- #1 of 101
-
Houses cost too much!
by bumpy
-
Jul 18, 2007 (2:42 pm)
-
|
|
I did some poking around in Ye Olde Census, and in 2000 the median home price here was $118,000, and the median income was around $43,000. Real estate has gone up some since then, mostly from retirees and Yankees coming in and bidding up everything.
|
- #2 of 101
-
Re: Houses cost too much! [bumpy]
by steve_ HOST
-
Jul 18, 2007 (2:56 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jul 18, 2007 2:42 pm)
Where's here?
Back in '75 or so I got my first house in TN for ~$19k. Zillow puts the tax appraisal at $102k today.
With the rise in the standard deduction, it's barely worth the tax break to carry a mortgage these days.
|
- #3 of 101
-
Re: Houses cost too much! [steve_]
by bumpy
-
Jul 18, 2007 (4:24 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 18, 2007 2:56 pm)
Rural eastern Virginia.
|
- #4 of 101
-
Re: Houses cost too much! [bumpy]
by pat HOST
-
Jul 19, 2007 (4:26 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jul 18, 2007 4:24 pm)
Yeah? Like Isle of Wight? Or maybe the eastern shore? Or where? I'm in Norfolk. 
|
- #5 of 101
-
.
by fintail
-
Jul 24, 2007 (7:52 pm)
-
|
|
It's much worse on the west coast...Seattle area and BC Lower Mainland are insane. A house that was 20K 45 years ago can be 600K+ today.
|
- #6 of 101
-
Re: . [fintail]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jul 24, 2007 (9:26 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jul 24, 2007 7:52 pm)
You can't even find a house where I live for 600K, and the houses are not very big or elaborate. It's where they are sitting that makes them so expensive. A 1500 square foot, 2 bedroom frame cottage built in the 40s, basically a one-story ranch, can be worth 1.2 million, no problem. It's much smarter to rent.
|
- #7 of 101
-
Re: . [Mr_Shiftright]
by fintail
-
Jul 25, 2007 (5:38 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 24, 2007 9:26 pm)
It's not that bad here - yet. The house across the street from me, a 1050 sq ft 1950-ish cottage with decades of neglect, Zillows at about 650K. No view, no huge lot, nothing. I think the average in my zipcode is approaching 1M. Renting is the only option for most, that's why a block of houses will be torn down for condos or apartments. I still prefer this to a long commute.
It's funny too, if you drive 2 hours, you can get a decent little house for 100K. But, there's a reason for that.
|
- #8 of 101
-
Re: . [fintail]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jul 25, 2007 (7:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jul 25, 2007 5:38 am)
I'm happy with the renting situation as it allows me to live in a house I couldn't possibly otherwise live in. When rent is about 1/5th the mortgage, it's got to be the bargain of the century. The landlord doesn't care, since he didn't put any value into the house since he bought it so many years ago. All that has "gone up" is the price. If a house becomes more valuable without any improvements whatsoever, this isn't an "investment", this is a speculation, like hog bellies or gold futures.
|
- #9 of 101
-
Re: . [Mr_Shiftright]
by jipster
-
Jul 25, 2007 (9:23 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 24, 2007 9:26 pm)
The Louisville housing market is one of the lowest in the country I believe. The median selling price is around $140,000... nicely loaded.
|
- #10 of 101
-
Re: . [Mr_Shiftright]
by fintail
-
Jul 25, 2007 (10:44 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 25, 2007 7:30 am)
If my apartment building went condo, the mortgage would be about double my rent as well. This would still be cheap for the area, and not the worst deal - I would be tempted, even though it might strain my finances. I am a little leery of the local condo market though, with many new conversions and new construction, I think a saturation point might be met. It happened for condos where I used to live, they aren't appreciating nearly as fast as houses, as they once did.
Here, many people are betting their retirement on their house, it's more of a risk than anyone will admit.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Off Topic Chatter 
