Silly question. Tent cities and extreme homelessness are in Democratic run states only? I live in NY traveled in Cali and Seattle and saw this. Florida, Maine, Connecticut, nodda.
Texas a few years back i didn't see any of the sort either.
California is far and away #1 in terms of homeless population and NY is a very strong #2. However, Florida and Texas are #3 and #4. So, while they may not have tent cities (though I think Miami area has had some at least in the past), there are plenty of homeless folks there.
So looking at those charts and how similar Florida, Texas and Seattle are w homelessness, if you visited those places they look nothing alike.
Texas is really spread out though so maybe seeing it would be harder where it seems like everyone is in Seattle in a tent. Florida I was there in 2016 and don't recall seeing 1 tent.
Yeah, I think land mass has a lot to do with it, Texas and Florida much bigger, also warmer states and the homeless are likely more spread out whereas Washington state they are heavily concentrated in Seattle.
But I do have memories of seeing tents set up at underpasses in south Florida (not tent cities, but small groups) in years past when I visited.
Yeah, I think land mass has a lot to do with it, Texas and Florida much bigger, also warmer states and the homeless are likely more spread out whereas Washington state they are heavily concentrated in Seattle.
But I do have memories of seeing tents set up at underpasses in south Florida (not tent cities, but small groups) in years past when I visited.
Small amounts of tents I can see. They do it in Hawaii too. Montana they follow the rivers and underpasses, same as in AZ. If you have ever been hiking and come across one of their areas it is quite eye opening.
I guess I am asking about the eye test. It makes sense that bigger states are spread out more. What doesn't make sense is that Texas and Florida have a higher populations than NY but have triple the amount of homeless.
I am trying to figure out a connection that isn't red and blue state but if other opportunities are there?
Also, some states/cities do a better job of assisting their homeless populace. There’s a “homeless” population and a “sheltered homeless population.” How they’re counted and categorized makes a difference as it relates to total numbers or the perception of the scope of the issue.
We have this issue here in Victoria, BC. We have a constantly growing homeless population. One because were one of the least cold places in the winter in Canada. The other is we do have shelters and basic supports like food and what not for homeless people. It might not seem like much but it's better than a lot of other places in Canada. It causes migration of homeless to our city.
It's a challenge for sure. To fix that you would need some kind of national program that addresses it evenly, rather than provinces/cities doing their own thing, and causing migration to those places that do it better.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
Great thread, lots of excellent thoughtful comments, none of the usual AMT b.s. I know I'm sort of cheer-leading but seriously, this is good stuff!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The whole housing issues these days seems like either a reflection of the widening gap between the "haves and the have nots" or a cause of it or both. I went through some years being semi-homeless years in the mid 90's and it was tough climbing out of that hole then. Today, it would be difficult to the extreme. This is evidenced by the huge rise in homelessness. It's increasing rapidly here in the small city of Placerville, and it's growing like wildfire a little less than an hour from here in Sacramento.
Not much different here in Canada. Same stuff going on:
1) Immigration seems to have exceed our capacity to build, which leads to shortages. Stuck in a catch 22, because we need more working age people paying taxes to try and keep our social programs afloat.
2) Properties are getting bought up as investments. Not just to flip, but to generate cash flows. Gobbled up by individuals and corporations, so percentage of homes available to people needing a primary residence reduces.
3) Low Interest Rates
4) Where I live is desirable so contant migration of people from other parts of Canada.
My house has pretty much doubled in value in 7 years. It's insane.
I'm worried about younger generations. In addition to building more, I think we need to curb investment. Reduce how many residential properties an individual can own, and ban corporate ownership all together. Otherwise I think we shift from an ownership economy to a rental one which isn't great.
Well said, Zod, I agree,
And rentals too are going crazy high. I just found out a friend of mine is paying $1600 a month for a basic two bed room apartment. She uses one room for her office. But she's also in her early 70's and the chances of her owning her own home are getting slim. With rents like that, how do you ever stop working? It's super concerning.
In Ontario if you own a home your sitting on a nice little nest egg if you choose to sell and move to an apartment…
bought my home in 2018 and I have gained 120 grand in value…and increasing.
Its nothing for people to receive 10 bids on their house…all blind bidding.
From what I understand those blind bids are companies.
It's almost like shill bidding on ebay. It's nuts.
Not in most cases. I’m sure in Toronto that may be the case sometimes, but around my area is mostly people just wanting a house to live in…I know a fellow, retired GM worker went in with a bully bid at 150 grand over…but he got the house..
Saw an article over the weekend saying that the average US home price jumped up by almost 100k since 2019. We just finished some massive renovations to our house and had out realtor come by for an estimated property valuation. She said she list it for $150k+ more than we paid for it in 2017 and my jaw hit the damn floor. She said it would sell quickly with a bidding war. Our next door neighbor just sold their home (3 days after listing it) and got 100k over asking without any renovations. CRAZY.
It makes me wonder how people raising kids on like $60,000/yr can afford to live anywhere. I see that the 2021 median HH income was about $75,000...so half of all households earn less than that.
You can’t, not in a state where the average home is 500k+, which is becoming more and more states. 10 years ago you could easily find a house in denver for 200k, and a starting teacher salary was about 40. Now the starting salary is about 45k, but that same home will be in the 500-600 range.
Great thread, lots of excellent thoughtful comments, none of the usual AMT b.s. I know I'm sort of cheer-leading but seriously, this is good stuff!
I second that! Really enjoying this thread - despite the concerning content. But it deserves a thoughtful and balanced discussion. Thanks, everyone!
PJ: 2000-6-25: Berlin, GER | 2005-3-18: Seattle, WA | 2006-6-30: Milwaukee, WI | 2009-8-24: Chicago, IL | 2012-7-5: Berlin, GER | 2013-7-19: Chicago, IL | 2014-10-17: Moline, IL | 2014-10-20: Milwaukee, WI | 2016-8-20: Chicago 1, IL | 2016-8-22: Chicago 2, IL | 2018-8-18: Chicago N1 | 2018-8-20: Chicago 2, IL | 2021-9-18: Asbury Park, NJ | 2022-9-11: MSG, NY | 2023-9-5: Chicago, IL |
EV: 2017-9-2: Dana Point, CA | 2022-2-3: NYC 1, NY | 2022-2-4: NYC 2, NY
The whole housing issues these days seems like either a reflection of the widening gap between the "haves and the have nots" or a cause of it or both. I went through some years being semi-homeless years in the mid 90's and it was tough climbing out of that hole then. Today, it would be difficult to the extreme. This is evidenced by the huge rise in homelessness. It's increasing rapidly here in the small city of Placerville, and it's growing like wildfire a little less than an hour from here in Sacramento.
Not much different here in Canada. Same stuff going on:
1) Immigration seems to have exceed our capacity to build, which leads to shortages. Stuck in a catch 22, because we need more working age people paying taxes to try and keep our social programs afloat.
2) Properties are getting bought up as investments. Not just to flip, but to generate cash flows. Gobbled up by individuals and corporations, so percentage of homes available to people needing a primary residence reduces.
3) Low Interest Rates
4) Where I live is desirable so contant migration of people from other parts of Canada.
My house has pretty much doubled in value in 7 years. It's insane.
I'm worried about younger generations. In addition to building more, I think we need to curb investment. Reduce how many residential properties an individual can own, and ban corporate ownership all together. Otherwise I think we shift from an ownership economy to a rental one which isn't great.
Well said, Zod, I agree,
And rentals too are going crazy high. I just found out a friend of mine is paying $1600 a month for a basic two bed room apartment. She uses one room for her office. But she's also in her early 70's and the chances of her owning her own home are getting slim. With rents like that, how do you ever stop working? It's super concerning.
