patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,257,524 comments by 15,009 users - DOGEWontAmountToShit, RayAmerica, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 204 - 219 of 219 Search these comments
tatupu70
2012 Mar 5, 8:52pm
Yup, The holder of the deed is the owner. Amazing how you just skip over the last sentence where it says "the mortgage holder occupies the house as if they were the owner". Read - "as if". I know, I'm waiting my time. Where is that ignore button before I get dumbed down in the process of trying to help. Ugh
Sorry, I think you were already dumbed down. Yes, the bank holds the deed. What ownership rights does that give them? Do they have any rights to the appreciation of the asset? Are they responsible for any liabilities caused by the asset? Do they have any access to the asset?
What ownership rights does the bank have??
freak80
2012 Mar 5, 10:49pm
Who cares about "ownership rights"? That's academic. The fact is: if you stop paying your mortgage, the bank gets the house. Or at least that's the way it was until recently.
Unless you're buying outright with cash, you're either renting from Your Landlord or you're renting money from Your Bank. Do whichever option is cheaper and less risky.
Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.
RentingForHalfTheCost
2012 Mar 5, 11:40pm
Who cares about "ownership rights"? That's academic. The fact is: if you stop paying your mortgage, the bank gets the house. Or at least that's the way it was until recently.
Unless you're buying outright with cash, you're either renting from Your Landlord or you're renting money from Your Bank. Do whichever option is cheaper and less risky.
Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.
+1
RentingForHalfTheCost
2012 Mar 5, 11:49pm
Yup, a 30 yr old piece of crap that needs major updates. You don't think there will be better building materials, better engineering technique, better built-in media and communication systems? Your 30 year old home will be a tear down, so what did you really end up with? 30 years of an inability to invest your money when you buy into today's prices.
My current home was built in 1968.... I'm in the process of updating most of the interior, hardly a teardown, and close to everything, unlike new homes built way out in BFE.
By the way, most buildings people own condos in in eurpope are hundreds of years old...
Built with brick and mortar rather than wood like most SFH in the US. I guess builders never read "the three little pigs". Every contractor should able to recite this story before given their license. I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability. Horrible foresight, and you can see the greed straight in the materials list on the blueprint.
freak80
2012 Mar 6, 12:02am
I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability.
Yep, that's America. If we built stuff to last, we wouldn't need to keep consuming. And if we didn't need to keep consuming, our overlords would stop making money...
tatupu70
2012 Mar 6, 12:14am
Who cares about "ownership rights"?
Obviously you don't. But they are pretty important.
Mortgage interest is "rent" too: it's rent paid to use money you don't own. If it's cheaper to rent money than rent houses, do that. If it's cheaper to rent houses than rent money, do that.
That much we can agree on.
Bigsby
2012 Mar 6, 12:21am
Built with brick and mortar rather than wood like most SFH in the US. I guess builders never read "the three little pigs". Every contractor should able to recite this story before given their license. I spent some time in Germany and the 200 yr old houses look like they were built yesterday. Here in the U.S. after 200 yrs all you got is a liability. Horrible foresight, and you can see the greed straight in the materials list on the blueprint.
Brick isn't exactly the best idea in a major earthquake zone.
Bigsby
2012 Mar 6, 12:34am
Brick isn't exactly the best idea in a major earthquake zone.
Really?
Tell us about seismic zones and seismic restraint as it relates to horizontal and vertical reinforcing in double wythe masonry walls.
Does that relate to one of your $60/sq. ft. houses? Why don't you explain to me why brick isn't the material of choice in seismically active areas? In fact, I don't think I can recall ever seeing a brick house in all the years I lived in Tokyo. Are there lots of them in the Bay area?
Oh, and didn't you forget something?
freak80
2012 Mar 6, 1:28am
Oh it's a SHIT...HOUSE...priced mighty mighty, just rentin' it 'til the rout...
Bigsby
2012 Mar 6, 1:51am
I can't put up a CMU building in seismic zone S-4? Really? REALLY?
Realtors Are Liars.
Where exactly did I say that?
Bigsby
2012 Mar 6, 2:29am
Contractors Are Liars.
Most especially $60/sq ft ones.
And doesn't that mean that you are one of a handful of people on here who actually benefited from the housing bubble. Or are you just Googling your construction info?
hrhjuliet, I am in a similar boat. The biggest problem is that my husband can't get a job that pays nearly as much anywhere else. I don't think we can move. So I sit here pondering the purchase of a home. I can't figure out what to do about it. I continue to work on my down payment. I think that prices will continue to go down at a "slow hiss" pace on Peninsula. I have almost been thinking about buying a rental while we continue to rent. On the low end, it seems that there are properties that meet rent parity.
Still another option is to hold out for longer, save up a LOT of cash from your supposedly cushy, well-paying California job, and basically semi-retire somewhere else. My folks live in Semi-rural NC and they own a large piece of land, a decent house, and so on and the value of all of it is well under 200k. Where they live a normal house in say- an acre of land- is still easily less than 150k. I have even seen some for under 100k. So figure you save up lots of dough and go to someplace like that, buy a house for cash, stick the rest into various savings and retirement accounts, get some crappy joe-job that at least pays for your insurance, and call it a day. Sure- it would be a huge shift in lifestyle. I grew up that way. For others it would be a real shocker
This has been our generally approach.
But getting back to that question, if where you live means you actually have to pay more to get what you really want, then would it be worth it to save up some more? I personally don't see a reason to rush right now. The market is actually still depreciating and even if it bottoms out, it will probably be awhile longer before it moves.
That has also been my view of things. Even if it bottoms, I don't think it will take off like a rocket. I think recent increase in prices is artificial, akin to a dead cat bounce.
BG
Eman
2012 Jul 30, 1:41am
Of course I don't like the Bay Area, lots of people don't, but a lot of people are stuck here for the very reasons I gave. It is a hard choice. I'm afraid of regrets, but I'm also afraid of making the wrong choice and buying if the market is still going down.
How's the housing market in your area between Feb and now? Up, down or sideways? If so, by how much?
« First « Previous Comments 204 - 219 of 219 Search these comments
What do you all think? Wait out the Bay Area market a few more years? We have two kids, jobs here and we are renting a 500 square foot home. Should we buy some crap hole under $400,000 in the area, or move to a place where we could have a nice home for $200,000? Should we invest? Please add your reasons why, and any solid data or links you have to help.