5 ms·

it's an equity trap as one does not own the land the 'house' is on and you own any right to live in the house through land ownership and thus can be forced out

it's an equity trap as one does not own the land the 'house' is on and you own any right to live in the house through land ownership and thus can be forced out at anytime

robert_foss 6y ago
Additionally mobile homes are not actually all that mobile after 20years. Relatedly they tend to lose value over time as opposed to permanent buildings.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Permanent buildings also lose value over time, and you have to spend money to repair various portions of it at some point.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Permanent buildings typically only lose value if not maintained. The issue with many mobile homes is that they’re often designed in a way that is not easily maintainable.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Newer buildings come with updated building codes and benefit from technological advances. Unless there is reason to believe the newer building was built with subpar quality materials or workmanship compared to an older building, the older building will be worth less. https://www.trulia.com/research/new-or-existing-home/ https://www.trulia.com/research/new-or-existing-home/ > We found that that new homes (those built in 2013 or 2014) are typically priced 20% higher than older homes with similar attributes (e.g., square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) and in the same zip code. Another example is the higher tier hotel brands won’t sell you their branding to convert older buildings, you have to build new (unless you have a very desirable location, but that’s beside the point). Also, the IRS lets you depreciate buildings, but not land: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/depreciation_faqs_v2.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/depreciation_faqs_v2.pdf I do not think the IRS would let people do that if they thought buildings maintained their value.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >Newer buildings come with updated building codes and benefit from technological advances Lol. The "updated code and technical advances" are part of what keeps the value of existing structures from losing value. Between ever increasing setback rules and asinine code changes that preclude features people actually want (like electrical outlets that are easy to use) and waste ever increasing space (look at the code for stairways and doorway sizes over the years). For everyone getting suckered into a modern spec home there's someone else buying something because you can't build whatever that something is anymore. This is even more true with commercial operations where you can buy a facility but you couldn't get a new facility through the permitting process.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        > Lol. The "updated code and technical advances" are part of what keeps the value of existing structures from losing value. That is not evidenced by transaction data. There’s a few, mostly urban areas where older builds are valued due to not having to conform to modern codes, but certainly not representative of all existing structures versus new. The easiest evidence I can offer is the IRS letting you deduct depreciation for buildings. Surely they would only do this if existing structures did lose value.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Tax cuts are gifts for the wealthy. Starting with the premise that they are logical is extremely dubious. Older buildings may be deemed worth less on average partially because not all are well maintained and many may trivially hide expensive problems due in part to defects in workmanship and in part due to defective or absent maintenance. People will pay a premium not to deal with anyone else's problems or even a chance of same.
        kube-system 6y ago
        The IRS sometimes lets you depreciate that portion of a rental property which is the building itself or improvements, sure... but if we’re talking about homes - almost all of those buildings are physically attached and sold with land which is a component of those transactions. In practice, people continually put money into permanent homes to update it, because their property as a whole is widely seen as an investment. It’s a package deal. Mobile homes have none of this. They are not attached to land. The transactions in which they are transferred are not connected to land. They’re usually titled, and often sit on rented land.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
So, like an apartment, then? No real loss, considering the apartment is the alternative. On the other hand, in many places I've lived, owning or renting a trailer was the closest folks can get to a house or the easiest/cheapest way to get a place with space.
- sixothree 6y ago
  Except there are situations where a trailer sitting idle for some time loses ability to move to a new location.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    That's not really a consideration for most folks buying them, honestly. Even if they are physically able to move, the cost prohibits this. It is generally difficult to give them away. None of this is a secret, either. Every poor person I knew that saw trailers as a better option than renting knew the downsides.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Only you buy the house, so it's like an apartment but with a $50-$100k deposit that depreciates and when you move out, you don't get it back from the landlord, you sell it to the next tenant
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    So? And honestly, it isn't that much upfront. Generally cheaper than a house with monthly payments lower than rent, and that is including lot rent, if you have it. Total rent is generally cheaper than a like sized house if you are just renting. No shared walls. You can often have pets. When your option is to rent part of a house, especially from a not-so-wonderful landlord, this is a nice option. It literally doesn't matter if you don't get your money back or if it doesn't seem like a good investment. Few folks are in it for the investment, but honestly, most folks aren't really buying a house for the investment, but rather that they get some freedom and security (the bank won't kick you out for willy-nilly reasons: A landlord can simply decide not to renew your lease, at least in places with poor renter's protections). Quality of life things are important.
thedracle 6y ago
This is the situation my Dad is in. He owns the trailer, but the park jacks up the rent. So he's caught behind not being able to afford the cost to move his trailer, and the steadily increasing rent which is slowly driving him further into poverty. I've tried to help him out of it, but he won't accept any help.

it's an equity trap as one does not own the land the 'house' is on and you own any right to live in the house through land ownership and thus can be forced out at anytime

robert_foss 6y ago

Additionally mobile homes are not actually all that mobile after 20years. Relatedly they tend to lose value over time as opposed to permanent buildings.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Permanent buildings also lose value over time, and you have to spend money to repair various portions of it at some point.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Permanent buildings typically only lose value if not maintained. The issue with many mobile homes is that they’re often designed in a way that is not easily maintainable.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Newer buildings come with updated building codes and benefit from technological advances. Unless there is reason to believe the newer building was built with subpar quality materials or workmanship compared to an older building, the older building will be worth less. https://www.trulia.com/research/new-or-existing-home/ https://www.trulia.com/research/new-or-existing-home/ > We found that that new homes (those built in 2013 or 2014) are typically priced 20% higher than older homes with similar attributes (e.g., square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) and in the same zip code. Another example is the higher tier hotel brands won’t sell you their branding to convert older buildings, you have to build new (unless you have a very desirable location, but that’s beside the point). Also, the IRS lets you depreciate buildings, but not land: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/depreciation_faqs_v2.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/depreciation_faqs_v2.pdf I do not think the IRS would let people do that if they thought buildings maintained their value.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >Newer buildings come with updated building codes and benefit from technological advances Lol. The "updated code and technical advances" are part of what keeps the value of existing structures from losing value. Between ever increasing setback rules and asinine code changes that preclude features people actually want (like electrical outlets that are easy to use) and waste ever increasing space (look at the code for stairways and doorway sizes over the years). For everyone getting suckered into a modern spec home there's someone else buying something because you can't build whatever that something is anymore. This is even more true with commercial operations where you can buy a facility but you couldn't get a new facility through the permitting process.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        > Lol. The "updated code and technical advances" are part of what keeps the value of existing structures from losing value. That is not evidenced by transaction data. There’s a few, mostly urban areas where older builds are valued due to not having to conform to modern codes, but certainly not representative of all existing structures versus new. The easiest evidence I can offer is the IRS letting you deduct depreciation for buildings. Surely they would only do this if existing structures did lose value.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Tax cuts are gifts for the wealthy. Starting with the premise that they are logical is extremely dubious. Older buildings may be deemed worth less on average partially because not all are well maintained and many may trivially hide expensive problems due in part to defects in workmanship and in part due to defective or absent maintenance. People will pay a premium not to deal with anyone else's problems or even a chance of same.
        kube-system 6y ago
        The IRS sometimes lets you depreciate that portion of a rental property which is the building itself or improvements, sure... but if we’re talking about homes - almost all of those buildings are physically attached and sold with land which is a component of those transactions. In practice, people continually put money into permanent homes to update it, because their property as a whole is widely seen as an investment. It’s a package deal. Mobile homes have none of this. They are not attached to land. The transactions in which they are transferred are not connected to land. They’re usually titled, and often sit on rented land.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

So, like an apartment, then? No real loss, considering the apartment is the alternative. On the other hand, in many places I've lived, owning or renting a trailer was the closest folks can get to a house or the easiest/cheapest way to get a place with space.

sixothree 6y ago
Except there are situations where a trailer sitting idle for some time loses ability to move to a new location.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  That's not really a consideration for most folks buying them, honestly. Even if they are physically able to move, the cost prohibits this. It is generally difficult to give them away. None of this is a secret, either. Every poor person I knew that saw trailers as a better option than renting knew the downsides.
klyrs 6y ago
Only you buy the house, so it's like an apartment but with a $50-$100k deposit that depreciates and when you move out, you don't get it back from the landlord, you sell it to the next tenant
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  So? And honestly, it isn't that much upfront. Generally cheaper than a house with monthly payments lower than rent, and that is including lot rent, if you have it. Total rent is generally cheaper than a like sized house if you are just renting. No shared walls. You can often have pets. When your option is to rent part of a house, especially from a not-so-wonderful landlord, this is a nice option. It literally doesn't matter if you don't get your money back or if it doesn't seem like a good investment. Few folks are in it for the investment, but honestly, most folks aren't really buying a house for the investment, but rather that they get some freedom and security (the bank won't kick you out for willy-nilly reasons: A landlord can simply decide not to renew your lease, at least in places with poor renter's protections). Quality of life things are important.

thedracle 6y ago

This is the situation my Dad is in. He owns the trailer, but the park jacks up the rent. So he's caught behind not being able to afford the cost to move his trailer, and the steadily increasing rent which is slowly driving him further into poverty. I've tried to help him out of it, but he won't accept any help.