0
0

Lennar decides to "mothball" new O.C. development; local squatters and meth dealers jubilant


 invite response                
2007 Nov 15, 5:09am   33,139 views  196 comments

by HARM   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

your free new home!

Wall Street Journal: "Home Builders Opt for Mothballing" (subscription required)
Free re-post

“As the glut of unsold home remains stubbornly high and housing demand slides, home builders face a dilemma: to sell, or not to sell?”

“Lennar Corp., for one, has joined the ‘not to sell’ camp at its development in Orange County, Calif. The Miami company plans to finish building 259 homes, the first phase of a 1,100-unit development in Irvine, but it has decided not to sell any of them until the constrained mortgage market and swollen housing inventory improves.”

“‘We are better off holding off on sales at this asset and not discounting as steeply as the market is discounting right now,’ says Emile Haddad, Lennar’s chief investment officer, who oversees the company’s large West Coast projects.”

“Analysts expect more builders to mothball projects in the coming months, as they decide that the losses from selling homes at huge discounts are greater than the costs of carrying properties on their books.”

“But it’s not an easy decision. Builders are facing increasing pressure from lenders to service their debt and also have overhead expenses to support.”

“‘It’s the next natural step in the evolution’ of the housing downturn, says Nishu Sood, a home-builder analyst at Deutsche Bank. ‘This normally happens during a recession when you just don’t have a base of demand. But it’s like that now. In some of these locations, you just can’t give a house away.’”

“Standard Pacific Corp., of Irvine, Calif., has been offering discounts and other incentives of as much as 25% on certain homes.”

“Lennar CEO Stuart Miller recently called some price cuts ‘unrealistic and maybe even ridiculous.’ ‘The market has just deteriorated more and more. We don’t want to go below a certain floor, and that is the floor of reasonableness,’ Mr. Miller told analysts on a conference call in late September.”

“Lennar’s move in Orange County is unusual in that the company is mothballing homes. Builders typically mothball partially developed or undeveloped land because vacant homes require watching. One alternative would be for builders to sell their land instead, but that market is even more dismal than the one for housing.”

Well, folks, it looks like we may have *finally* gotten something wrong about the housing bubble here at Patrick.net. It has long been a point of consensus here --an unquestioned assumption really-- that homebuilders do not want to be empty-house owners and that banks do not want to be landlords. We have seen many historical examples from past bubbles of homebuilders that can't move product quickly becoming bankrupt former homebuilders. We have also seen recent examples of builders aggressively undercutting underwater FBs and used-house salesmen in order to move product and avoid that fate.

But now, Lennar O.C. comes along and proves us all wrong. Instead of selfishly putting their shareholders financial interests ahead of everything else, they have courageously stepped forward and decided to "take one for the team". I'm sure local FBs are thrilled to hear this news --less competition, fewer comp-undercutting sales, and a courageous homebuilder willing to pony up the monthly carrying costs, property taxes and upkeep on all those empty houses (which must be considerable). What troopers!

I for one, am a little embarrassed, though the thrilling prospect of my brand-new rent & mortgage-free squatter house in Orange County more than compensates for my embarrassment. I'm sure when word gets out among the squatter, criminal & homeless communities, there will be celebration in the streets!

I'm sure those of you bubble-sitters, homeless people, and/or meth lab 'entrepreneurs' who live in or near Orange County are anxious to get all the details and get your piece of the action, so I've collected some useful links here for you:

Wikipedia's Adverse Possession page (the formal legal term for 'squatting')
Cornell's AP site
Homes Not Jails (CA Squatter portal)
Nolo Press's "Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries & Noise"

Discuss, enjoy...
HARM

#housing

« First        Comments 176 - 196 of 196        Search these comments

176   sfbubblebuyer   2007 Nov 20, 7:32am  

Justme :

Oil might be a pretext, but I figure the U.S. defaulting on its debt when the world tries to cram it back down our throat is what will really tip governments over into 'fight' mode.

177   SP   2007 Nov 20, 7:43am  

Brand said:
I have often pondered which is more likely: to find a cute, adventurous, sophisticated girl who isn’t already taken, or to find a stable, smart but relatively boring girl and help her to break out of her shell.

Stepford Deluxe with an open-source Linux kernel.

178   DinOR   2007 Nov 20, 7:56am  

"Stepford Deluxe"

LOL! Hell, I'll take two!

179   DinOR   2007 Nov 20, 7:59am  

That's the 3rd time today I've heard FNM/FRE referred to as a 'spanking'. I think "a good roger'ing" would be more appropriate.

