- This topic has 232 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
Aecetia.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM #98540November 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM #98552
stansd
ParticipantI got to spend some time with my brother this weekend. He makes about 60K/year managing a branch for Enterprise Rent-a-Car. He works his ass off in what is at this point a dead end job and can barely pay the rent on his 300K (yes, he overpaid and made a dumb decision), 2BR condo in a neighborhood that could marginally be called the hood. His wife waits tables on the weekends and makes 10-12K/year to supplement while taking care of their daughter. They are scared to have a second because they know they can’t hold it together with two kids and two jobs.
My point: Even good people with decent jobs, a college education, and who are working their butts off can’t make it around here. These are also the very types of people who get displaced by social wellfare programs like this.
My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. He’s a fantastic guy personally, but can’t hold it together economically. Why on earth is the government subsidizing him and the gadener while simultaneously pushing guys like my brother either out of the market, or into doing asinine things like paying 300k for a 2BR condo that’s 20 years old in the hood.
Theirs a shortage of land around here, and prices have to settle above the national average given the desirability of the area. That said, let the market do it’s work-don’t reward the irresponsible while duly penalizing the responsible with higher property prices and higher taxes.
Stan
November 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM #98559ParticipantI got to spend some time with my brother this weekend. He makes about 60K/year managing a branch for Enterprise Rent-a-Car. He works his ass off in what is at this point a dead end job and can barely pay the rent on his 300K (yes, he overpaid and made a dumb decision), 2BR condo in a neighborhood that could marginally be called the hood. His wife waits tables on the weekends and makes 10-12K/year to supplement while taking care of their daughter. They are scared to have a second because they know they can’t hold it together with two kids and two jobs.
My point: Even good people with decent jobs, a college education, and who are working their butts off can’t make it around here. These are also the very types of people who get displaced by social wellfare programs like this.
My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. He’s a fantastic guy personally, but can’t hold it together economically. Why on earth is the government subsidizing him and the gadener while simultaneously pushing guys like my brother either out of the market, or into doing asinine things like paying 300k for a 2BR condo that’s 20 years old in the hood.
Theirs a shortage of land around here, and prices have to settle above the national average given the desirability of the area. That said, let the market do it’s work-don’t reward the irresponsible while duly penalizing the responsible with higher property prices and higher taxes.
Stan
November 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM #98484drunkle
Participant“The lending package that enabled the family to buy the home was a patchwork of fixed-rate loans, grants for low-income buyers and city redevelopment funds. ”
300k home
30k stated income97/3 fha loan
low income program, 5k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/nofaprograms.pdfredevelopment funds 5-30k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fshomeheights.pdfresults at best in a 270k price (not including whatever ancillary costs, agent fees, broker, etc).
at 6%, that’s some 1350/mo. 30k/year with 5 exemptions… dunno? 2500/mo in pocket? his wife probably works too…
it’s close, i wouldn’t do it, especially 300k purchase price for city heights. but doable and not ridiculously “socialized”.
November 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM #98544Participant“The lending package that enabled the family to buy the home was a patchwork of fixed-rate loans, grants for low-income buyers and city redevelopment funds. ”
300k home
30k stated income97/3 fha loan
low income program, 5k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/nofaprograms.pdfredevelopment funds 5-30k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fshomeheights.pdfresults at best in a 270k price (not including whatever ancillary costs, agent fees, broker, etc).
at 6%, that’s some 1350/mo. 30k/year with 5 exemptions… dunno? 2500/mo in pocket? his wife probably works too…
it’s close, i wouldn’t do it, especially 300k purchase price for city heights. but doable and not ridiculously “socialized”.
November 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM #98557Participant“The lending package that enabled the family to buy the home was a patchwork of fixed-rate loans, grants for low-income buyers and city redevelopment funds. ”
300k home
30k stated income97/3 fha loan
low income program, 5k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/nofaprograms.pdfredevelopment funds 5-30k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fshomeheights.pdfresults at best in a 270k price (not including whatever ancillary costs, agent fees, broker, etc).
at 6%, that’s some 1350/mo. 30k/year with 5 exemptions… dunno? 2500/mo in pocket? his wife probably works too…
it’s close, i wouldn’t do it, especially 300k purchase price for city heights. but doable and not ridiculously “socialized”.
November 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM #98563Participant“The lending package that enabled the family to buy the home was a patchwork of fixed-rate loans, grants for low-income buyers and city redevelopment funds. ”
300k home
30k stated income97/3 fha loan
low income program, 5k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/nofaprograms.pdfredevelopment funds 5-30k
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fshomeheights.pdfresults at best in a 270k price (not including whatever ancillary costs, agent fees, broker, etc).
at 6%, that’s some 1350/mo. 30k/year with 5 exemptions… dunno? 2500/mo in pocket? his wife probably works too…
it’s close, i wouldn’t do it, especially 300k purchase price for city heights. but doable and not ridiculously “socialized”.
November 11, 2007 at 3:22 PM #98488Participant“My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. ”
what program? which condos? when did he buy?
November 11, 2007 at 3:22 PM #98548Participant“My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. ”
what program? which condos? when did he buy?
November 11, 2007 at 3:22 PM #98562Participant“My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. ”
what program? which condos? when did he buy?
November 11, 2007 at 3:22 PM #98566Participant“My other friend (SDSU graduate) has quit four different jobs in three years, has three kids, and bought a 3BR condo in Carmel Valley for a little over 100K under a low income progam. ”
what program? which condos? when did he buy?
November 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM #98491Deserted
ParticipantThis is no place for personal attacks.
The “ad hominem” attack is used only when you have nothing of value left to argue. And the racist remarks by some posters are beneath contempt.
I believe that the program cited in the article is fundamentally flawed. It violates basic economic law and logic. In the short-term it may help some families purchase some houses. In the long-term it will perpetuate overpriced housing and lead to a continuation of the very problem that it seeks to mitigate. By overpricing the market, this prevents other potential home buyers from purchasing. Over time, this program will have an opposite effect from that desired.
With certain extraordinary exceptions, whenever the government or some other outside entity attempts to control, manipulate, or otherwise “correct” a free market, it inevitably leads to unintended consequences — often the direct opposite of those intended.
One of the great ongoing real estate market disruptions is the mortgage interest deduction. When all other interest was taken off the list of allowed deductions in the 1986 “Tax Simplification Act” (a typical government sick joke, since it would be better termed the “CPA Full-employment Act”), the mortgage interest deduction was the only one left standing. Why? Hmmm…. realtors donate more money to politicians than almost any other group. What a coincidence! And so, in typical fashion, this law which was originally intended to make home ownership more affordable has lead to escalation in housing prices making home ownership less affordable.
Well, I didn’t tag myself contrarian for nothing.
November 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM #98554ParticipantThis is no place for personal attacks.
The “ad hominem” attack is used only when you have nothing of value left to argue. And the racist remarks by some posters are beneath contempt.
I believe that the program cited in the article is fundamentally flawed. It violates basic economic law and logic. In the short-term it may help some families purchase some houses. In the long-term it will perpetuate overpriced housing and lead to a continuation of the very problem that it seeks to mitigate. By overpricing the market, this prevents other potential home buyers from purchasing. Over time, this program will have an opposite effect from that desired.
With certain extraordinary exceptions, whenever the government or some other outside entity attempts to control, manipulate, or otherwise “correct” a free market, it inevitably leads to unintended consequences — often the direct opposite of those intended.
One of the great ongoing real estate market disruptions is the mortgage interest deduction. When all other interest was taken off the list of allowed deductions in the 1986 “Tax Simplification Act” (a typical government sick joke, since it would be better termed the “CPA Full-employment Act”), the mortgage interest deduction was the only one left standing. Why? Hmmm…. realtors donate more money to politicians than almost any other group. What a coincidence! And so, in typical fashion, this law which was originally intended to make home ownership more affordable has lead to escalation in housing prices making home ownership less affordable.
Well, I didn’t tag myself contrarian for nothing.
November 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM #98565ParticipantThis is no place for personal attacks.
The “ad hominem” attack is used only when you have nothing of value left to argue. And the racist remarks by some posters are beneath contempt.
I believe that the program cited in the article is fundamentally flawed. It violates basic economic law and logic. In the short-term it may help some families purchase some houses. In the long-term it will perpetuate overpriced housing and lead to a continuation of the very problem that it seeks to mitigate. By overpricing the market, this prevents other potential home buyers from purchasing. Over time, this program will have an opposite effect from that desired.
With certain extraordinary exceptions, whenever the government or some other outside entity attempts to control, manipulate, or otherwise “correct” a free market, it inevitably leads to unintended consequences — often the direct opposite of those intended.
One of the great ongoing real estate market disruptions is the mortgage interest deduction. When all other interest was taken off the list of allowed deductions in the 1986 “Tax Simplification Act” (a typical government sick joke, since it would be better termed the “CPA Full-employment Act”), the mortgage interest deduction was the only one left standing. Why? Hmmm…. realtors donate more money to politicians than almost any other group. What a coincidence! And so, in typical fashion, this law which was originally intended to make home ownership more affordable has lead to escalation in housing prices making home ownership less affordable.
Well, I didn’t tag myself contrarian for nothing.
November 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM #98571ParticipantThis is no place for personal attacks.
The “ad hominem” attack is used only when you have nothing of value left to argue. And the racist remarks by some posters are beneath contempt.
I believe that the program cited in the article is fundamentally flawed. It violates basic economic law and logic. In the short-term it may help some families purchase some houses. In the long-term it will perpetuate overpriced housing and lead to a continuation of the very problem that it seeks to mitigate. By overpricing the market, this prevents other potential home buyers from purchasing. Over time, this program will have an opposite effect from that desired.
With certain extraordinary exceptions, whenever the government or some other outside entity attempts to control, manipulate, or otherwise “correct” a free market, it inevitably leads to unintended consequences — often the direct opposite of those intended.
One of the great ongoing real estate market disruptions is the mortgage interest deduction. When all other interest was taken off the list of allowed deductions in the 1986 “Tax Simplification Act” (a typical government sick joke, since it would be better termed the “CPA Full-employment Act”), the mortgage interest deduction was the only one left standing. Why? Hmmm…. realtors donate more money to politicians than almost any other group. What a coincidence! And so, in typical fashion, this law which was originally intended to make home ownership more affordable has lead to escalation in housing prices making home ownership less affordable.
Well, I didn’t tag myself contrarian for nothing.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.