In Ontario if you own a home your sitting on a nice little nest egg if you choose to sell and move to an apartment…
bought my home in 2018 and I have gained 120 grand in value…and increasing.
Its nothing for people to receive 10 bids on their house…all blind bidding.
From what I understand those blind bids are companies.
It's almost like shill bidding on ebay. It's nuts.
Not in most cases. I’m sure in Toronto that may be the case sometimes, but around my area is mostly people just wanting a house to live in…I know a fellow, retired GM worker went in with a bully bid at 150 grand over…but he got the house..
So hear me out. I mentioned this somewhere on here before.
You have companies competeing w cash offers for houses so it puts the normal buyer at a disadvantage, so to overcome that disadvantage they have to raise their bid price to be attractive.
Take your buddy that went OVER 150 for the house. That over paying number is now the new number that everyone else uses to justify pricing.
So when the new numbers get used the cash person is looking even better now in future sales and when they rent, they aren't taking a loss so they will charge rent accordingly.
There was a time when rent didn't pay the note on an overpriced house. People just stopped caring it seems or they are made of money.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
Housing is the best example of free market capitalism working and winning.
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
Housing is the best example of free market capitalism working and winning.
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
It is free market working but it can also price people out of things and make a correction worse if a recession hits.
I look at it like the car debacle right now. Cars are fewer because of chip shortages. It's driving the prices up. The cars really aren't worth what they are but people don't like waiting/impatient buy even though the prices are hyped and over asking.
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
The whole housing issues these days seems like either a reflection of the widening gap between the "haves and the have nots" or a cause of it or both. I went through some years being semi-homeless years in the mid 90's and it was tough climbing out of that hole then. Today, it would be difficult to the extreme. This is evidenced by the huge rise in homelessness. It's increasing rapidly here in the small city of Placerville, and it's growing like wildfire a little less than an hour from here in Sacramento.
Not much different here in Canada. Same stuff going on:
1) Immigration seems to have exceed our capacity to build, which leads to shortages. Stuck in a catch 22, because we need more working age people paying taxes to try and keep our social programs afloat.
2) Properties are getting bought up as investments. Not just to flip, but to generate cash flows. Gobbled up by individuals and corporations, so percentage of homes available to people needing a primary residence reduces.
3) Low Interest Rates
4) Where I live is desirable so contant migration of people from other parts of Canada.
My house has pretty much doubled in value in 7 years. It's insane.
I'm worried about younger generations. In addition to building more, I think we need to curb investment. Reduce how many residential properties an individual can own, and ban corporate ownership all together. Otherwise I think we shift from an ownership economy to a rental one which isn't great.
Well said, Zod, I agree,
And rentals too are going crazy high. I just found out a friend of mine is paying $1600 a month for a basic two bed room apartment. She uses one room for her office. But she's also in her early 70's and the chances of her owning her own home are getting slim. With rents like that, how do you ever stop working? It's super concerning.
Completely agree on the rental market. Our mortgage is about $1500/mo, but we pay about $2200. In any case, they built some brand new apartments about 1.5-2 miles from us and the rent for a 1BR/1BA *starts* at $1450/mo. What the hell?!? We live in KC---not a huge city. It's nuts.
I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
Housing is the best example of free market capitalism working and winning.
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
Was that your intent?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Housing is the best example of free market capitalism working and winning.
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
Housing is the best example of free market capitalism working and winning.
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
Was that your intent?
lol, let it go.
Just let it gooo. My intent is usually peaceful but sometimes the mere mention of a man draws endless memes of blackface.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
They are talking about doing that here in Austin...Of course its Marxism so it will never happen...and I don't think 10% of units would be enough. We pay 1600 for a 2br2ba on the north edge of the city..its crazy. All of the housing prices are beyond insane. People have told us to just move somewhere cheaper, I'm like duh if there was a magic place with high paying jobs and low home prices we would be there already.
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
They are talking about doing that here in Austin...Of course its Marxism so it will never happen...and I don't think 10% of units would be enough. We pay 1600 for a 2br2ba on the north edge of the city..its crazy. All of the housing prices are beyond insane. People have told us to just move somewhere cheaper, I'm like duh if there was a magic place with high paying jobs and low home prices we would be there already.
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
They are talking about doing that here in Austin...Of course its Marxism so it will never happen...and I don't think 10% of units would be enough. We pay 1600 for a 2br2ba on the north edge of the city..its crazy. All of the housing prices are beyond insane. People have told us to just move somewhere cheaper, I'm like duh if there was a magic place with high paying jobs and low home prices we would be there already.
In Ontario, I did just that. Moved somewhere cheaper 3 years ago. Housing in said cheaper area has skyrocketed. The rate of the increases can't be good. And all along... the wealthy banks are just gonna keep getting wealthier.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
They are talking about doing that here in Austin...Of course its Marxism so it will never happen...and I don't think 10% of units would be enough. We pay 1600 for a 2br2ba on the north edge of the city..its crazy. All of the housing prices are beyond insane. People have told us to just move somewhere cheaper, I'm like duh if there was a magic place with high paying jobs and low home prices we would be there already.
Funny. That place used to be Austin, Texas.
Yeah it was and when we moved here 7 years ago we could have afforded to buy, but we were just dating and not even engaged and didn't feel ready to take on the risk of home ownership at that stage in the relationship. No way we ever thought housing prices would jump hundreds of thousands in such a short time. Oh well maybe building a tiny house will help add to the markets that millennials wreck.
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Here in NY every development has to have 10% of it's dwellings at "affordable or adjusted income" housing. It does happen.
They are talking about doing that here in Austin...Of course its Marxism so it will never happen...and I don't think 10% of units would be enough. We pay 1600 for a 2br2ba on the north edge of the city..its crazy. All of the housing prices are beyond insane. People have told us to just move somewhere cheaper, I'm like duh if there was a magic place with high paying jobs and low home prices we would be there already.
Funny. That place used to be Austin, Texas.
Yeah it was and when we moved here 7 years ago we could have afforded to buy, but we were just dating and not even engaged and didn't feel ready to take on the risk of home ownership at that stage in the relationship. No way we ever thought housing prices would jump hundreds of thousands in such a short time. Oh well maybe building a tiny house will help add to the markets that millennials wreck.
It definitely used to be Austin. When my wife was finishing grad school at Baylor, we were looking at moving to Austin. The prices were great. Instead, we moved to Portland and we never had a chance to buy in that shitshow of a market up there. We now feel like we moved to KC at the perfect time because we grabbed a house right away in 2017. It would be an insanely long & expensive process now.
The whole housing issues these days seems like either a reflection of the widening gap between the "haves and the have nots" or a cause of it or both. I went through some years being semi-homeless years in the mid 90's and it was tough climbing out of that hole then. Today, it would be difficult to the extreme. This is evidenced by the huge rise in homelessness. It's increasing rapidly here in the small city of Placerville, and it's growing like wildfire a little less than an hour from here in Sacramento.
Not much different here in Canada. Same stuff going on:
1) Immigration seems to have exceed our capacity to build, which leads to shortages. Stuck in a catch 22, because we need more working age people paying taxes to try and keep our social programs afloat.
2) Properties are getting bought up as investments. Not just to flip, but to generate cash flows. Gobbled up by individuals and corporations, so percentage of homes available to people needing a primary residence reduces.
3) Low Interest Rates
4) Where I live is desirable so contant migration of people from other parts of Canada.
My house has pretty much doubled in value in 7 years. It's insane.
I'm worried about younger generations. In addition to building more, I think we need to curb investment. Reduce how many residential properties an individual can own, and ban corporate ownership all together. Otherwise I think we shift from an ownership economy to a rental one which isn't great.
Well said, Zod, I agree,
And rentals too are going crazy high. I just found out a friend of mine is paying $1600 a month for a basic two bed room apartment. She uses one room for her office. But she's also in her early 70's and the chances of her owning her own home are getting slim. With rents like that, how do you ever stop working? It's super concerning.
In Ontario if you own a home your sitting on a nice little nest egg if you choose to sell and move to an apartment…
bought my home in 2018 and I have gained 120 grand in value…and increasing.
Its nothing for people to receive 10 bids on their house…all blind bidding.
From what I understand those blind bids are companies.
It's almost like shill bidding on ebay. It's nuts.
Not in most cases. I’m sure in Toronto that may be the case sometimes, but around my area is mostly people just wanting a house to live in…I know a fellow, retired GM worker went in with a bully bid at 150 grand over…but he got the house..
So hear me out. I mentioned this somewhere on here before.
You have companies competeing w cash offers for houses so it puts the normal buyer at a disadvantage, so to overcome that disadvantage they have to raise their bid price to be attractive.
Take your buddy that went OVER 150 for the house. That over paying number is now the new number that everyone else uses to justify pricing.
So when the new numbers get used the cash person is looking even better now in future sales and when they rent, they aren't taking a loss so they will charge rent accordingly.
There was a time when rent didn't pay the note on an overpriced house. People just stopped caring it seems or they are made of money.
Yes, that would be the new standard for that area and it pulls all the other houses in area up…he bid on 4 houses before he went in hard with a bully offer. We also have gotten an influx of people coming here to retire that used to live in the Toronto area. Sell your million dollar home in Toronto and buy a 3000 + sq foot home for 1/2 million where I’m at…complete with roomy yards…we have some of the most desirable weather in Canada..For years this place was one of the more affordable areas to live in Ontario…someone let the secret out…
The whole housing issues these days seems like either a reflection of the widening gap between the "haves and the have nots" or a cause of it or both. I went through some years being semi-homeless years in the mid 90's and it was tough climbing out of that hole then. Today, it would be difficult to the extreme. This is evidenced by the huge rise in homelessness. It's increasing rapidly here in the small city of Placerville, and it's growing like wildfire a little less than an hour from here in Sacramento.
Not much different here in Canada. Same stuff going on:
1) Immigration seems to have exceed our capacity to build, which leads to shortages. Stuck in a catch 22, because we need more working age people paying taxes to try and keep our social programs afloat.
2) Properties are getting bought up as investments. Not just to flip, but to generate cash flows. Gobbled up by individuals and corporations, so percentage of homes available to people needing a primary residence reduces.
3) Low Interest Rates
4) Where I live is desirable so contant migration of people from other parts of Canada.
My house has pretty much doubled in value in 7 years. It's insane.
I'm worried about younger generations. In addition to building more, I think we need to curb investment. Reduce how many residential properties an individual can own, and ban corporate ownership all together. Otherwise I think we shift from an ownership economy to a rental one which isn't great.
Well said, Zod, I agree,
And rentals too are going crazy high. I just found out a friend of mine is paying $1600 a month for a basic two bed room apartment. She uses one room for her office. But she's also in her early 70's and the chances of her owning her own home are getting slim. With rents like that, how do you ever stop working? It's super concerning.
In Ontario if you own a home your sitting on a nice little nest egg if you choose to sell and move to an apartment…
bought my home in 2018 and I have gained 120 grand in value…and increasing.
Its nothing for people to receive 10 bids on their house…all blind bidding.
From what I understand those blind bids are companies.
It's almost like shill bidding on ebay. It's nuts.
Not in most cases. I’m sure in Toronto that may be the case sometimes, but around my area is mostly people just wanting a house to live in…I know a fellow, retired GM worker went in with a bully bid at 150 grand over…but he got the house..
So hear me out. I mentioned this somewhere on here before.
