Real Estate Crash thread

[frorider]

Trigger warning: boomer ‘experts’. https://www.curbed.com/2023/02/boome...-z-buyers.html

But millennial and Gen-Z buyers are leaning harder than ever on their parents for cash at a time when borrowing is expensive and a lack of housing makes cash a valuable way to cut through the competition. According to about a dozen agents I spoke with, dads have an annoying tendency to present themselves as experts on all aspects of home buying based on their own, actually inexpert logic.

[AdironRider]

Trigger warning: boomer ‘experts’. https://www.curbed.com/2023/02/boome...-z-buyers.html

There are few things in the world I care less about than realtor tears. Realtors bitching because they can’t have it the easy way.

If boomer dad is paying for it he’s the actual client, which the article eventually realizes.

[frorider]

OK Boomer. Kidding. I had those same two thoughts reading this.

But the boomer who considers himself a RE genius based on one house purchase, or a ‘contractor’ based on a few home projects, is also a thing.

[Core Shot]

Yeah. I’m gonna buy a $1.7 mil house for my kid
Never.

[::: :::]

The way to create lots of housing is to create more urbanity, more density, meaning build up not out. It is a more efficient use of land, preserves what open space we have and allows both apartment and SFR living to occur somewhere near town, reducing traffic. Maybe even reduced parking for folks who can then commute by mass transit or walk/bike.

SFR developers are salivating at all the news print space dedicated to “loosening restrictive zoning.” The last thing American towns need is unfettered cheapass development throwing down poorly thought out sprawl.

We finally realized that suburbia wasn’t all that nice and started to make cities more people friendly again.

Even though they look around at the open space and ask “Why? When we’ve got space?”, rural towns would benefit by zoning a “high rise” district (could be just 6-7 stories maybe). It would make walkable areas for a high concentration of people.

[AdironRider]

Some would argue "open space" is just thinly veiled nimbyism. Same for conservation easements. It is a major problem in HCOL of living areas.

Don't take this as a strictly pave paradise and put up a parking lot stance, but dont think for a second that the 1% aren't salivating at putting all the undesirables into high rises and keeping the pretty places for themselves for a couple weeks a year when they visit their country estate.

[CarlMega]

Some would argue "open space" is just thinly veiled nimbyism. Same for conservation easements. It is a major problem in HCOL of living areas.

Disagree. Conservation easements devalue and preserve land and contributes to natural habit, ecosystems and cross-cutting aspects quality of life. If you like seeing farms, pastures, wetlands, forests that you'd want to see preserved and potentially transitioned into public land - conservation easements are an excellent tool. Most of my town's parks / public space exists solely because conservation easements made it possible; preserve it, devalue it (tax break incentive for rancher/farmer/owner) - which makes it affordable to be purchased by town or eventually donated... and now they are the defining attribute of our community, available for all to use.

[I Skied Bandini Mountain]

Conservation easements and green belting are a two edged sword. It's great to preserve open spaces, ag and park land but the result is skyrocketing RE values inside the preserved area can result in work force issues, and aging populations which can impact schools and other tax needy infrastructure.

It has to be paired with aggressive infilling and other density increases that are guarantied to fire up NIMBYs.

[rideit]

Some would argue "open space" is just thinly veiled nimbyism. Same for conservation easements. It is a major problem in HCOL of living areas.

Don't take this as a strictly pave paradise and put up a parking lot stance, but dont think for a second that the 1% aren't salivating at putting all the undesirables into high rises and keeping the pretty places for themselves for a couple weeks a year when they visit their country estate.

Devil’s advocate argument: If this hadn’t been a factor (royalty owning and locking up huge tracts of land), there would be absolutely zero open space and ‘natural’ lands left in most of Europe, and in very, very large chunks of the US.
The ultimate look of ‘pro-privatize all the things’ is Texas, which has less than 2% public lands.

