x

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
This guy is wasting his valuable time. Stop holding signs and start making your own PAC. I'm sure you will find a lot of supporters in the community. Setup a FB page and start organizing. The best way to stop developers is through the ballot box. Start a petition for a building moratorium.
 
iacrenter said:
This guy is wasting his valuable time. Stop holding signs and start making your own PAC. I'm sure you will find a lot of supporters in the community. Setup a FB page and start organizing. The best way to stop developers is through the ballot box. Start a petition for a building moratorium.
Click to expand...

You know our political process is broken right?  I mean, most government officials are safely nestled in the pockets of the powerful and wealthy.  Build baby build.  Bring on the profits.
 
So...we need to build *more* homes, not fewer, right?  To bring prices down?  Sorry, I don't know the backstory between Altair, price bubbles and the political process.
 
daedalus said:
So...we need to build *more* homes, not fewer, right?  To bring prices down?  Sorry, I don't know the backstory between Altair, price bubbles and the political process.
Click to expand...

Asset prices are... complicated...  To compute the fair value you need [10 year US treasury bond effective interest rate] x [# of honks for asset bubbles - # of votes for building moratoriums] x [sqft of multigen living space - term of mello roos bond].
 
daedalus said:
So...we need to build *more* homes, not fewer, right?  To bring prices down?  Sorry, I don't know the backstory between Altair, price bubbles and the political process.
Click to expand...

You are right. Constricting supply will only exacerbate prices. How about a steep non-resident/investor real estate tax? (Think British Columbia) That should cool the demand side.
 
Not a fan of taxes, but have to agree with the BC style tax. It's time to rein in these home sales when residents of Irvine who were born in the city no longer have the option to grow old in their city. Of course we all know the builders will defeat this through unlimited contributions to the right candidates.
 
IMO if we taxed foreign buyers enough to stunt their buying in Irvine, prices could not be supported. There just aren't enough of the rest of us who can afford the upper end and the property taxes that go with it and if those fell it would drop the houses under them too.

But maybe that's idea, I don't know. My old house along with the one next door to me is back up for sale after less than two years each. Not sure why but I think neither really was a house that was lived in for long. My old house definitely looks worse for wear. They never even took out the nails from old pictures, nor put up anything to cover them up and I don't think they ever once cleaned the waterfall. Ewe! My neighbor's old house OTOH looks much better than when they bought it, staged nicely, floors shined up, great pix, etc.

I'm pretty sure they are not owned by the same person. Each chose their buyer's agent to be their listing agent.

Makes me think...... hmmm.......... why did they both decide to jump ship within a month of each other after not owning the houses for not that long. I always look at the Chinese as being shrewd investors and these two just decided to sell.
 
I'd be okay with the tax but then I think about where those tax dollars will go. No thanks.
 
jmoney74 said:
I'd be okay with the tax but then I think about where those tax dollars will go. No thanks.
Click to expand...

How about using the tax revenue for:
1) Schools -- maybe they can repeal Measure E
2) Improve roads and mass transit/address traffic
3) Build the GP library (just don't spend $200M+)
4) Build affordable homes for our local teachers and police
5) Help pay down the MR bonds
6) Give every resident a tax rebate check
 
iacrenter said:
jmoney74 said:
I'd be okay with the tax but then I think about where those tax dollars will go. No thanks.
Click to expand...

How about using the tax revenue for:
1) Schools -- maybe they can repeal Measure E
2) Improve roads and mass transit/address traffic
3) Build the GP library (just don't spend $200M+)
4) Build affordable homes for our local teachers and police
5) Help pay down the MR bonds
6) Give every resident a tax rebate check
Click to expand...

Definitely but I know this would never happen. Go straight to Calpers.
 
iacrenter said:
jmoney74 said:
I'd be okay with the tax but then I think about where those tax dollars will go. No thanks.
Click to expand...

How about using the tax revenue for:
1) Schools -- maybe they can repeal Measure E
2) Improve roads and mass transit/address traffic
3) Build the GP library (just don't spend $200M+)
4) Build affordable homes for our local teachers and police
5) Help pay down the MR bonds
6) Give every resident a tax rebate check
Click to expand...

A person can argue if they didn't have MR real estate prices would go through the roof. (the city would potentially make more money in real estate taxes)
Example LR vs PS area (around the same location, but LR property value is higher)




 
In places like Vancouver and Irvine with high RE prices and foreign investors, I think there is a market for leasehold developers.  Instead of selling freehold homes they can sell 30 or 50 year leaseholds at significantly lower prices that would be attractive to local buyers.

After the lease expires the land owner can take back the land and redevelop according to current market conditions.  So if the population level has grown much higher, old low density housing on leasehold can be torn down and rebuilt for high density housing according to need.  Or, if the population level has declined, high density housing can be turned into SFR's.  The newer homes would also have the benefit of being updated to whatever current standard.

With automation and AI removing many humans from real jobs in the future, freehold home ownership may become a minority in urban areas within the next couple generations, with the government progressively taking more ownership of the land as people become welfare recipients through minimum basic income.  Those who owned or inherited freeholds would eventually be motivated to sell the land title to the government through some kind of reverse mortgage deal.
 
Regarding to the concept of  leashold property, isn't that what China is doing currently with their real estates?



 
I would never buy a leasehold property. (I take that back maybe when I retire. I might live in a trailer.)


momopi said:
In places like Vancouver and Irvine with high RE prices and foreign investors, I think there is a market for leasehold developers.  Instead of selling freehold homes they can sell 30 or 50 year leaseholds at significantly lower prices that would be attractive to local buyers.

After the lease expires the land owner can take back the land and redevelop according to current market conditions.  So if the population level has grown much higher, old low density housing on leasehold can be torn down and rebuilt for high density housing according to need.  Or, if the population level has declined, high density housing can be turned into SFR's.  The newer homes would also have the benefit of being updated to whatever current standard.

With automation and AI removing many humans from real jobs in the future, freehold home ownership may become a minority in urban areas within the next couple generations, with the government progressively taking more ownership of the land as people become welfare recipients through minimum basic income.  Those who owned or inherited freeholds would eventually be motivated to sell the land title to the government through some kind of reverse mortgage deal.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top