- This topic has 310 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM #633793November 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM #632699
briansd1
GuestBG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.
Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.
What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.
If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.
The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.
Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?
If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.
November 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM #632777briansd1
GuestBG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.
Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.
What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.
If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.
The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.
Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?
If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.
November 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM #633350briansd1
GuestBG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.
Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.
What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.
If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.
The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.
Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?
If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.
November 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM #633478briansd1
GuestBG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.
Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.
What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.
If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.
The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.
Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?
If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.
November 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM #633798briansd1
GuestBG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.
Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.
What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.
If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.
The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.
Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?
If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.
November 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM #632799briansd1
Guest[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.
ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]
As walter said, what did they have to lose?
The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.
In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.
November 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM #632877briansd1
Guest[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.
ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]
As walter said, what did they have to lose?
The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.
In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.
November 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM #633450briansd1
Guest[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.
ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]
As walter said, what did they have to lose?
The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.
In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.
November 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM #633578briansd1
Guest[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.
ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]
As walter said, what did they have to lose?
The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.
In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.
November 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM #633899briansd1
Guest[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.
ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]
As walter said, what did they have to lose?
The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.
In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.
November 22, 2010 at 1:54 PM #632829sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.
The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.
November 22, 2010 at 1:54 PM #632907sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.
The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.
November 22, 2010 at 1:54 PM #633480sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.
The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.
November 22, 2010 at 1:54 PM #633608sdrealtor
ParticipantFWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.
The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.