Not for affordability. That’s because of the weather and Boomers who bought houses for $200K that are now worth $1 million +.
If you already own a house and like living in it, you have no costs besides maintenance and property tax. Property taxes in California are limited by Proposition 13, so they’re minimal.
That means that plenty of boomers are just hanging out in houses with huge opportunity costs but no real costs. They could rent them out for a ton of money, but they don’t need to. Thus the rental market is limited.
Also the fact the many areas in California actively fight against construction of new homes. Especially anything more then X stories tall. They get killed because so and so celeb/Richie doesn’t want to ruin the skyline.
You get shit like mansions renovated into 4+ family homes because they can’t tear it down to make a 8 unit complex.
Rent control is also pretty robust, so while it’s painful at first, over time renting gets easier relative to inflation. I think renting is still financially optimal over buying in most areas, and that’s before considering roommates.
But yes. They don’t call it a housing crisis for nothin
mortgage, borrowing costs, repair costs, property tax, a fund for known maintenance, a fund for repairs that insurance won’t cover without penalizing you more, and home resale value
paying stupid rent and putting the difference from that above into the dumbest of minimally-performing stocks.
After 5/10/20 years, we pretend we’re gonna cash out from both options and compare cash on hand after each.
There are really few scenarios where the bungalow owner comes out ahead.
California, as always:
Best state in the Union.
Not for affordability. That’s because of the weather and Boomers who bought houses for $200K that are now worth $1 million +.
If you already own a house and like living in it, you have no costs besides maintenance and property tax. Property taxes in California are limited by Proposition 13, so they’re minimal.
That means that plenty of boomers are just hanging out in houses with huge opportunity costs but no real costs. They could rent them out for a ton of money, but they don’t need to. Thus the rental market is limited.
Also the fact the many areas in California actively fight against construction of new homes. Especially anything more then X stories tall. They get killed because so and so celeb/Richie doesn’t want to ruin the skyline.
You get shit like mansions renovated into 4+ family homes because they can’t tear it down to make a 8 unit complex.
Rent control is also pretty robust, so while it’s painful at first, over time renting gets easier relative to inflation. I think renting is still financially optimal over buying in most areas, and that’s before considering roommates.
But yes. They don’t call it a housing crisis for nothin
There are several sites out there that compare
mortgage, borrowing costs, repair costs, property tax, a fund for known maintenance, a fund for repairs that insurance won’t cover without penalizing you more, and home resale value
paying stupid rent and putting the difference from that above into the dumbest of minimally-performing stocks.
After 5/10/20 years, we pretend we’re gonna cash out from both options and compare cash on hand after each.
There are really few scenarios where the bungalow owner comes out ahead.
Lately in terms of politics I think it’s probably Minnesota