Real Estate Crash thread

[Foggy_Goggles]

I don't think the point is that the fire code is bad, just that it adds cost that gets passed to the buyer. For example: Here a three story duplex has to be sprinkled. This is a fairly efficient design for infill on steep lots with a garage and 2 stories above on a tight lot that that is a bit difficult to build on.

Its always finger pointing, but the powers that be have to be "right" and have no accountability. Two topics that I always bring up at the meetings are

1. Build Cost. Everyone want to blame this mythical developer. Pro tip: unless its a custom, there is a developer. Capital has to get paid. Infrastructure is expensive. Materials are expensive. So municipalities think they can do better. But they just add layers of inefficiency. So how we tax payer subsidized "affordable" that is available to 140%AMI and for a 2bed on one resident has to work locally 1300 hours per year and you can have 2x purchase price in "assets". So who do you think will "buy" those units.

2. Living Wage Jobs: fuck you is you are a small business owner (or corporate silent owner) or a government that want to pay $25/hr, no benefits a whine that you can't find help because of the housing issue. The working class tax base is paying the affordable housing taxes to support the shit bag chardonnay crowd. Got some balls, raise your prices, have staff that thive. At if that doesn't work, figure out a better way to have a $100k wake boat and 10weeks of vacation.

[zion zig zag]

If anyone lives on top of someone else, then it needs to be sprinklered. Some jurisdictions allow a [emoji637][emoji639]D system for the small duplex scenario which doesn’t require a separate fire line and is fairly inexpensive. The way around fire suppression is to build side by side per the IRC with fire walls between.


Sent from my iPhone using [emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]][emoji640][emoji638][emoji638][emoji638]]TGR Forums

[anotherVTskibum]

(not to get polyass) but I kinda think the states should let go of the reins and let the insurance companies freemarket that shit.

If you build in an area that floods or burns - the insurance SHOULD be expensive as fuck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with the caveat that we need to improve the buyout programs, too. Risk profiles are affected by climate change, and I have significant sympathy for people who bought a house with a reasonable risk profile 30 years ago and it now reflects a substantial piece of their net worth.

I have less sympathy for someone who bought a place in Vermont that's flooded six times since Irene, but the reality in New England is that a lot of historical building patterns start to look pretty questionable as flood risk increases.

[4matic]

Most houses per capita in history right now. There is no shortage. Prices are too high.

Also: Homebuilders are slashing prices at the highest rate in 3 years.

[goldenboy]

You're smoking crack, there is a massive housing shortage, especially at lower price points. It's basic supply and demand stuff, and that's why prices are high. Just Google USA housing shortage- depending on the source it's estimated that we are 4.5-5 million units short.

[MultiVerse]

Sure, houses per capita is up but to say there's no shortage ignores the fact that overall household size is down. Households with fewer kids, or no longer multi-generation adults, or even with no kids at all still need places to live. Household size can be more than one, household size can’t be less than one.

For example, imagine a small town with 1,000 people living in 250 houses. If another family of four moves in then the city must build another house for them. But if the average newcomer household size shrinks to 2 then the city needs two more houses to accommodate four more people. That's just to keep up with population growth. But then, if the town's average household size decreases the city also has a housing backlog to accommodate its existing native population.

Even if the town kicked out its immigrants it still wouldn't have enough housing even though its housing per capita went up. If the average household size shrunk to three the town would still need 83 more houses, or 250 more for two per house, just to serve the same size population

[nickwm21]

So… housing is not affordable because prices are high… I’m glad we figured that out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[singlesline]

Wildfire losses are really only being socialized for homeowners in that insurance carriers are only allowed to charge a maximum of X for premium. Flood insurance on the other hand is subsidized.

Fire is always its own cause of loss, differentiating between a wildfire and standard fire loss would be a nightmare.

They are also socialized by the fact that they are often caused by a utility (often a utility who has a mandate to provide service even if you build somewhere dumb). The responsible utility then has to both A) pay the excess costs for the huge percentage of people who are way underinsured, and B) pay back the insurance companies for some large fraction of what they had to pay out.

This is basically socialized because ultimately the rate payers pay it, and with utilities, pretty much everyone is a rate payer. Sure, shareholders can get wiped out first, but the citizens are the ones paying the bills.

And now it is also literally socialized in places where the government has created some sort of fund to help cover the utilities wildfire costs (because the government doesn’t want to have to approve rate increases and see utility bills explode either).