6 ms·
Lmao, a dude from San Francisco trying to justify his own landlordship back in the midwest. Amazing.
by tjr225 5y ago
Lmao, a dude from San Francisco trying to justify his own landlordship back in the midwest. Amazing.
- refurb 5y agoThis is not a wealthy SF landlord story, this is an house cleaner. It’s an impressive story of someone slowly building up a real estate portfolio in the Bay Area. Most of it through creative means and living lean. It’s actually an impressive story.
- HarryHirsch 5y agoIt's impressive in the way a trainwreck is impressive. There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. But misguided government policies have caused housing to be out of reach for the greater part of the population. Have you seen the housing price index for Pittsfield, MA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q Pittsfield. In Western MA. Not a desirable area. But it's going up, up, up. Asset inflation at its finest. This needs to stop, but it's unclear how. Can people invest in tulips instead, you can do without pretty flowers, but a roof over your head is a necessity for life!
- 1986 5y agoNot arguing your greater point at all, but the Pittsfield MSA includes all of the Berkshires which are absolutely desirable even if Pittsfield itself isn't.
- refurb 5y agoI mean, ok? That doesn't change the point this house cleaner was able to get creative and a bunch of property.
- HarryHirsch 5y agoHe did that on the backs of those trying to get into the housing market now.
- borski 5y agoWhat’s the alternative? Nobody renting, ever?
- rocqua 5y agoPeople should be able to rent houses, at least for a little while. It's just that landlords are inherently evil and should be done away with. So the solution is to keep house renting but to get rid of landlords! It's really quite simple. /sarcasm
- denton-scratch 5y agoOn their backs? He bought property on the market, and put it to economic use. He made rental property available in an area where many people can't afford to buy. He hasn't done anyone down.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- seibelj 5y agoAnother way to look at it is that there is absurd amounts of empty land throughout the country. Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Young people need to go to shitty places that are cheap and then make the place better. Many young people want to live in SF or NYC. Go to Detroit instead.
- lmm 5y ago> Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Generally by doing things that are now illegal (sometimes that were already illegal but not enforced at the time).
- pdonis 5y agoWhat things described in this article are now illegal?
- denton-scratch 5y agoWell, the author described an illegal one-room micro-apartment in downtown SF.
- lmm 5y agoThe article explicitly points out that the shed they originally lived in would certainly be illegal now (and quite possibly also at the time, but it was easier to get away with then); building their own cabin would also be a lot more difficult (maybe it's not flat out illegal, but there are a lot more requirements about what kind of qualifications you have to have to sign off on a design, do wiring/plumbing/...).
- vinceguidry 5y agoThe process of making unwanted real estate wanted is called real estate development. It's not done by "young people just moving there." That just makes crappy real estate more crowded. Real estate development is very much a "build it and they will come" sort of deal. It takes capital, a lot of it, to make an area desirable. You can't just dump it anywhere, there has to be a good reason to dump it in this particular area otherwise the hip young people will go somewhere that did have a good reason. And the poor investors who poured money into a development in that area won't see any appreciation or significant profit, because no one else is developing the area, just them. Lots and lots and lots of money going into lots and lots and lots of developments, that's what turns the sticks into the burbs. You just can't put the family cart before the development horse, every young person starting a family has different reasons for moving out to the sticks. Left alone without already-developed real estate, they'll just spread out evenly across rural America.
- endisneigh 5y agoI'm not sure why people have this silly take. Land in desirable areas is scarce. Why shouldn't it appreciate it? Housing is nothing like a car.
- HarryHirsch 5y agoThe frontier has been settled since 1890, but housing prices have been stable from 1950 to 1980, then they started creeping up, with a big burst around 2000 and another beginning 2018. Desirable can't be the answer.
- endisneigh 5y agoA burst happening has nothing to do with desirability not being the answer. Less desirable areas had bigger bursts. Relatively, desirable areas will always appreciate, by definition. Housing isn't a mass produced fungible commodity like a car. People comparing cars to houses make no sense.
- paulryanrogers 5y agoIt's a complex issue, though both aren't necessarily wrong. Land is limited and its raw volume rarely changes. Housing could be increased through scaling up, developing greenfield, or redeveloping underutilized land. If housing were thought of more as a consumable than ones primary investment that would accelerate better use of land for housing.
- endisneigh 5y agoEven if zoning didn't exist and land was perfectly used certain property would just be worth more than others. Imagine all of humanity living in a single skyscraper that can be built up indefinitely. Perhaps a condo closer to the ground floor would be more expensive, or maybe at the top, or maybe west, east, etc. Certain land being worth more than others is more a function of the inherent differences in things than anything else.
- kiba 5y agoLand is what should appreciate, not the building built on top of it, which should deprecate. What make land valuable is the collective work and contribution of a community. However, since lands are scarce and a collective effort to maintain, maybe it should be taxed for the benefit of the community and rewards given to the people who put it to the most valuable use, by not taxing buildings and other improvements built upon it.
- nemo44x 5y ago> Land is what should appreciate, not the building built on top of it, which should deprecate. That’s not entirely true. A home structure is worth what the materials + labor - depreciation are worth. A home can depreciate far more slowly that the cost of labor and materials rising. Not to mention that renovations will occur over time essentially removing some depreciation and adding to labor + materials to build a similar structure. A well maintained home should hold its value well over time.
- srvmshr 5y ago> It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. The building unit depreciates, but the total value usually goes up due to the land value, not the construction value. Cars would also appreciate hypothetically if metals suddenly became more expensive.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWasn't there actually an "inflation" of used car prices in recent months because of supply issues?
- bradlys 5y agoYes. But ignore that - doesn’t make sense with their argument!
- TedShiller 5y ago> There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset Totally. That's why that $50,000,000 house in NYC should eventually cost only $1.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoIf you don't like some area and you think prices are too high, don't buy there. The solution is so simple. Population growth alone would bring an expectation of rising housing costs.
- jjav 5y ago> There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. Of course there is a reason, multiple ones. Land, of course, but that's the easy one so let's ignore it for the sake of argument for a moment. Let's say land price remains constant. Housing will still appreciate simply because everything related to it goes up. Contractor labor and supplies. So to build a new identical house on an empty lot next to an older house will cost more than it cost to build that old house. But they houses are identical so they compete for the same buyer. So inevitably the old house value will go up to match the new house that cost more to build.
- tomc1985 5y agoImpressive, but it lost me at "start in the market slump of 2008" Like that was the time in my life where I was literally the most broke. I had a neighbor try to practically give me his home if I could just take over the mortgage. But I was fresh in school and staring down combined debts well into 5 digits, no assets save for my car and a bunch of tech junk, and no income.
- tjr225 5y agoI was literally homeless.
- ahepp 5y agoIt’s kinda difficult to hear about how someone owning multiple houses and renting them out is not a wealthy landlord. That’s the definition of a wealthy landlord. Sure, there are wealthier landlords out there. I’m sure the Wisconsin tenant paying their California landlord’a mortgage takes a lot of comfort in the fact that their landlord isn’t the richest one out there. I think there are some good things landlords bring to the table, like increased capital investments and stability of ownership for short duration stays. But I feel one would have to live under a rock to not recognize the fundamentally extractive nature of landlordism under our current conditions. Perhaps with something like a land value tax, some degree of market functioning could be restored. However, in the mean time with asset prices increasingly out of reach to everyday Americans, expect lots of hate for landlords as the American dream continues to evaporate.