5 ms·

[One of the co-founders of Landed]. This post doesn't really talk much about what we do. What we do is run down payment assistance programs for private schools

by jra6 10y ago

[One of the co-founders of Landed]. This post doesn't really talk much about what we do. What we do is run down payment assistance programs for private schools and public school districts to help their teachers become financially secure near the communities they serve. That's a mouthful! The economic problem here is that if you're a median wage household in a city like SF, NY, DC, etc. you will struggle to save enough money to make a conforming down payment while paying rent. Most of our teachers get trapped in a cycle of their wages increasing at the exact rate of their household expenses. Homeownership in cities is not for everybody. But for those community members who are making a very long-term commitment to a place with very predictable salary schedules, locking in your housing payments is an important part of your security. In the absence of rent controls (which we can talk about at length on why they are often misguided), homeownership is the only form of insurance on rising housing costs. As an owner (especially in California thanks to Prop13), you can be protected from the failure of all levels of government to build sufficient housing for rising economic activity in cities.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sjg007 10y ago
Well good luck. Schools have a lot of land but won't build housing on them. You can get mortgages with 3% down that aren't FHA to buy but you can't qualify for more than the appraised value. And you still have all cash buyers.
greyhoundmatt 10y ago
The fact that you are praising Prop 13, which is a large factor in the unequal funding of schools and has exacerbated the exact problems that you refer to in your blog post, is supremely troubling. I'd welcome a more in depth explanation on your thoughts on Prop 13.
- jra6 10y ago
  I think when I came to California, I shared your position on Prop13... namely that it was a unnecessary market distortion that distributed wealth from the new to the old that ultimately worked against the apparent intent of the legislation (to make California more affordable). I've sinced developed a more nuanced view. I believe Prop13 for owner-occupied, primary residences is perhaps flawed, but something I believe two reasonable people can disagree on (happy to explain more fully). I believe Prop13 for anything else has absolutely no rational justification and needs to be overturned at the earliest opportunity.
  - greyhoundmatt 10y ago
    So, what's your take then on how Prop 13 affected 2 very different areas discussed in your own blog post: Marin on one hand and Oakland on the other? I'm willing to grant you a nuanced understanding, but again, you are celebrating one of the very things that worsened the situation that you are trying to solve. The state guarantees minimum funding, but districts make the rest up from property taxes, and fundraising. You can't tell me that Marin and Oakland are anywhere near equivalent in either of those cases. Side question: I'm curious to where you were educated and how that system was funded as opposed to how California does it?
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    I'll offer my view. First, I absolutely agree that it should have been limited to primary residences -- extending it to rental and commercial property is lunacy that wasn't even justified by the primary selling point (keeping fixed-income seniors in their homes). Secondly, I contend that the limit should never have been on the amount of tax levied, only on the amount of tax that actually had to be paid in a given year. The locality would receive a lien on the balance which would be paid only when the property was sold. (The lien could also be capped at 1/3 the selling price, to answer objections that it might become so large as to make it uneconomic to sell the property at all. I suggest this because whenever I float this proposal on HN, someone comes along and fixates on that possibility, which is actually extremely unlikely; the market would have to tank very severely for this cap to come into play.) This way, fixed-income seniors could stay in their homes just as long as Prop. 13 allows them to, but localities would still get their money.
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
So, basically, your "mission" is to lock in the price of monthly housing payments for median wage households in top-tier cities? Meh. If software developers making well over $100k a year struggle with home ownership in SF, how does it make sense for a teacher to finance such debt? I assume you don't consider this a problem in locations where USDA mortgages are available?

by jra6 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sjg007 10y ago

Well good luck. Schools have a lot of land but won't build housing on them. You can get mortgages with 3% down that aren't FHA to buy but you can't qualify for more than the appraised value. And you still have all cash buyers.

greyhoundmatt 10y ago

The fact that you are praising Prop 13, which is a large factor in the unequal funding of schools and has exacerbated the exact problems that you refer to in your blog post, is supremely troubling. I'd welcome a more in depth explanation on your thoughts on Prop 13.

jra6 10y ago
I think when I came to California, I shared your position on Prop13... namely that it was a unnecessary market distortion that distributed wealth from the new to the old that ultimately worked against the apparent intent of the legislation (to make California more affordable). I've sinced developed a more nuanced view. I believe Prop13 for owner-occupied, primary residences is perhaps flawed, but something I believe two reasonable people can disagree on (happy to explain more fully). I believe Prop13 for anything else has absolutely no rational justification and needs to be overturned at the earliest opportunity.
- greyhoundmatt 10y ago
  So, what's your take then on how Prop 13 affected 2 very different areas discussed in your own blog post: Marin on one hand and Oakland on the other? I'm willing to grant you a nuanced understanding, but again, you are celebrating one of the very things that worsened the situation that you are trying to solve. The state guarantees minimum funding, but districts make the rest up from property taxes, and fundraising. You can't tell me that Marin and Oakland are anywhere near equivalent in either of those cases. Side question: I'm curious to where you were educated and how that system was funded as opposed to how California does it?
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  I'll offer my view. First, I absolutely agree that it should have been limited to primary residences -- extending it to rental and commercial property is lunacy that wasn't even justified by the primary selling point (keeping fixed-income seniors in their homes). Secondly, I contend that the limit should never have been on the amount of tax levied, only on the amount of tax that actually had to be paid in a given year. The locality would receive a lien on the balance which would be paid only when the property was sold. (The lien could also be capped at 1/3 the selling price, to answer objections that it might become so large as to make it uneconomic to sell the property at all. I suggest this because whenever I float this proposal on HN, someone comes along and fixates on that possibility, which is actually extremely unlikely; the market would have to tank very severely for this cap to come into play.) This way, fixed-income seniors could stay in their homes just as long as Prop. 13 allows them to, but localities would still get their money.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

So, basically, your "mission" is to lock in the price of monthly housing payments for median wage households in top-tier cities? Meh. If software developers making well over $100k a year struggle with home ownership in SF, how does it make sense for a teacher to finance such debt? I assume you don't consider this a problem in locations where USDA mortgages are available?