You have companies competeing w cash offers for houses so it puts the normal buyer at a disadvantage, so to overcome that disadvantage they have to raise their bid price to be attractive.
Take your buddy that went OVER 150 for the house. That over paying number is now the new number that everyone else uses to justify pricing.
So when the new numbers get used the cash person is looking even better now in future sales and when they rent, they aren't taking a loss so they will charge rent accordingly.
There was a time when rent didn't pay the note on an overpriced house. People just stopped caring it seems or they are made of money.
Yes, that would be the new standard for that area and it pulls all the other houses in area up…he bid on 4 houses before he went in hard with a bully offer. We also have gotten an influx of people coming here to retire that used to live in the Toronto area. Sell your million dollar home in Toronto and buy a 3000 + sq foot home for 1/2 million where I’m at…complete with roomy yards…we have some of the most desirable weather in Canada..For years this place was one of the more affordable areas to live in Ontario…someone let the secret out…
Comments
Texas is really spread out though so maybe seeing it would be harder where it seems like everyone is in Seattle in a tent. Florida I was there in 2016 and don't recall seeing 1 tent.
But I do have memories of seeing tents set up at underpasses in south Florida (not tent cities, but small groups) in years past when I visited.
I guess I am asking about the eye test. It makes sense that bigger states are spread out more. What doesn't make sense is that Texas and Florida have a higher populations than NY but have triple the amount of homeless.
I am trying to figure out a connection that isn't red and blue state but if other opportunities are there?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In Seattle they were going to pass a law that allowed tents in public parks but it quickly got shut down.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
10 years ago you could easily find a house in denver for 200k, and a starting teacher salary was about 40. Now the starting salary is about 45k, but that same home will be in the 500-600 range.
You have companies competeing w cash offers for houses so it puts the normal buyer at a disadvantage, so to overcome that disadvantage they have to raise their bid price to be attractive.
Take your buddy that went OVER 150 for the house. That over paying number is now the new number that everyone else uses to justify pricing.
So when the new numbers get used the cash person is looking even better now in future sales and when they rent, they aren't taking a loss so they will charge rent accordingly.
There was a time when rent didn't pay the note on an overpriced house. People just stopped caring it seems or they are made of money.
Yes!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Sorry if this ruins the tranquility of the thread lol but in Canada we have a certain politician blaming a certain politician for the housing crisis.
With regards to blaming the feds, they really only have a say in interest rate regulation. Which is one part of the issue as someone previously mentioned. Low interest rates make it easier for people (ALL PEOPLE... I'll get to that later) to purchase a home.
Supply and command on the other hand... that's a different story. The market will always dictate value. Much like Pearl Jam tickets. If 40,000 people want tickets to a concert that seats 15,000... drives the price up. In Canada, and likely elsewhere, the solution is more housing. But even that... like it sounds great, but what developer is out there sitting in their board room thinking "society needs more housing and to help people, we're going to sell them well below market value and HOPE that whoever buys it, won't flip it for market value."
If the solution here is to raise the interest rates, this could sound dumb, but that will still make it difficult for a first time buyer to get into the market and really benefit the banks.
So is this a sign of the haves having more and the have nots having less.... to me, yes. The solution... smells too much like socialism to some. I think it was New Brunswick or one of the maritime provinces that rolled out 'tiny homes' to assist homelessness. I'll try to find a link and share.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
So like to me... this seems plausible. It would need to stand the test of time but I like the idea.
It would be fascinating to see and I think this has happened historically... but if a major developer is raking in tons of dough selling condos and sub divisions.... a regulation could force them to contribute to something like this. Government funds some, corporations fund some, residents fund some. But again.... will smell too much like socialism and communism to some.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
I look at it like the car debacle right now. Cars are fewer because of chip shortages. It's driving the prices up. The cars really aren't worth what they are but people don't like waiting/impatient buy even though the prices are hyped and over asking.
It makes my brain hurt sometime.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Was that your intent?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden