Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Why would it make it more difficult to remain a homeowner? You sell at market value you buy at market value...it's a wash...right? 365445[/snapback] Only if the market's are equal. In DC, "market" on the Anacostia waterfront is vastly different from "market" anywhere else in the district, and in most of the metro area. There simply isn't low-income real estate available in the DC area, as the market's too overheated. Most of the people in SE DC who will be forced to sell at SE DC market prices won't be able to afford any place else in the DC Metro region...as a practical matter, they'll have been stripped of the right to home ownership (unless they move...but I'd argue that if they had the wherewithal to do that, they wouldn't be in the low income bracket that can't afford typical DC real estate). And southeast DC is a dump, too...from what I've seen of New London (admittedly very little - I've driven through it twice in the past year), they're probably just about equal. The difference being, I don't really know what the markets are like around New London. I DO know what they're like around DC...and the SC's decision will effectively strip a good amount of DC residents of the privilege of home ownership for the sake of commercial development.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Only if the market's are equal. In DC, "market" on the Anacostia waterfront is vastly different from "market" anywhere else in the district, and in most of the metro area. There simply isn't low-income real estate available in the DC area, as the market's too overheated. Most of the people in SE DC who will be forced to sell at SE DC market prices won't be able to afford any place else in the DC Metro region...as a practical matter, they'll have been stripped of the right to home ownership (unless they move...but I'd argue that if they had the wherewithal to do that, they wouldn't be in the low income bracket that can't afford typical DC real estate). And southeast DC is a dump, too...from what I've seen of New London (admittedly very little - I've driven through it twice in the past year), they're probably just about equal. The difference being, I don't really know what the markets are like around New London. I DO know what they're like around DC...and the SC's decision will effectively strip a good amount of DC residents of the privilege of home ownership for the sake of commercial development. 365497[/snapback] I understand that every situation is unique, but in this case these people can move 2 blocks away...or anywhere in NL for that matter...there is plenty available. I guess I was just speaking of this case in particular and not nationally. BTW give me some warning next time you drive by.
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Some of you are missing the big picture here - you can't imagine an army of bulldozers because that's not how it'll be done. Some mogul will take a look at the least expensive property that can be developed for the most profit and then they will grease the wheels through the bureaucracy with campaign contributions or other methods of graft. Voila, people who've lived in the same home for 40 years will be given "fair value" - which from my experience means anywhere from 10-30% LESS than they'd be able to sell their property for on the open market (who here has an assessment that is actually what the market will bear?). We've already seen it here in Anchorage. The city has basically forced trailer park owners, through the litany of laws at their disposal, to sell what is now prime real estate for less than market value. Large companies buy them and build new towers and the trailer owners have no where to move their homes because there isn't any available land to build new parks, nor any entity that wants to get into that business because of all the upfront costs to buy the land and pass all of the environmental caveats that will be imposed.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Anyone who thinks they truly "own" their home should stop paying taxes on it. See how long you OWN it.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Anyone who thinks they truly "own" their home should stop paying taxes on it. See how long you OWN it. 365540[/snapback] That's why I can walk away from it...it's an investment....in some places it pays great dividends.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 That's why I can walk away from it...it's an investment....in some places it pays great dividends. 365547[/snapback] The emotional attachment may be more severe for your wife and children tho.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The emotional attachment may be more severe for your wife and children tho. 365551[/snapback] nope...they are grounded in the strength of the family bond that surpasses any material object.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 nope...they are grounded in the strength of the family bond that surpasses any material object. 365563[/snapback] Thanks for the Waltons' moment there.
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Anyone who thinks they truly "own" their home should stop paying taxes on it. See how long you OWN it. 365540[/snapback] There is a move afoot here in Anchorage to get rid of property taxes completely and move to a sales tax for just that reason. It's gaining momentum. Businesses would still be taxed on their real estate.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 There is a move afoot here in Anchorage to get rid of property taxes completely and move to a sales tax for just that reason. It's gaining momentum. Businesses would still be taxed on their real estate. 365576[/snapback] so would the poor renters then have reduced rents? or would they have to pay the high rent and high sales taxes?
Wacka Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 There is something like this going on in the Buffalo area. in Cheektowaga the Cedargrove Heights (nee Tiorunda) neighborhood is up in arms. The area is old, but most people own their homes and keep them up. A developer cames in and says he would like to take the area, buy iuop he homes and put new homes and condos there. He is going to the town and aasking for them to use eminent domain to get the land. This is what the SC allowed with the ruling. People who have lived there for 30-50 years are worried that their home will be taken from them. This is different than the government buying property to build the Kensington Expressway or to build a new bridge or a school.