[CarlMega]

^just to expand on my point, it's a bit of a chicken and the egg. Desirable, HCOL areas are typically desirable of the qualities that make it appealing: here is is because of the parks, recreation, natural preserved beauty, access. Because those things are the draw, the land they occupy creates scarcity. Which obviously increases costs. Remove the desirability thru development, sure you reduce the scarcity but now it's not so appealing.

Concede it's a balance... but from my perspective, there's a whole lotta land that can be developed and will be developed... preservation is 2ndary thought in most area/communities.

[teleee]

Devil’s advocate argument: If this hadn’t been a factor (royalty owning and locking up huge tracts of land), there would be absolutely zero open space and ‘natural’ lands left in most of Europe, and in very, very large chunks of the US.
The ultimate look of ‘pro-privatize all the things’ is Texas, which has less than 2% public lands.

This times a thousand - I would suggest reading Billionaire Wilderness to see how land trusts are helping out the average person.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[byates1]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qk2rS33f...SIkaIECMiOmarE

Vice news typical vid on housing in Vail. Nothing we don't know.

[SKIP IN7RO]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qk2rS33f...SIkaIECMiOmarE

Vice news typical vid on housing in Vail. Nothing we don't know.

Living in a van at the rest area when it used to be by the river.

[::: :::]

Some would argue "open space" is just thinly veiled nimbyism. Same for conservation easements. It is a major problem in HCOL of living areas.

Don't take this as a strictly pave paradise and put up a parking lot stance, but dont think for a second that the 1% aren't salivating at putting all the undesirables into high rises and keeping the pretty places for themselves for a couple weeks a year when they visit their country estate.

I’m not sure why open spaces are private in your view
Seems overly cynical to me

Devil’s advocate argument: If this hadn’t been a factor (royalty owning and locking up huge tracts of land), there would be absolutely zero open space and ‘natural’ lands left in most of Europe, and in very, very large chunks of the US.
The ultimate look of ‘pro-privatize all the things’ is Texas, which has less than 2% public lands.

Altho I guess we have a long history of it…so not so cynical

I would like to recant and call it “public open space for the benefit of all” [that was my intent & I was not clear]

[Supermoon]

One difference in private land in Europe vs US is that in most places in Europe, much private land is still open to the public for access for things like hiking. In the US private land is fenced and policed.

[Garbowski]

SFR developers are salivating at all the news print space dedicated to “loosening restrictive zoning.” The last thing American towns need is unfettered cheapass development throwing down poorly thought out sprawl.

In my neighborhood in Seattle, there are several lots on major transportation corridors that for decades have been zoned for 6-7 story mixed use buildings sitting vacant for years. CVS bought one and made themselves a single level store and used the other half of the lot for surface parking. Meanwhile, all we hear about it how we need to allow anyone who has ridden the tech wave to get a home depot account and play developer so they can knock down the cheapest single family housing available and build shitbox "luxury" townhomes.

[ötzi]

I lived in Montgomery County, Maryland for a very long time. It has one of the oldest and largest open-space preservation programs in the country with about 150 sq. miles in the Agricultural Preservation Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgo...ltural_Reserve and an equal or greater amount in other preservation programs.

While it hasn't stifled development (population of the county was ~50,000 in 1945 and is over 1.1MM now), it has created a doughnut effect where development skipped over the preserved land into the next counties out from DC and thousands upon thousands of people drive through it on their way to their homes or workplaces.

All these people spending their lives in their cars burning gas to get to former agricultural land further from the city has definitely been an unintended consequence of the program. But at least these folks have nice open land to look at while they sit in traffic.

[Stikki]

One difference in private land in Europe vs US is that in most places in Europe, much private land is still open to the public for access for things like hiking. In the US private land is fenced and policed.

Reminds me of this video from Australia where a guy runs a railroad line that no longer exists. He's hopping over fences and jogging through people's fields, all legal there. At one point the police come to check because he's dressed as an old train driver and carrying a shovel.

[rideit]

This times a thousand - I would suggest reading Billionaire Wilderness to see how land trusts are helping out the average person.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Lol, I have read it, and know a few of the players in that book, sadly.
That is why I phrased it as a ‘devil’s advocate’ question. There are negative consequences to almost any action in this regard, Lassaiz -faire economics, over regulation, under regulation, privatization, etc, etc.
But that’s obvious.

[dunfree]

One difference in private land in Europe vs US is that in most places in Europe, much private land is still open to the public for access for things like hiking. In the US private land is fenced and policed.

In the US people will try to assert that public land - like river bottom is private land - in my experience. And LOL at Adironriders et s troll. Without a rich asshole (Rockefeller) buying up large parts of the precious hole and donating it to the public none of the fucks here would ever have skied or recreated the way they did and do there.

[AdironRider]

Settle down champ, there is obviously a difference between the formation of a national park and some phama-douche getting himself a tax break and preventing any sort of future development around his average ski town mcmansion.

[altasnob]

Settle down champ, there is obviously a difference between the formation of a national park and some phama-douche getting himself a tax break and preventing any sort of future development around his average ski town mcmansion.

Landowners get tax benefits from putting their land in conservation easements in perpetuity. But those landowners would make massively more money if they didn't put the land in conservation easements and instead sold off the land to be developed (or just developed it themselves). In other words, if all you care about is money, it makes much more sense to develop land than conserve it. People chose to conserve the land for reasons other than bottom line. People like AR and telee want these conservation easement tax perks eliminated to make development even more of a financial benefit compared to conservation. That way, Jackson Hole can look like Salt Lake City.

If you get rid of conservation easements tax perks, there would still be rich landowners who refuse to develop their land because they want the land to be conserved. You can't force people to develop their land. Sure, some would chose to develop the land instead of conserving. So there would be more developable land around Jackson Hole than there is now and housing prices would at least temporarily be lowered. But don't kid yourself into thinking a place like Jackson Hole could ever have affordable housing long term. There simply is not that much private land available there. It is surrounded by federal land that can never be developed.

As a tourist who occasionally visits Jackson Hole, I much rather the town remain small, and extremely expensive, and surrounded by non-developed private land that borders the National Parks and National Forests. I am coming to Jackson to visit the federal lands, and don't really give two shits about the livability of the town for the locals who naively demand cheap housing in their little slice of paradise.

[AdironRider]

You are projecting a lot of opinion into my mouth there.

As others have mentioned, there is no silver bullet solution here, but save the altruistic "rich guys are going a great service for humanity by placing their land into a conservation easement" argument as if they aren't the primary beneficiaries.

99% of them are not letting you enjoy that space other than a brief view from the highway on your shitty commute past it so you can serve them a latte. Meanwhile they will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything more than 3 stories in an already developed downtown area, or raise hell when their neighboring ranch decides to build a bunch of housing next to a middle and highschool complex, you know, where development actually makes sense.

[altasnob]

I disagree. I live 1,000 miles from Jackson Hole, yet am just as entitled to the federal lands surrounding the town as someone who lives there. And when I do visit, I get a benefit of those conservation easements surrounding the town, even if I can't visit them (which most you can), because rather than McMansions sitting right across the boundary of the national park there is undeveloped private land. And because conservation easements are in perpetuity, I can rest assured that private land will never be developed. Yes, the McMansion owner who owns the conservation easement gets a benefit because their McMansion is surrounded by conserved land. But I, and everyone who visits, also gets a benefit.

The conservation easements will keep Jackson Hole small, and astronomically expensive, for the rest of time. But I don't care that the town is astronomically expensive because I am only there to recreate on the federal land, my federal land. So long as I can continue to do that, I don't care about housing costs in the town. Not every place on earth can, or should be, turned into a major metro area.

[Core Shot]

JH like most ski towns needs more worker housing.
And normal hotels. But the normal hotels will never work. Motel 6 ain’t what it used to be. Same with cowboy village and elk refuge.

The worker housing is more possible. And needed. Rent restricted housing apartments with annual proof of local working.