patrick.net

From my observation, houses are sold by monthly payment, including PITI. For example, a home in Virginia has the same monthly payment as an equivalent home in Omaha, but the Omaha home has a much lower price. The difference in price is caused by the rather high property tax in Omaha, so the price must be lower to keep PITI the same. I would suspect the same would happen with interest rate. A house will have the same monthly payment whether the interest rate is 3% or 7%, it is just with the higher rate the price will fall. At the same PITI, I would rather have a lower price at a higher rate than a high price at a lower rate. Much easier to pay off the mortgage that way.

No doubt we will, once again, experience a 'soft landing'?

No way fed can catch up with its own manufactured inflation.

Investors should be taxed at much higher tax rates vs homeowners who can not compete with business for a shelter. Bad policies create lot of pain for many.

I'll play Market advocate here.

In many real estate markets like Dallas, Austin, SF Bay Area, SoCal, etc the amount of housing available to be rented on the market is far below the DEMAND. The reason the "market rate" equilibrium is so high is because the intersection of supply and demand has made it that way.

Why then should we be punishing firms that are actually creating housing to meet demand? 225 units is not some small amount and I am sure ALL of those apartments will have renters ready to throw down their deposit checks and move in ASAP.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there aren't any rentals on the market, or that the market rate is too high, and at the same time argue that companies like Lennar should be taxed into oblivion for literally helping to fix the problem by increasing supply.

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extremely high prices, limited supply, and overwhelming demand that cannot be satisfied because the regulatory environment has made it difficult to increase supply.

Goran_K says

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extremely high prices, limited supply, and overwhelming demand that cannot be satisfied because the regulatory environment has made it difficult to increase supply.

Don't forget all the illegal immigration problems.

Almost every single social problem is and has been caused by government/politicians.

Housing unaffordable? They should move to Texas!

Politicians have caused all of these divisions. Its being done on purpose.

DooDahMan says

One paper published in 2015 found that managers with MBAs tend to behave in ways that benefit them, but not their company. They spend more on acquisitions than leaders without MBAs and achieve about $1 million a year more for themselves in pay increases, all while actually reducing the market value of their companies.

So, MBAs are to corporate what Politicians are to government.

DooDahMan says

The district has seen almost 4,000 new apartments built since 2012

Get used to it, fellas. If we are going to have unfettered illegal immigration, we will need more cluster style housing units. And you will see occupancy rates like 10 unrelated people living in a 3 bedroom apartment, ala Prince William County, VA (DC suburb).

Classic adolescent attitude. Like the 18-year-old living at home who wants the adult rights to come and go as he pleases, bring girls home, use the car, and eat for free. However, he does not see the adult responsibilities to support himself or contribute in any meaningful way.

"Defend the country if the need should arise but only if you like the current President and the GDP per capita is over a certain number"

WineHorror1 says

Goran_K says

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extremely high prices, limited supply, and overwhelming demand that cannot be satisfied because the regulatory environment has made it difficult to increase supply.

Don't forget all the illegal immigration problems.

Yeah, that's about to become a nation wide crisis in about a month as Sleepy Joe eliminated title 42.

Goran_K says

ou can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there aren't any rentals on the market, or that the market rate is too high, and at the same time argue that companies like Lennar should be taxed into oblivion for literally helping to fix the problem by increasing supply.

Agree. Plus Lennar will employ a shit ton of trades, sales, marketing, etc. for building it. Big corps have massive advantages, but they're still providing a lot of jobs people may not have had. Responsible building helps everyone and every business. The local market or gas station is going to see an increase in traffic and property value.

This seems more like a gentrification issue. Dealt with it in Pilsen with the low income Mexicans in Chicago. Bitch about being priced out because you were too lazy to buy property when it was pennies on the dollar. Jealousy is a hard pill to swallow. Deal with it on a daily basis with my wife's work. She slips up, but anytime someone finds out what my wife makes it changes the relationship. Things people don't understand is it's not all unicorns and rainbows in our household just because we make great money. We have our struggles no different than the garbage man. It's how you handle the struggle that makes you successful.

Goran_K says

I'll play Market advocate here.

In many real estate markets like Dallas, Austin, SF Bay Area, SoCal, etc the amount of housing available to be rented on the market is far below the DEMAND. The reason the "market rate" equilibrium is so high is because the intersection of supply and demand has made it that way.

Why then should we be punishing firms that are actually creating housing to meet demand? 225 units is not some small amount and I am sure ALL of those apartments will have renters ready to throw down their deposit checks and move in ASAP.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there aren't any rentals on the market, or that the market rate is too high, and at the same time argue that companies like Lennar should be taxed into oblivion for literally helping to fix the problem by increasing supply.

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extrem...

SF Bay Area is being built out like crazy.

Get out of cities and urban areas. Our infrastructure is fucked including privately owned buildings like this. Florida is literally a swamp. I love it, but mid and high rises have barely been tested long term with the soil and water table they have there. And no, not a climate change comment, but just stating that we don't have much data on long term usage and structural integrity of tall(ish) buildings in this area.

Even the best engineer will make a mistake. The soil and water make that even more likely.

God, that thing is butt-ugly.

RWSGFY says

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extrem...

SF Bay Area is being built out like crazy.

Well I'll admit, I haven't been in the Bay Area proper for a long time, but I do remember that the "low income housing" debate in San Francisco ended up being a total fiasco and nothing was accomplished even though bonds were passed by voters to address those specific issues. They originally planned to build something like 30,000 units. I don't believe even 5% of that has been built.

In SoCal for instance, I know numerous apartment builders have had their projects defeated by the coastal commission, and most of the building is happening far more inland (Riverside, SB, etc) where the coastal commission has far less effect.

This has lead to some of the most expensive rents in the country in Orange County for instance. 2-3 bedroom apartments are now surpassing the $4,000+ mark. This is the result of government intervention locking up the supply side of the housing equation.

RWSGFY says

SF Bay Area is being built out like crazy.

I don't understand the appeal of the Bay Area. I have not enjoyed any of my visits. From my travels it's literally the least desirable part of the state from my experience. Socal and N cal are the best spots in my opinion. Obviously work and making money is the determining factor. Weather wise it's good, but I've frankly experienced no redeeming quality in the 5 or so visits as a kid and an adult.

I'm pretty simple and easy to please. The homeless and gayness is staggering. Outside of a SFO layover or CA vacation launching point, I don't think I'll go to the Bay Area ever again. Definitely won't go to visit it as a destination. If a conference hits there I might go, but I have 0% interest in going there. There are so many other places that are awesome if you can deal with less than perfect weather.

RWSGFY says

God, that thing is butt-ugly.

True, but it blows away soviet architecture from the same era.

*Not saying much lol

Literal Housing crash!

And the Millenium Tower in SF was recently found to be tilting an additional seven inches since restabilization efforts began.

WineHorror1 says

Politicians have caused all of these divisions. Its being done on purpose.

Now we know why people love “democracy”.

Since the Great Pyramid of Giza, architecture has been all down hill.

Maybe the FBI heard McAfee kept his backups there, and they need to bring the building down.

Goran_K says

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there aren't any rentals on the market, or that the market rate is too high, and at the same time argue that companies like Lennar should be taxed into oblivion for literally helping to fix the problem by increasing supply.

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extremely high prices, limited supply, and overwhelming demand that cannot be satisfied because the regulatory environment has made it difficult to increase supply.

This.

I looked at the area around Disney and the convention Center in Anaheim, I couldn't believe how close SFHs were to the Downtown.

Why haven't they been knocked down and replaced with denser housing decades ago?

Anti-development mentality.

50 years old building near the beach of Miami.

I wonder what the maintenance logs show of the concrete structure.

How bad is the spalling and disintegration of the concrete, as I'd love to see photos.

A squirrel box for every squirrel. Maybe a squirrel box for every ten squirrels. Get ready to be dorm-ed up.

I thought God invented hurricanes and Ukrainian Nazis for this work.

AmericanKulak says

Goran_K says

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that there aren't any rentals on the market, or that the market rate is too high, and at the same time argue that companies like Lennar should be taxed into oblivion for literally helping to fix the problem by increasing supply.

California is the poster child of anti-development sentiment, and look what it has brought for residents of the SF Bay Area or SoCal? Extremely high prices, limited supply, and overwhelming demand that cannot be satisfied because the regulatory environment has made it difficult to increase supply.

This.

I looked at the area around Disney and the convention Center in Anaheim, I couldn't believe how close SFHs were to the Downtown.

Why haven't they been knocked down and replaced with denser housing decades ago?

Anti-development mentality.

Yup.

I think a bigger offender is the Sunset District in SF. Old 70-80 year old 2-story box homes, most of them roach infested, run down fire hazards that insurance companies barely insure. One might wonder what more modern, taller, safer, apartment buildings could do to help in alleviating the housing crunch in SF.

Here's the thing, I'm not anti development, or pro-gentrification. I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. If you want the growth, you have to make hard choices that may in the end change the entire face of a neighborhood. If you want to "maintain" the neighborhood, then you have to give up the growth. Something at some point has to give.

I do not have an MBA but grew my business in LA year after year by double. I hired several Harvard MBAs. Super nice people but they wanted super high pay and were of little benefit. Great at writing papers, poor at motivating other employees.

MBA = More Bad Advice

As someone who has an MBA, I'd take a person with 10+ years of market specific experience over a $150,000 MBA grad any day and twice on Sunday.

Yeah, "luxury apartments" which means overpriced housing with vinyl plank flooring is the norm from what I've seen recently in Panama City Beach, Florida.

I call in MBA-ology. In other words, the most useless of all academic accolades. I mean sure, you may find a PhD Physicist or JD Attorney, not be able to manage but at least they know something about the physical sciences or legal issues in question.

keeprubbersidedown says

wanted super high pay

I live in Boston & the word about HBS is that their grads don't underbid each other for pay. This is why many simply opt for a McKinsey or Goldman Sachs career track because those starting salaries are guaranteed, meritorious or not. So if you find 'em outside of the big management consulting or financial services houses then they're not among the insiders league but regular HBS grads looking for a paycheck to measure up to their more well-endowed (no penis pun intended) classmates.

DooDahMan says

A few watts of power are necessary for lighting at night. The device used in the research generated 50 milliwatts per square meter, meaning just over 215 square feet of solar cell area would be required for nighttime lighting.

That's 10 watts. You could light a single light bulb with that or charge a couple of phones. That's a lot of surface area to run a light bulb.

DooDahMan says

richwicks says

That's a lot of surface area to run a light bulb.

Reading the papers from Stanford and U.C. Davis this is still in the infancy stage. Kind of suspect this will get attention worldwide and a mad scramble will be on - there are $$ to be made here.

I was really interested in Peltier junctions at one point and Stirling Engines. The amount of energy you can get from minor temperature differentials is low, even with 100% efficiency.

But then again, there's madness in hype. Even if you know something isn't feasible doesn't mean you can't cash in on it.

DooDahMan says

“The solar cell is a pretty good thermal emitter, meaning it likes to emit heat a bit at night,”

So is a plain old roof. Why not just put these thermo-electric modules on any surface that re-radiates heat at night? Even bricks radiate heat at night.

It's all fun and games until someone wraps you in copper mesh and tells you that you're the "hot side" of a TEG...