patrick.net

Lol - I just emailed that link to Patrick for him to post tomorrow.

Sorry I wanted the glory this time! :-)

Actually, I usually send the link to Patrick first...

Those vacancies are concentrated in the worst the bubble areas where they never should have been built in the first place. Las Vegas, Florida, Central Valley CA, Pheonix. On a few road trips over the last year I've made a point to touring the mostly empty developments in central CA and Vegas. It's pretty mind blowing. Really makes me wonder what the hell people were thinking.

MarkInSF says

Really makes me wonder what the hell people were thinking.

Who, exactly?

The funny thing is I have a book of NYT front pages from 1950-1975, and there's one front-page story about making foreclosures available to the poor.

Sept 4, 1967 -- Foreclosed Homes Sought For Poor

There's so much interesting forgotten history, just on the front page of the NY Times.

MarkInSF says

Those vacancies are concentrated in the worst the bubble areas where they never should have been built in the first place. Las Vegas, Florida, Central Valley CA, Pheonix.

Historically prime areas for retirees. NV and FL have no state income tax. During the bubble one home was not enough, so you had to have a vacation home in FL, etc etc.
What really didnt make any sense are the Condos on Luxury cruise liners.
Travel the world in your own Condo!

http://www.justluxe.com/travel/cruise/feature-279298.php

"If they don't start with a systematic distribution of these properties to investors who have cash today and will buy them at the right price, they're going to end up selling the entire portfolio to Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS - News) or BlackRock (NYSE:BLK - News) at a tenth of what they can get for them today."

Who says that isn't the strategy...

@Troy

Thanks for the link. I didn't know the NY Times carried archive online that far back...

American in Japan says

Sorry I wanted the glory this time! :-)

Actually, I usually send the link to Patrick first…

ROFL ! Nice one.

Why not house the homeless?

Makes sense to me, 10% unemployment 10% vacancies.

That doesn't mean there's not more than 10% of houses in the available inventory.

I would bet 40% of the houses are Available, they just aren't readily available due to market conditions.
Between what is on the MLS and what is actually in "Ghost" inventory. Meaning the principals for those properties want to sell them, but they aren't listing them due to the current market conditions.

10% empty and in foreclosure limbo
18% occupied in foreclosure limbo(can't sell it, can't afford it, and bank hasn't come for it)
12% Owner occupied and would like to sell.

I expect 40% of the homes in America is for sale, and is part of the "Inventory Queue" ghost or otherwise.

Which means only 60% of the houses has an Owner, that has no plans on selling it, and not because selling it is not an option in this market.

PasadenaNative says

Why not house the homeless?

Cause the homeless do not pay rents. It might be a good idea in theory, but a house is of limited value without water to flush the toilets, gas to heat the house and electricity to run everything else.

I honestly do not believe that the true vacancy rate is 10%. While there may be 10% of the houses empty, I would say a good 40% or more are unlivable, where thieves ripped out copper pipes and wiring, freezing conditions without heat caused pipes to burst, broken windows and leaky roofs caused water damage, kids broke in kicked in the walls and partied in there.

There just no way for any bank to manage hundreds of thousands of properties and keep them in move in condition.

PasadenaNative says

Why not house the homeless?

A better question would be "Why not house the hard working/underemployed/middle class who always find a way to get a job but can never afford to buy a home?" Aren't there enough socialist style benefits for underachievers already?

The article states 130 million houses and 18 million empty. That is 14%, not 11%, so it is pretty hard to trust that the author of this article put much thought into things. Of the 18 million, does that include privately owned second homes? If so, they could hardly be called unused or available in any sense of the word. The US census had the # of households at 105 million in 2000. So, I'm betting that the 112 million are the number of households, and the 11% figure includes second homes used for work or vacation.
thomas.wong1986 says

he government-controlled mortgage companies’ inventory of foreclosed residential property has quadrupled in three years and now stands at a record $24 billion. The number of properties they own has increased fivefold to nearly 242,000,

So, according to this, the # of homes sitting around forclosed, empty, and possibly up for sale by Fannie and Freddie is 240,000. That number is much much smaller than and likely unrelated to the 18 million 'empty' homes.

Is this figure accurate or is BS like the unemployment numbers?

@YesYNot

Good points. It would be good to see a breakdown. I still suspect there are a large number of homes “unwittingly” held unused, that the owner (REO or private) would strongly like to sell if they could get their price.
And whatever the real number is, I predict it will rise in 2011.

@Tadpole

I said take it as you will, but I am interested if anyone finds any other links.

What percentage of East Bay Area homes are empty? ...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_17611938? (Thanks for the Link)

So? It doesn't make you a better man.

And now 13% of houses are empty according to CNN.com:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/real_estate/us_housing_vacancy_rates/index.htm

Thanks for the comments. BTW too bad telecommuting hasn't panned out like it looked like it would years ago.

Vicente also started a similar thread if anyone is interested:

http://patrick.net/?p=654215

There are two Americas.

One is for the destitute, its living standard bordering on slipping right into the developing world. That America is growing very fast.

Then there is the other America, its citizens still enjoying the privilege of living in an empire, and while the number of Americans residing in this American Empire is dwindling, it doesn't stop the remaining citizens from partying on. Here, you can hardly see a trace of recession, let alone depression.

How long can these two Americas exist in parallel is the trillion dollar question.