180   anonymous   2007 Nov 20, 8:46am  

OK I'm going to go out on a limb and theorize that Brand is over in England, that in fact, he's a Limey.

And, since the US is about to go into a collapse as thorough as that of the old USSR, Brand is simply getting first in line to purchase an American mail-order bride as Russian young women have been marketed and sold over the last 10 years.

181   Ed S.   2007 Nov 20, 9:04am  

DinOR

Your comment, "You know, people lived quite well for years w/ modest elec. service." is actually something that most of us have forgotten.

The house I grew up in was built in 1938 -- a cutting edge flat roof modern design with 4br / 2.5 bath 2200 sq. ft. + a full basement. And 60 amps service for the ENTIRE place. Oil heat; everything else electric (no AC)

Now granted that some additional power has been added for AC and an electric water heater, but most new places are built with what, 200 amps? 400 amps?

So much of what we need to do to conserve is simple -- turn things off when not in use. It drives me nuts when I go to the gym and see 2 people in the place and 9 televisions on (no, not kidding 9!). I turn off everything that's not being used, but c'mon. How hard is it to turn off the TV when you're done using the Stairmaster?

182   DennisN   2007 Nov 20, 9:08am  

Let me troll for Peter P. ...

The USSC issued a writ of certiorari today in D.C. v Heller. The reason it took two weeks to issue the writ is that they decided to write their own issue statement.

183   Brand165   2007 Nov 20, 9:23am  

sunny: Nope, I'm American, born in the steel towns of the East and transplanted into the Wild West. If my humor is a bit British, it's likely due to watching too much Monty Python (as if there could be such a thing). :)

184   HARM   2007 Nov 20, 10:08am  

@Bap33,

RE: "deep-earth" oil production:

I'm assuming you are referring to Thomas Gold and his theory of abiotic petroleum deep-crust formation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

I'm no expert on the subject, but the evidence in favor of Gold's theory seems scant, and his support among scientists (outside of Russia anyway) appears thin at best. Even if we assume he's 100% right and there are limitless abiotic reserves deep inside the crust just waiting to be found, there are two more problems:

(1) The technology does not yet exist to reach these alleged deep-crust reserves (much less extract them on an EROEI-positive basis), and

(2) You still have the fundamental problem of extracting and consuming the oil at a rate faster than it can be replenished. Whether or not oil is created abiogenically or biogenically, we're talking about geological timescales here --eons on a human scale.

Either way, I get the distinct impression we should be aggressively pursuing alternative sources of scalable energy while oil & gas are still abundant: nuclear (fission & fusion), coal, wind, solar, wave, biodiesel, geothermal, etc.

185   HARM   2007 Nov 20, 10:17am  

RE: pollution

I'm no Berkeley-smug tree hugger, and I don't care for a lot of California's poorly conceived top-down "environmental" mandates. Google "MTBE" if you'd like a lesson in the law of unintended consequences, Cali-style.

Even so, I am old enough to recall Stage-3 smog alerts when I was growing up and how just breathing made you feel like a 3-pack-a-day smoker. And I know first-hand how much better the air quality is today, largely thanks to catalytic converters and emission standards. I have no desire to return to the air quality of my youth (just the housing prices, population, traffic and overall standard of living ;-) ).

The U.S. has basically no control over what China or Mexico or any other sovereign country does. If they want to pollute the crap out of their water, land & air, there's not much we can do about it. We only have some control over what happens here.

And yes, a few million fewer illegals would do wonders for our air quality (and traffic, and crime, and wages, and the state budget, and the public education system, etc., etc.).

186   HARM   2007 Nov 20, 10:23am  

RE: ethanol (esp. corn-based):

I agree this is a non-starter as a replacement for fossil fuels. You'd have to plow under half the planet to be able to produce enough grains to replace all of the oil the world uses, assuming that's even possible. Ditto for hydrogen --hydrogen's an energy CARRIER, not an energy SOURCE. A basic fact of physics most people don't seem to comprehend.

Coal can help get us through the transition period, but in the long run, it will eventually peak and decline as well. Not to mention the fact it's one of the "dirtiest" most environmentally destructive forms of energy production there is, at least given current technology. Nuclear, on the other hand, has a bright future if done right (think France) --and if the public can get over its fears of "another Chernobyl".

187   justme   2007 Nov 20, 11:05am  

Bap33,

Harm already covered most of what I would say. Some quick points:

1. Abiogenic oil -- I don't believe in it, but you can have your guess, as you said.

2. Smog reduction technology (catalytic converters) reduces energy efficiency. Yes, and in more ways than one. It let's people drive big terrible V8 cars that otherwise would have polluted something awful and would have been banned altogether. Another example of a good technology being perverted by the wrong usage model.

