wal-mart jumps to # 1

[Thomas Rogers]

I think there is a market for upscale apartments that discriminate as to who they let rent them. I guess the price alone, if high enough, would keep out the riff-raff, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a new idea. You know; very nice, well maintained apartments rented at a fair price to GOOD PEOPLE who will respect them. I'm sure if done properly such apartments would always be in high demand.



Of course, you would probably have the ACLU all over you when you, as the landlord, refused to rent to people that didn't meet your criteria; criteria probably like: minimum education level; minimum household income; job stability; age; and possibly other profiles ...



But I'm a firm believer that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, so long as it is not ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION of a PROTECTED CLASS.



TJR

 

[Jacob Dryer]

Move out of the ghetto and you might not have that problem KL. :grin: Here in WA, my neighbor on the one side rents, he's self employed and one of the nicest neighbors I've had. In the same neighborhood we have some friends up the hill that rent. Two doctors, a pediatrician and an ER doc.. I'm not sure what rent is in your neighborhood, but these aren't overly expensive places, somewhere in the 1300-1700 3-4 bedroom houses.



Same story when we lived in San Diego.. and that was city, and I consider where we live now to be country.



Making blanket statements like that gets people up in arms because it hits close to home. I imagine you wouldn't be excited if I said all Kevin's that I've met are jerks. Sure I'm not talking about you, but it raises a defensive flag.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I have a thing against anyone that has a last name that is also a first name.



Names like "Michael Greg", "Tom Arnold", "Doug Lloyd", "Stan Stacey", etc.



This is gonna stir the pot..:bwahaha:





Tom

 

[Mark K 2]

I got out of my owned home just before the bottom dropped out. Now I rent. No more lawn to mow. No more driveway to plow. No more roof to reshingle. No more money pit.

 

[TrainTrac]

[quoteNo more money pit.[/quote]



"No more money pit"??? What do you call paying rent, vs. paying a mortgage? At least with buying/owning, you build equity over the long term. And by long term I mean 10 years or more. The days of buying/selling homes and making huge profits every five or less years are long gone. But if you own a home for 10 years or more, you're still likely to make a profit on it. The same can't be said for renting.

No more lawn to mow. No more driveway to plow. No more roof to reshingle.

You can have the same thing when you buy a condo and build long-term equity at the same time.



I'm not denigrating renters by any means, just pointing out that it can't be said that renting is not a "money pit" when compared to owning a home.

 

[Mark K 2]

Equity? I bought my home for $52,000 and put $25,000 into it. Sold it for $147,000. Today, it's worth $110,000. Most homeowners I know lost their equity and more over the past two or three years.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac said:

But if you own a home for 10 years or more, you're still likely to make a profit on it. The same can't be said for renting.

Depends a lot on which 10 year period you are talking about. It also depends on whether or not the renter pays less each month for rent then would a mortgage holder for similar property, and when such is the case how the renter invests the difference and the return on that investment.



There are a lot of variables, that's all I'm saying.



Home ownership is costly as well. Lots of money gone to Home Depot, etc.



P.S. I own a home. Not so much for the investement, because if that were the reason I would have sold in 2005 when my home was worth 30% more than now...but, no, my reason for home ownership is I like to own my own home.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

Equity? I bought my home for $52,000 and put $25,000 into it. Sold it for $147,000. Today, it's worth $110,000. Most homeowners I know lost their equity and more over the past two or three years.

Yes, equity. Based on the figures you've posted, when you sold it, you made ~$70,000, right? And if you still owned it today, you'd still have about ~$33,000 in equity. So you'd still have something to show for your investment. Can you say the same about renting? As for the ones you know that lost money over the past two to three years, if they can ride it out long term, that will likely turn around. History has shown that if the market's left alone, it's self-correcting.

Depends a lot on which 10 year period you are talking about.

I didn't say a specific 10-year period, I said 10 years or more. The mindset of buying/selling homes and making huge profits every five or less years is a by-product of the CRA/Fannie-Freddie housing bubble and just isn't going to happen anymore. Neither is people buying way more than they can really afford just because they supposedly qualify for a huge loan in order to "keep up w/the Jones'". With the market the way it is now, buying a home should be thought of as more of a long term investment/purchase rather than a quick turnover type of deal. If one can qualify for a mortgage, buying a home might be a good idea right now. Rates and home prices are fairly low. If you're able to remain in that home for a long time, the market will turn around, and it will still have been a good decision.

It also depends on whether or not the renter pays less each month for rent then would a mortgage holder for similar property, and when such is the case how the renter invests the difference and the return on that investment.

If you're talking similar properties, there probably isn't that much difference in rent vs. mortgage. After all, a landlord has to charge enough in rent to cover his own mortgage. And if there is a difference, how many renters actually invest the difference? I'm betting that it's less than 1%, especially nowadays when it's harder than ever to invest/save at all and hope for a decent return.

 

[Richard L]

Where I live, homes rent for a little more than apartment primarily because tey are usually larger and include garages. The are several rented homes in the neighborhodd where I will be renting my old home, and that has not diminished the home values or neighborhoods.



Rents in the area are about the same as the monthly mortgage would be if you purchased the house with little or no money down. The main reason people live in this area is because of the schools. We have one of the best school district in the state and people will pay extra to move into this area just so their kids can get a good education and not be exposed to some of the wilder schools. The school even has a dress code that is strictly enforced.



We do not have very many apartments in the area but quite a few duplexes. The city polices the neighborhoods very well and you will get a citation if you let your lawn get too high, or trees that need to be trimmed, etc. So I think the city/town needs to be very proactive in minsuring that the properties in the neighborhood are kept up.



How does home renters equate to domestic violence?? I have seen domestic violance, and all kinds of loud family arguments occur in all kinds of neighborhoods and it did not matter if they rented or owned the home.



I think some of the statements about renters are inflamitory to those who rent. Because you may have a large group of renters in a small area, you will often see violence and deteriorating property values because when it comes to realestate Location is everything.



If you live in a neighborhood where most of the homes and property is owner occupied, a few rental properies in the area do not diminish home values.



The infamitory statements about renters also applies to home owners too. Many home owners let their properties fall into shambles for many reasons and that detracts from the neighborhood as well. The only real difference is that often you cannot tell by looking at the house if the person living there is the owner or a renter. There are plenty of people who do not take care of their own property and that is why you need the city to enforce codes, and ordinaves that require owners/landlords/renters to keep the property well maintained.



...Rich

 

[gary s]

geeeee, i guess if you are a homeowner, that makes you a better person then any renter out there.

makes alot of sense :sad:



yes i was scum at one time and rented before i purchased my first house. even though it was a rental i treated it as it was mine.

but now, i own 2 homes, so i am no longer scum. :supercool: (need a sarcasism icon)



tom,



your quote: "There goes the neighborhood!"

did you ever think that your neighbors are thinking the same when they look over at your house and see that convertAble in the back yard. :bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

Wow guys, I believe my statement has been lost somewhere.



The act of renting doesn't make a person into the scum of the earth--that makes no sense--however I have yet to see a renter who isn't the scum of the earth actively renting in my area.



I make this statement because actual homeowners in my area don't have the cops called on them regularly, don't threaten to shoot each other in arguments outside of their house at 12 am, don't drive busted-up cars that they refuse to repair (which are sadly Fords in one case)....they generally don't act like white trash or "thugs".



So there is some clear correlation here.



Why you still say, even jokingly, that renting makes you scum (and that later owning makes you no longer scum) is beyond me, as it is totally illogical. This isn't feudalism, it's America. "A man can change his Status"....BTW, by your logic, you've twice the character of I, gungadin...err Gary S. :grin:



Dunno what you mean about the "ConvertAble" of legend bringing down the property values--around here you have to have a busted up car in your possession or you're a pariah :rofl:

If you live in a neighborhood where most of the homes and property is owner occupied, a few rental properies in the area do not diminish home values.

I never said that property value went down, not to my recollection. Also, in my area that cannot really be proven one way or another, for many houses in extreme close proximity to the rental houses that I know and picture when I cite tales of their renters to you have undergone significant renovations while the rental houses were being rented out.



Of course the rental houses have stayed the same, as the owners and renters have no need or interest in renovating them.



So looking at my area, at first glance you see that property values went up. But then the question must be asked if they would not be higher in value were the rental houses not present?

 

[Gavin Allan]

They aren't making any more real estate and the population keeps growing. Real estate will be the best investment over the long haul.



Renting just contributes to someone else's quality of life.

 

[Tom Schindler]

did you ever think that your neighbors are thinking the same when they look over at your house and see that convertAble in the back yard.

I have a garage Einstein.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

Gavin, they're pumping out real estate like crazy. Poorly planned and poorly constructed McMansions are springing up everywhere, overloading our infrastructure. Same with dime-a-dozen office buildings.



And you know what? THey're all vacant. They can't sell, especially the office space.



Unnecessary development is rampant, and a personal frustration of mine. Corrupt politics



Developers can build huge office complexes, which have been vacant for almost a year, where sole access is granted by a 2-lane backroad, one of the lanes of which has literally collapsed into a giant sinkhole, which will not be fixed due to budget constraints, but private citizens can't build sheds in their backyards, or develop their privately owned islands without the Government cracking down on them?



Regardless, more liquid real estate is being churned out daily.

 

[Gavin Allan]

I'm talking about LAND.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I'm talking about LAND.

Try to restrain your supercilious tendencies and think for a second.



I am also talking about land. Land that is already BOUGHT can not be purchased to "invest" in, thus it might as well not exist to an investor seeking to buy "real estate".



Land is entering the market all the time, with Governments selling their land to offset budget deficits and farmers needing to make a buck so they pass of fields to the highest bidder.



Land being put back on the market creates real estate.



FYI "real estate" is not synonymous with "land".

 

[Les]

Real Estate



A piece of land, including the air above it and the ground below it, and any buildings or structures on it. Real estate can include business and/or residential properties, and are generally sold either by a relator or directly by the individual who owns the property (for sale by owner). In most situations in the United States, real estate is a legal designation, and is subject to legislation.also called realty

.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Hence "real estate" is not synonymous with land, thanks.



Additionally, Gavin was speaking of investing in real estate, which you cannot do if the real estate is not on the market. Real estate being put onto the market is, from an investment perspective, creating it.



Your definition of real estate excludes Government properties, meaning that the Government selling off its land to private companies/citizens does in fact create real estate.





Also, land itself can still be created, if you want to get technical. We can reclaim it from the sea, or who knows, other countries might join the US.

 

[gary s]

"I have a garage Einstein"



thank god. that is very considerate of you. now your neighbors don't have to look at that charm :bwahaha: