Housing Prices, Housing problems

Poncier

brianlux said:

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! 

Give it time.

Berlin2000

brianlux said:

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! 

tempo_n_groove

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

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.

Zod said:

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.

brianlux

Poncier said:

brianlux said:

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! 

Give it time.

Haha!  We shall see!

Berlin2000 said:

brianlux said:

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! 

Yes! 

Parksy

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. 

Parksy

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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. 

tempo_n_groove

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

tempo_n_groove

Parksy said:

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.

It makes my brain hurt sometime.

Poncier

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

Boston has similar rule.

mfc2006

brianlux said:

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.

Zod said:

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.

brianlux

Parksy said:

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?

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

Parksy said:

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.

Parksy

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

Parksy said:

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. 

static111

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

dankind

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

Parksy

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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. 

static111

dankind said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

mfc2006

static111 said:

dankind said:

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Parksy said:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8597882/n-b-tiny-home-community-settles-its-first-residents/

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.

Meltdown99

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

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.

Zod said:

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…

static111

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

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.

Zod said:

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…

Probably Trudeau