Real Estate Crash thread

[pepperdawg]

The rate is the rate. Nobody giving you a new loan cares about your rate on your old loan.

this

[alpinevibes]

Aspen subsidizes people making up to $307,650 for a six person household. One way Aspen pays for this subsidy is a .45% sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive as the poor pay disproportionately more than the rich. So if you are poor, and aren't one of the lucky lotto winners, you are really screwed. This sales tax also incentivizes people to drive out of the county to do their shopping.

Aspen also funds this subsidy with a 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax. This tax drives up overall free-market housing costs. So again, if you are poor and don't win the lotto, you are even more screwed. It also disincentivizes selling your house, so people are more likely to just stay put than sell. And if forces newcomers to disproportionately pay for the affordable housing, even though long time locals benefit from the program as well (that is probably by design).

Top of the morning, gov! Aspen provides a "food sales tax" reimbursement of $55 per year per local resident that we can all apply for. I certainly spend less than $11,000 locally and the $220 back in my pocket is a generous, so no big loss there.

Sure, the RETT is not everyone's cup of tea, but seriously "it forces newcomers to disproportionately pay for the affordable housing" You really shedding tears for the .001%? 2022 annual numbers for Aspen looked about like: Aspen single-family home average: $17.8M/$2,830 sf. Aspen Condo average: $4.6M/$2,862 sf. So not a lot of tears from sellers (or buyers) lately and the market is so SO beyond the realm of a normal working person, that that 1.5% is not really ruining anyone's financial or personal outcomes. Really anyone who has bought in Aspen in the last 5 years, let alone 10-20+ years is walking away with piles of cash, regardless of their position in the free market real estate spectrum. But I forget that you're a staunch free market capitalist, protecting the rights and pocket books of all people - despite what profits they may have grifted from you. God forbid the 1% help subsidize employing the businesses they frequent and utilize when they vacation to their 5th home here.

Alpinevibes, I was wrong about one thing, I thought only uber-liberal, la la land Aspen could subsidize people making way more than the median income. Well, looks like Seattle will pass their Social Housing initiative. It's a little confusing how this program is going to play out but basically, there is a quasi-government entity created who will build, or buy existing housing and reserve a portion of that housing for low income. The program will subsidize people making up to 120% of the area median income (currently $144,000 for a family of four). The idea is the profits from the units paying market rent will allow the lower income units to be subsidized. The proponents think they can do all this without public funds. I have serious doubts about that, mainly because I have little faith in the bureaucratic quagmire that is City of Seattle.

I am not as against public housing in Seattle as in a place like Aspen because I think people should live in places like Seattle and not Aspen. It will be interesting to see how this social housing program plays out but I envision it will make free-market housing and cost of living in Seattle more expensive than everywhere else in the region (because I believe this subsidized housing will have to be funded by City of Seattle tax dollars, driving up the cost of living in Seattle). The latest demographic trends show people fleeing Seattle for the surrounding metro areas, and this will be exasperated. Public schools are closing in Seattle where as they are booming in places like Tacoma, which is cheap by comparison.

Right, so I left Seattle in 2008 (my family has been there for over a 100 years...) and ended up in Aspen a few years later. Why shouldn't I live here? Why SHOULD I have stayed in Seattle? Who SHOULD live in Aspen???

[Foggy_Goggles]

Honest question about the direction and future of what may be called "Desirable Locations".

Is is a for gone conclusion that market rate housing will be bid up to the point where is can only be afforded by a small minority?

Or are there opportunities where places like Granby, Victor, Gypsum, Hayden and so on can be guided in the direction of affordability?

Aspen is only a "great model" is you like the result. From my Flat Brimmed 850 Turbo High Horse, I don't live that view.

Sure, everyone should pay the scenery tax, but I'm rallying against the economic end game where it's just the uber wealthy and the servant class who's only way to make it is overt local subsidy.

That's not a life for me. Which isn't to say I critical of others that chose that course, simply that I think that deserves to be pretty high on the bullet points of the conversation.

[liv2ski]

Early and no coffee in me yet, but how do you/we prevent market forces from making prices go up and up? I am astounded by the obvious wealth out there, as my hood is loaded with wealthy people. Plenty of people make bank and are in the drivers seat. Everyone else is doing the best they can.

[fastfred]

To



Right, so I left Seattle in 2008 (my family has been there for over a 100 years...) and ended up in Aspen a few years later. Why shouldn't I live here? Why SHOULD I have stayed in Seattle? Who SHOULD live in Aspen???

question/statement of the day

WHO SHOULD?
who choses?

everyone assumes that they can get that ski in ski out condo walk to town to party and pay pennies on the dollar for rent/purchase price
people who live in ski towns give up lots to gain lots of other things in life not one person no matter how much money they have coasts around town
the churn and burn of people is amazing very very few make it 10 years or a lifetime, hell even that 1-3 year range is about average

people are really good at shunning others once you have your piece of the pie
admission can't just be bought

[AdironRider]

The problem is two bit nimby's that cant hang financially with the big dogs in Winter Park, Jackson, Vail or Steamboat try and pull the exact same shit.

Ala Cindy Riegel in Victor, who hasn't met a single new build she isn't against. She tried to put a years long moratorium on building permits in Teton County ID during Covid. Has opposed every single new development after that initiative failed, and is now trying to stifle development in an entirely different state. She actually proposed putting county sheriffs at the county line of every route into Teton Valley to keep anyone who didn't already live there out. This was in a public meeting, and she wasn't laughed out of town!

That all said, I don't think you can go around and pick winner and loser towns like that and overrule local control. There are plenty of places in the country that will welcome you with open arms, and you can live affordably. There is a distinct problem of entitlement when it comes to living in certain places. Yeah, Aspen is great, but you aren't going to be able to house a billion people there so at some point a capacity is reached and people need to deal with the expense that results from that.

That also said, none of these places have reached any sort of reasonable capacity level. Victor ID could quadruple in size and be just fine. But then you get the Riegel's of the world who want to recreate their own little two bit version of Jackson Hole and here you are, stuck in some vicious chicken and egg housing scenario.

[Name Redacted]

Summit County finally made a decision on STR regs.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sum...ng-initiative/

[altasnob]

Who SHOULD live in Aspen???

I can tell you who does live in Aspen. Super wealthy. People like fastfred and Coreshot who are older and got in early. And younger newcomers like alpine who won the public housing lotto. You can no longer get in early so it is now only super wealthy and lotto winners who can live there.

Don't take this personal alpine. I tip my hat to you. I had no idea Aspen was subsidizing people making more than median income to come live there. Had I known that, I probably would have tried to move there. I'll be sure to steer my kids in that direction, and if they win the lotto, I can crash at their pad. I'll be sure to properly shield any inheritance they may get, so on paper they still appear poor enough to qualify. All completely legal and if it is not illegal, you can assume everyone is doing this.

[altasnob]

people who live in ski towns give up lots to gain lots of other things in life

People claim the reason not everyone lives in ski towns is the cold, or the tourists, ect. But really, it WAS because they had a job in a city they had to show up to in person. But now they no longer need to show up in person anymore. The effect of remote work on ski towns can't be overstated. Tahoe's real estate prices have doubled, and even tripled in some places, in the last couple years becuase of all the work from homers moving in. Superstar cities like Seattle and San Francisco are still the most expensive places in the country, yet they are filled with homeless, petty crime is off the chart, cops have basically given up, and the glass store fronts have been replaced with plywood becuase of repeated break ins. Why would anyone voluntarily chose to live in these expensive locals when their employer no longer requires them to? And while people are afraid to move to the middle of now where, ski towns are "quasi rural" and feel similar to a San Francisco suburb; wealthy, safe, clean, and white. So I expect the populations of these resort towns to explode in the coming years.

[altasnob]

Victor ID could quadruple in size and be just fine.

They have the developable land there to quadruple in size. But could you imagine the traffic on Teton Pass on a powder day? You guys are treating resort communities like cities, naively believing you can create some utopian paradise in the mountains where all are welcome. The reason I live in a city is when a million new people move into my neighborhood, I don't bat an eye. Pack em in. The more people, the more vibrant our economy becomes, the more sustainable public transit becomes. The more dense and walkable/bikable my neighborhood becomes. But if I lived in Victor and a million people move in, I would be really depressed. There are places we want people to move to, and places we don't.

[AdironRider]

And you, the guy who lives 1000 miles away in a different city/state, don't get to be the arbiter of what the local community of Victor would like to do in terms of development.

[fastfred]

Summit County finally made a decision on STR regs.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sum...ng-initiative/

Epic fail

[snapt]

The problem is two bit nimby's that cant hang financially with the big dogs in Winter Park, Jackson, Vail or Steamboat try and pull the exact same shit.

Ala Cindy Riegel in Victor, who hasn't met a single new build she isn't against. She tried to put a years long moratorium on building permits in Teton County ID during Covid. Has opposed every single new development after that initiative failed, and is now trying to stifle development in an entirely different state. She actually proposed putting county sheriffs at the county line of every route into Teton Valley to keep anyone who didn't already live there out. This was in a public meeting, and she wasn't laughed out of town!

That all said, I don't think you can go around and pick winner and loser towns like that and overrule local control. There are plenty of places in the country that will welcome you with open arms, and you can live affordably. There is a distinct problem of entitlement when it comes to living in certain places. Yeah, Aspen is great, but you aren't going to be able to house a billion people there so at some point a capacity is reached and people need to deal with the expense that results from that.

That also said, none of these places have reached any sort of reasonable capacity level. Victor ID could quadruple in size and be just fine. But then you get the Riegel's of the world who want to recreate their own little two bit version of Jackson Hole and here you are, stuck in some vicious chicken and egg housing scenario.

If there's one thing I learned from my decade in Teton Valley, it's that local politics have a much more direct effect on daily life than national level. Vote, attend meetings, make comments, just because you align with somebody politically doesn't mean they have your best interest, or that of the community, in mind.

[altasnob]

And you, the guy who lives 1000 miles away in a different city/state, don't get to be the arbiter of what the local community of Victor would like to do in terms of development.

As I have said before, I don't have any voting rights in that community I live 1,000 miles away from. But that's why I like conservation easements so much. It allows billionaires 1,000 miles away to purchase up all the developable land in Teton Valley and remove that land from development forever. Paul Allen (was a Seattle resident) owned a ranch in Teton Valley, which I assume was surrounded by conservation easements. So Paul Allen WAS the arbiter of how the area is developed even though he didn't live there.

[ColMan]

People claim the reason not everyone lives in ski towns is the cold, or the tourists, ect. But really, it WAS because they had a job in a city they had to show up to in person. But now they no longer need to show up in person anymore. The effect of remote work on ski towns can't be overstated.

Don't discount the affect by companies who are now pushing hard to bring folks back into the office. They have massive office buildings sitting empty. Hybrid is the new remote in a lot of cases. Folks are scrambling to figure out how to be in the office 3 days a week after having moved hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the nearest office. Should be interesting. I don't think it's going to make a big dent in the remote worker pressure on ski towns, but we'll see.

[Percy Rideout]

As I have said before, I don't have any voting rights in that community I live 1,000 miles away from. But that's why I like conservation easements so much. It allows billionaires 1,000 miles away to purchase up all the developable land in Teton Valley and remove that land from development forever. Paul Allen (was a Seattle resident) owned a ranch in Teton Valley, which I assume was surrounded by conservation easements. So Paul Allen WAS the arbiter of how the area is developed even though he didn't live there.

Well, yeah. When you have that kind of money, it magically opens doors that the average american will never see. Voter registration be damned. Here it is playing out in the RFV a few years back.

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/wexn...rea-land-swap/

[altasnob]

Hybrid is the new remote in a lot of cases. Folks are scrambling to figure out how to be in the office 3 days a week

Ya, hybrid seems to be more common than full remote. But there are plenty of full remote as well. And even if you have to come to Denver, or Salt Lake, two days a week, you can still live in Aspen or Denver and make the weekly trek. Have a crash pad in the city or just stay in a hotel. A lot of times, these resort towns are actually more affordable than these expensive cities. My friend who does storm water runoff at SeaTac airport in Seattle is seriously contemplating moving to Teton Valley as there are direct flights from Jackson to Seattle. He would just fly in for the occasional days he needs to be on site.

They have massive office buildings sitting empty.

Not for long. Their leases are expiring and at least in Seattle, it seems like every day I read about how some tech company who not renewing their office lease.

[alpinevibes]

I can tell you who does live in Aspen. Super wealthy. People like fastfred and Coreshot who are older and got in early. And younger newcomers like alpine who won the public housing lotto. You can no longer get in early so it is now only super wealthy and lotto winners who can live there.

Don't take this personal alpine. I tip my hat to you. I had no idea Aspen was subsidizing people making more than median income to come live there. Had I known that, I probably would have tried to move there. I'll be sure to steer my kids in that direction, and if they win the lotto, I can crash at their pad. I'll be sure to properly shield any inheritance they may get, so on paper they still appear poor enough to qualify. All completely legal and if it is not illegal, you can assume everyone is doing this.

Full time residents certainly skew wealthy/educated/well-off families/etc etc, but we're just the vanguard of most every other ski/resort town - more disparate, more top-end, but also a substantial middle class (regardless of how you want to skewer the income/subsidized reality). I agree that this is now a much harder place to get to/settle in, but you can get in early if you have the right skill set: many employers have housing and can assist someone getting here, but the long-term stability is the battle.

