Personally I'm a huge fan of high density close to core areas. Beats the hell out of the 35+ acre ranchette sprawl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
So long as there is adequate parking (underground?) it is all good in my mind.
I am honestly unsure why someone would be against that kind of high density development in recreation-centric areas. I mean, the price is still too high, but we need more 3bd 2bth 2000sf houses with minimal yards IMO. Have a small balcony garden, send the kids to the neighborhood park to play, and trailheads <15mins drive time. Efficient use of land, keep building till supply outstrips demand and prices come back down to earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Everyone thinks they deserve 3000sf on 2 acres in a desireable area for $500k.
New zoning, I'm seeing several SFH lots carved and 4-6 units put up. Great business model I guess, the one closest sold for 1.7 M, was leveled and 2 3/2 duplex condos 2400 sqft, with attached 2/2s behind 1300sqft, and 2 1100sqft small houses in back.
All priced above $750/soft. 2 front u nit's with single car garages both went at 1.7-1.8, the small units priced at 800-900k. Builder had 7.2M total listed on the one 60-100 lot.
800K for a small house in the back yard... with no parking spots. More density but not really affordable housing.