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 so would the poor renters then have reduced rents? or would they have to pay the high rent and high sales taxes? 365588[/snapback] That would be an incentive to buy, wouldn't it? There are so many programs available to assist first time home owners that it shouldn't be an issue (no money down, below market interest rates, etc). The sales tax would be in the 4-5% range (we don't have sales tax currently) and would exempt all but prepared food. Things like meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables wouldn't be subject to tax. Things like Hot Pockets would be. That seems more than fair to me.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Things like meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables wouldn't be subject to tax. Things like Hot Pockets would be. That seems more than fair to me. 365642[/snapback]
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 I understand that every situation is unique, but in this case these people can move 2 blocks away...or anywhere in NL for that matter...there is plenty available. I guess I was just speaking of this case in particular and not nationally. BTW give me some warning next time you drive by. 365518[/snapback] And in this case, it may not have been as deleterious a decision as I'm stating. But my main issue is that the SC's decision doesn't just apply to New London, but to the nation, in particular more than a few major metropolitan areas (e.g. Atlanta) that are experiencing the same conditions I've described in DC. And that's even beyond my personal philosophical disagreement with a decision that weakens the individual right to property ownership...eminent domain has always been a risk a homeowner accepted (primarily because it's historically been a small risk, I imagine), but now they're being asked to accept the risk not only in the case of public works but commercial development. I have major philosophical issues with that, even beyond the obvious opportunities for corruption it introduces. And I had no real idea you were in New London. Frankly, I didn't know we'd be in New London until we were through it...next time we go to the Cape, whenever the hell that'll be.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 And in this case, it may not have been as deleterious a decision as I'm stating. But my main issue is that the SC's decision doesn't just apply to New London, but to the nation, in particular more than a few major metropolitan areas (e.g. Atlanta) that are experiencing the same conditions I've described in DC. And that's even beyond my personal philosophical disagreement with a decision that weakens the individual right to property ownership...eminent domain has always been a risk a homeowner accepted (primarily because it's historically been a small risk, I imagine), but now they're being asked to accept the risk not only in the case of public works but commercial development. I have major philosophical issues with that, even beyond the obvious opportunities for corruption it introduces. And I had no real idea you were in New London. Frankly, I didn't know we'd be in New London until we were through it...next time we go to the Cape, whenever the hell that'll be. 365705[/snapback] Again I state: Since the inception of property taxes to pay for schools, there has NEVER been true property ownership in this country. I understand there's a movement in PA to repeal property taxes as well, AD, but I really doubt it will fly. Why? The NEA and other lib organizations wouldn't have it.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Only if the market's are equal. In DC, "market" on the Anacostia waterfront is vastly different from "market" anywhere else in the district, and in most of the metro area. There simply isn't low-income real estate available in the DC area, as the market's too overheated. Most of the people in SE DC who will be forced to sell at SE DC market prices won't be able to afford any place else in the DC Metro region...as a practical matter, they'll have been stripped of the right to home ownership (unless they move...but I'd argue that if they had the wherewithal to do that, they wouldn't be in the low income bracket that can't afford typical DC real estate). And southeast DC is a dump, too...from what I've seen of New London (admittedly very little - I've driven through it twice in the past year), they're probably just about equal. The difference being, I don't really know what the markets are like around New London. I DO know what they're like around DC...and the SC's decision will effectively strip a good amount of DC residents of the privilege of home ownership for the sake of commercial development. 365497[/snapback] It will boost PGC, though won't it?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 It will boost PGC, though won't it? 365823[/snapback] Yes...but I suspect it'll boost PG enough to price a good amount of low-income buyers out of that market as well. On the bright side...by the looks of things, the DC real estate bubble is looking like it's only got about 12-18 months left. Already the pre-owned housing market's starting to slow down...the townhouse behind us was listed at $475k for a month, and finally went for $400. Between market forces and the number of stupid people who are buying at overinflated prices on interest-only loans (without considering that their won't stay that low forever, they eventually have to pay principal), with a few notable local exceptions (e.g. down VABills' way, because of the BRAC) DC could very well be a buyer's market by summer of 2007.
Nervous Guy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Yes...but I suspect it'll boost PG enough to price a good amount of low-income buyers out of that market as well. On the bright side...by the looks of things, the DC real estate bubble is looking like it's only got about 12-18 months left. Already the pre-owned housing market's starting to slow down...the townhouse behind us was listed at $475k for a month, and finally went for $400. Between market forces and the number of stupid people who are buying at overinflated prices on interest-only loans (without considering that their won't stay that low forever, they eventually have to pay principal), with a few notable local exceptions (e.g. down VABills' way, because of the BRAC) DC could very well be a buyer's market by summer of 2007. 365838[/snapback] The New London Day had listed what each owner would get for their houses. It was significantly more than what they could get on the open market, nobody would buy a house there to live, only as an investment to sell. And there are plenty of nice homes in the general area, not just New London that they could relocate to.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The New London Day had listed what each owner would get for their houses. It was significantly more than what they could get on the open market, nobody would buy a house there to live, only as an investment to sell. And there are plenty of nice homes in the general area, not just New London that they could relocate to. 365845[/snapback] I've already accepted that the New London market's different than DC, you can stop trying to convince me. And for that matter...the whole Anacostia development plan with the stadium is so !@#$ed up as it is that the infinitely stupid DC government may decide on their own not to apply eminent domain. The City Council has already ordered - publicly - the District Treasurer to artificially inflate the assessments of all properties in the area in an effort they admit is meant to drive the cost of the stadium so high that MLB will pull the Nationals out of DC. Of course, the low-income homeowners will STILL be driven out of their homes after the artificially inflated assessments send their property taxes into geosynchronous orbit... DC is a seriously !@#$ed up municipality. Frankly, the Supreme Court's decision only gives them leeway to become more !@#$ed up.
Recommended Posts