People claim the reason not everyone lives in ski towns is the cold, or the tourists, ect. But really, it WAS because they had a job in a city they had to show up to in person. But now they no longer need to show up in person anymore. The effect of remote work on ski towns can't be overstated. Tahoe's real estate prices have doubled, and even tripled in some places, in the last couple years becuase of all the work from homers moving in.

Who is claiming that? Cold? Tourists? That's laughable, surface-level bullshit that someone might mention in passing to avoid their real reason for not coming or not staying.

I've never heard that, having lived in two ski towns and spent the last 15 years, primarily, around them. Sure, you make your life choices based on what matters to you: financial/career stability, ability to own the "right" house, space, access, community, amenities. Ultimately people don't move/live/stay in a ski town because it doesn't work for their matrix of the aforementioned factors. Maybe they can't hack it, maybe they don't care enough; but at the end of the day you have to be willing to make sacrifices to pursue the life you want.

It's relatively easy to live in a city/suburb with lots of options for your future - if that is what is important to you. But if you specifically don't want to be in a city or god forbid you desire to live in the mountains [and pass the Solomon Judgement, carried out by the remote arbiters of your fate], it may require a financial sacrifice, career sacrifice, family/relationship sacrifices, etc - THAT's what determines if you try or not, regardless of your income level. Longer term: those things weigh heavily on if you stay or not, along with your ability to work, adapt, likely some luck with housing and ideally a relationship to keep you sane.

Superstar cities like Seattle and San Francisco are still the most expensive places in the country, yet they are filled with homeless, petty crime is off the chart, cops have basically given up, and the glass store fronts have been replaced with plywood becuase of repeated break ins. Why would anyone voluntarily chose to live in these expensive locals when their employer no longer requires them to? And while people are afraid to move to the middle of now where, ski towns are "quasi rural" and feel similar to a San Francisco suburb; wealthy, safe, clean, and white. So I expect the populations of these resort towns to explode in the coming years.

Heh. Sounds like you've got KOMO on in the background all day. Sure, the "LiBeRaL" hellscapes of the west coast have a lot of issues (and are way worse than 20+ years ago), but pretending that they are "filled with homeless" is disingenuous to the reality. Ski towns are white, wealthy, safe and clean, but per your desires: there's not much space left, it's super expensive to build anything and the growth will not go on, uninhibited, despite your fever dreams of tract neighborhoods overrunning protected lands.

They have the developable land there to quadruple in size. But could you imagine the traffic on Teton Pass on a powder day? You guys are treating resort communities like cities, naively believing you can create some utopian paradise in the mountains where all are welcome. The reason I live in a city is when a million new people move into my neighborhood, I don't bat an eye. Pack em in. The more people, the more vibrant our economy becomes, the more sustainable public transit becomes. The more dense and walkable/bikable my neighborhood becomes. But if I lived in Victor and a million people move in, I would be really depressed. There are places we want people to move to, and places we don't.

Aspen was reinvigorated and reclaimed it's existence partially through the concept of being a model, utopian type place. A lot of the policies and components of it's culture/community were offshoots of those original ideals, a lot of which harken back to the basic concept of the resort/spa hotels of the alps. Per your market-driven desires, all are not flat-out welcome. The cost of living and lack of options regulates the inflow, but where programs have been established to allow working people to remain living in those communities: they have been able to maintain semblance of a "local" community, despite the RE prices and cost of living accelerating well beyond the income gains.

And no, total bullshit: if a million people moved to Tacoma and your neighborhood, you wouldn't be jumping for joy with the traffic, pollution, lack of parking, competition, cost of living pressures, increased hOmElEsS, erasure of traditions, established businesses, etc etc. Both sides of my family have been in Ballard for about 100 years: no one in Ballard, besides the developers, are happy with the gentrification, growth, apartment buildings and slow erosion of the neighborhood's unique attributes and traditions.

How many more rounds you want to go on all this? I've got a lot of bait and you seem to be eager to keep biting.

[fastfred]

Don't discount the affect by companies who are now pushing hard to bring folks back into the office. They have massive office buildings sitting empty. Hybrid is the new remote in a lot of cases. Folks are scrambling to figure out how to be in the office 3 days a week after having moved hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the nearest office. Should be interesting. I don't think it's going to make a big dent in the remote worker pressure on ski towns, but we'll see.

remote workers in a ski town has always been a thing its nothing new pilots tech workers fire fighters they have all been doing the remote worker ski town resident thing for decades upon decades
well the only thing new is that the numbers grew during covid
most of them were not going to last anyways after a few years of being cold the grind of the tourons the lack of being surrounded by bland tech people like themselves they'd wash out after awhile

so if attaining year round decades long ski town living isn't working out for someone they go for the low hanging fruit like WFH and STR's it's comical

[altasnob]

it may require a financial sacrifice

This may have been the case, but not anymore. I know a slew of people moving to Mazama, five hours from Seattle, who make their money in Seattle. It is much, much, easier today to make city money living in resort towns.

Heh. Sounds like you've got KOMO on in the background all day. Sure, the "LiBeRaL" hellscapes of the west coast have a lot of issues (and are way worse than 20+ years ago), but pretending that they are "filled with homeless" is disingenuous to the reality.

Go ask your brother in Shoreline if he goes to downtown Seattle and if so, what he thinks of it. It really is a fucked up situation there. Not in the neighborhoods but downtown is really fucked. Portland is even worse. When I read articles (in the Seattle Times, I don't read/watch KOMO) saying Seattle is having to close schools due to declining enrollment, that is not good. California and NY lost more people than any other state in the last year. Do I think Seattle will become the next Detroit? Hell no. The natural environment is a desirable place and will continue to attract people, just like CA. But it shows that regulation and taxing does have a limit, particularly now that people can move anywhere on Earth and still keep their job.

And no, total bullshit: if a million people moved to Tacoma and your neighborhood, you wouldn't be jumping for joy with the traffic, pollution, lack of parking, competition, cost of living pressures, increased hOmElEsS, erasure of traditions, established businesses, etc etc.

There's 4 million in Seattle metro today. That is expected to clime to 6 million by 2050. Tacoma and Pierce County will see the brunt of this growth as this is where there is still developable land. Why do you think all the proposals for a new airport were in Pierce and Thurston Counties?

I don't have to live where I do. I could move anywhere in WA. I chose to live here. If the extra 2 million who will be moving here bugged me, I would move. I look forward to the Tokyofication of the Puget Sound.

[Core Shot]

Epic fail

Indeed.

Commissioners approved a booking limit of 35, which they said aligned closely with an earlier proposal to limit the number of stays to 135 nights per year.

That’s not the same. Fucking idiots.

Should be a one week minimum. Less wear and tear on the units and the neighbors. The 135 should be enough.

Also. The current permits are way more than the new limits.
So I guess they’re all grandfathered. Which doesn’t help until they sell.
And then when they sell the buyer might not pay as much since there’s no STR for the buyer. So then sue for damages?

[Kevo]

Boise real estate is tanking. Sale prices of SFHs are down to $500k from $600k last spring.


SLC is tanking more. Sale prices of SFHs are down to low $500s from $700k last spring-


Data is from Redfin.

IMHO, they both have a long way to fall. CPI is up again. Wholesale inflation is up again. Rates need to rise. I think a lot of people who bought in the past couple years are going to be seriously underwater for a long time.

[snapt]

Paul Allen (was a Seattle resident) owned a ranch in Teton Valley, which I assume was surrounded by conservation easements. So Paul Allen WAS the arbiter of how the area is developed even though he didn't live there.

There's some irony in the number of Elk, wolves and other critters his ranch hands poached on Dry Ridge over the years.

[fastfred]

Indeed.

Commissioners approved a booking limit of 35, which they said aligned closely with an earlier proposal to limit the number of stays to 135 nights per year.

That’s not the same. Fucking idiots.

Should be a one week minimum. Less wear and tear on the units and the neighbors. The 135 should be enough.

Also. The current permits are way more than the new limits.
So I guess they’re all grandfathered. Which doesn’t help until they sell.
And then when they sell the buyer might not pay as much since there’s no STR for the buyer. So then sue for damages?

there are a few lawsuits being talked about but nothing is gaining ground right now
each of the commissioners have never worked a real job in their entire life they have been living on handouts and tax dollars
the only things that matter to them are "green" "environment" "local housing crisis" meanwhile roads are falling apart and pressing issues are ignored while growth is given endless opportunities with no regards to impacts
one of the people in the article was sleeping with their supervisor for a number of years

it's a junk show

everything is grandfathered, the licenses all expire at some point, not sure if when they expire they will not be renewed at least with the county the town will renew and you get on a waiting list to get a new one

[yeahman]

Not for long. Their leases are expiring and at least in Seattle, it seems like every day I read about how some tech company who not renewing their office lease.

They'll be turning those office buildings into apartments and condos soon.