3. Coal: Dirty as hell. I wish we could use less of it.

4. China should reduce their consumption first: That's unreasonable. We consume (dissipate) more energy per capita than any other country in the world. Why should we not reduce first? I hope the answer isn't "because we are god's own country".

5. Ethanol. I agree, growing corn for ethanol is not a good solution. I'm not supporting it. Hydrogen is going to be even worse of a solution. Biodiesel is probably better.

6. Illegal aliens. I really don't think lead-footed illegal aliens is the real problem here. They're not helping, but they are not the problem.

188   justme   2007 Nov 20, 11:09am  

ex-sunnyvale-renter,

>American mail-order bride

That will be the day!

Btw, I thought it was DinOR that sounded like a limey with the "good rogering" epxression.

189   justme   2007 Nov 20, 11:13am  

SP,

>Stepford Deluxe with an open-source Linux kernel.

Uh, it might be better if the source isn't *too* open.
Or else you may not own the product.

190   justme   2007 Nov 20, 11:15am  

-product
+end product

192   thenuttyneutron   2007 Nov 20, 11:57am  

Bankster:

I am not sure what is going to happen, but I have a gut feeling that I cannot ignore. I think we are heading for a recession worst than the Great Depression.

I live between Detroit and Cleveland, 2 great crime cities. In the last 4 months I have purchased several "arms" with loads of ammo for each. If peak oil does hit along with the economic turmoil of the credit crunch, the police will not beable to "protect" anyone. Gas will be expensive and tax revenue will be low. Do you think those people in the cities are going to stay put while gas/food/ and other essentials sky rocket in price?

I hate to say it, but I am not worried about another country as much as I am worried about my fellow citizens. If someone decides they "deserve" my scarce resources more than me/my family, there will be some serious disagreements in the streets.

193   SP   2007 Nov 20, 5:42pm  

Bap33 said:
I tend to have a gut feeling that oil is created through some natural function

Truthiness - it's the wørd

194   SP   2007 Nov 20, 5:51pm  

justme Says:
Uh, it might be better if the source isn’t *too* open. Or else you may not own the end product.

The physical processor, peripherals and apps are not open source - I was only referring to the kernel.

195   SP   2007 Nov 21, 1:54am  

EBGuy Says:
Who will save more gallons of fuel per year: the guy who trades in his monster Tahoe for the hybrid Tahoe or Dilbert driving his Civic hybrid instead of the regular version?

Yes, comparing an idiot in a 1 Tahoe vs. a dilbert in 1 Civic, driving the same distance over one year, the volume of gas saved by the Tahoe Hybrid may be greater than the volume of gas saved by the Civic Hybrid. Assuming it is largely stop-and-go commuting. However, this is a flawed argument. Of course you’ll save more fuel moving to a Tahoe hybrid because the Tahoe is MUCH thirstier than a Civic in the first place.

If that’s the main argument for buying a Tahoe hybrid, then it’s not much of an argument at all. In fact it would be interesting to see how much _real_ demand there is if the tax loophole favoring 6000lb+ vehicles is plugged, or if the government actually starts to apply smog and CAFE rules to these cretin-mobiles.

The point was not that putting a Hybrid in a Tahoe was a bad idea - but that calling it the "Green Car of the Year" is ridiculous. Purchasing a ladder after you have fallen into a hole is not nearly as praiseworthy as not falling into the hole in the first place.

196   Zephyr   2007 Nov 21, 8:16am  

HARM you said “Once again, Zephyr Von Knowitall charges in to Make His Point and… gets his facts completely wrong.”

You are certainly quick with the hostility.

First of all I cited no facts to get wrong, nor did I express any opinion about the peak oil theory. You criticize me for things I did not say. You then set the record straight for everyone by giving the real truth, which happens to fit perfectly with the point I was trying to make - that a sudden oil doomsday is not realistic. So I thank you for that. I lament that you did not get my point from what I wrote.

What I pointed out is that for almost 100 years now there have been some people who believe the oil doomsday is about to happen. Their deadlines for running out of oil have come and passed, and we still have oil. In fact, today we are extracting more oil than ever before. This may not be sustainable, but oil production is still rising.

However, I do agree with your comments about peak oil theory, and I do expect that oil will get progressively more difficult to find and extract. But that is very old news.

Technology will bring more efficient use of energy, and improved alternatives to oil. I see no energy doomsday. We have plenty of fuel. The real problem is the environmental consequences of using it.

« First        Comments 176 - 196 of 196        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste