- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Replies (12)
- Jim Starwalt, "jimstarwalt"
- Contributions:2512
Hi Rentsave, There are lots of small inexpensive homes around, and most are priced at an all time low. I suggest you talk to a local Realtor and a mortgage loan officer there are still lots of down payment assistance programs for low income individuals. It is pretty tough these days to build a home for a comparable price that an existing home can be purchased for. Good luck, Jim
- Wes Black
- Contributions:509
Very interesting concept.
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
Builders want a reasonable profit, In urban areas the land cost alone drives up the price of development so they tend to build up in the form of condos or choose to build attached townhouses side by side.
The thing that comes the closest to what you describe in my area is a trailer park where each owner owns their mobile home, but they pay land rent every month. The buy in cost is low, but the land fees tend to be an issue since many residents are low income and moving the homes is expensive.
There is a mini trend toward tiny houses here, but in urban areas with good transportation the cost of development would probably not give potential buyers significant savings over a small or sweat equity traditional house. In a city like Portland, the most cost effective housing option right now seems to be traditional condos since many were built when the market was stronger and inventory is up.
- Caveat Emptor
- Contributions:500
Really the answer is that most single people are ages 18-35, and of those the subset of people who *could* buy a house are mostly 25-35, but younger people have a tendency to be more mobile than older ones and in all honesty they don't have a lifestyle compatible with home-ownership. it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to build any kind of meaningful home equity in a home without staying put for more than 10 years or so, and the break even point is usually 4-6 years. Not many people rent the same apartment from the same guy for 6 years. That said, you can find older homes for a good deal if you look, You may have to deal with wood paneling or a key-lime galley kitchen, but it can still be done. The idea from there is to use time and leverage to gain wealth and eventually get a great home via leverage. stay there for 8-10 years, sell, buy, another 10 years, sell, buy, another 10 years, sell, buy...
Why does government actually prevent low earners from buying homes they can afford
HA HA HA HA, good one. the government goes out of its way to make sure low income purchasers can buy a home without making any kind of financial commitment beyond a few month's rent... and untill 2006, it looked like even that was going to be a thing of the past.
Why does government actually prevent low earners from buying homes they can afford
HA HA HA HA, good one. the government goes out of its way to make sure low income purchasers can buy a home without making any kind of financial commitment beyond a few month's rent... and untill 2006, it looked like even that was going to be a thing of the past.
- Caveat Emptor
- Contributions:500
However, singles can actually purchase a home quite effectively and build equity. Singles, especially younger ones can purchase a home and rent it out to 5 or 6 other guys/girls. Its usually far cheaper than college housing and instead of your starter home being 800 square feet, it can be 2200 square feet and have some character. this is the most effective means of a young person acquiring housing in the city imo, after renting.
For the record, I do in fact consider myself a "young person."
For the record, I do in fact consider myself a "young person."
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
"if homewnership is so good and is socially desirable, why doesn't government promote homeownership for everyone but those at lower incomes?"
"by stabilizing and locking in the buyer's housing costs - is crucial for low earners if they are ever to build wealth and to ever be able to retire." -
In highly inflationary periods, it is true that locking in housing costs is a good idea, but traditionally it is not a "wealth builder" as it barely keeps up with inflation, and there are better investments for building wealth And in flat economies, are bubble deflation periods, one is more likely to lose wealth than build it; which is why there are so many bankruptcies and foreclosures presently.
But "government" did promote "housing ownership" for everyone, including those that couldn't afford it. There have been HUD subsidies for up to 125% of median income for decades; since the 1930's to try to get low to moderate income households into their own homes. And at the beginning of the decade, HUD and Fannie and Freddie... established policies of the "nothing down" mortgage purchase loan. And many non-profits were also providing down payment money and closing costs to get renters into their own homes. Home ownership is not always "good", nor socially desirable. For many, it can be an outright disaster. 40% to 50% of households should not be "home owners" but renters. Many people do not have the maintenance skills, and cannot be bothered with the regular periodic maintenance costs, time, and hassles. Besides, if when the retire, they need "assisted living", or similar, they likely would need to liquidate the home anyway. And many that have trouble making rental payments have even more trouble paying off their mortgage, so when the retire, the still have the mortgage costs, as well as all the utilities and maintenance expense.
In terms of land-use, very small houses really are not cost effective nor desirable. If people want extremely small living spaces, there are much better options with rentals or condos, especially near transit areas. But that could be an issue for those concerned noise and privacy. In those cases, a trailer park may be more suited to some people, or perhaps a semi-rural area that is zoned for placement of a trailer, mobile home or modular home.
One can often get lower priced land that allows a modular building near rail or buss transit, but then one also has to deal with the rail or traffic noise, which seems to defeat the purpose of not sharing land with other residents.
There are hundreds of other transit options besides just private cars, public buses, and public trains. Thus, by itself, lack of a car should not be a determining factor.
There are many homes across the nation that are selling in the under $12k price range, thus there is the "affordability" desired if one looks for it; but there may not be the jobs desired, or the climate one prefers, or the amenities one wants, and one may not be willing to move away from friends, family, and a familiar environment anyway.
"by stabilizing and locking in the buyer's housing costs - is crucial for low earners if they are ever to build wealth and to ever be able to retire." -
In highly inflationary periods, it is true that locking in housing costs is a good idea, but traditionally it is not a "wealth builder" as it barely keeps up with inflation, and there are better investments for building wealth And in flat economies, are bubble deflation periods, one is more likely to lose wealth than build it; which is why there are so many bankruptcies and foreclosures presently.
But "government" did promote "housing ownership" for everyone, including those that couldn't afford it. There have been HUD subsidies for up to 125% of median income for decades; since the 1930's to try to get low to moderate income households into their own homes. And at the beginning of the decade, HUD and Fannie and Freddie... established policies of the "nothing down" mortgage purchase loan. And many non-profits were also providing down payment money and closing costs to get renters into their own homes. Home ownership is not always "good", nor socially desirable. For many, it can be an outright disaster. 40% to 50% of households should not be "home owners" but renters. Many people do not have the maintenance skills, and cannot be bothered with the regular periodic maintenance costs, time, and hassles. Besides, if when the retire, they need "assisted living", or similar, they likely would need to liquidate the home anyway. And many that have trouble making rental payments have even more trouble paying off their mortgage, so when the retire, the still have the mortgage costs, as well as all the utilities and maintenance expense.
In terms of land-use, very small houses really are not cost effective nor desirable. If people want extremely small living spaces, there are much better options with rentals or condos, especially near transit areas. But that could be an issue for those concerned noise and privacy. In those cases, a trailer park may be more suited to some people, or perhaps a semi-rural area that is zoned for placement of a trailer, mobile home or modular home.
One can often get lower priced land that allows a modular building near rail or buss transit, but then one also has to deal with the rail or traffic noise, which seems to defeat the purpose of not sharing land with other residents.
There are hundreds of other transit options besides just private cars, public buses, and public trains. Thus, by itself, lack of a car should not be a determining factor.
There are many homes across the nation that are selling in the under $12k price range, thus there is the "affordability" desired if one looks for it; but there may not be the jobs desired, or the climate one prefers, or the amenities one wants, and one may not be willing to move away from friends, family, and a familiar environment anyway.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
are bubble deflation periods ---> *or* bubble deflation periods
- Carla Muss-Jacobs, "PortlandBuyersAgent"
- Contributions:16
There's quite a few condos available. And for those that want detached, the City of Portland has made some incentives available for builders by offering a "tax exemption" on newly built construction in certain areas. Buyers who qualify can have their property taxes exempted for 10 years. That helps!
The thing with "advertising" for "singles" . . . that won't fly only because housing can't be discriminating to familial status according to Fair Housing. So the housing for singles won't work at all. Fair Housing
With buying a property, there are always going to be the wants/needs of a buyer. So fitting a buyer with a property that makes sense/cents is part of the job we do. The want/need may be having a home near public transit. All things to consider when a buyer's agent works with a client.
[website deleted by Zillow moderator. Please see our Good Neighbor Policy]
The thing with "advertising" for "singles" . . . that won't fly only because housing can't be discriminating to familial status according to Fair Housing. So the housing for singles won't work at all. Fair Housing
With buying a property, there are always going to be the wants/needs of a buyer. So fitting a buyer with a property that makes sense/cents is part of the job we do. The want/need may be having a home near public transit. All things to consider when a buyer's agent works with a client.
[website deleted by Zillow moderator. Please see our Good Neighbor Policy]
- Mack McCoy
- Contributions:1117
That's a very thought-provoking question, rentslave.
The short answer is economic - the market value of the land has to do with how it can be maxed out ("Highest and Best Use"), and to under-develop it would require that somebody take a financial hit.
Another part is that new construction is expensive, and while people of modest means can buy homes, they pretty much have to either be resale, condos, or both.
I agree with you that there would be a market for small, say, 600-sf homes in-city, and while you could put four of them on a 5000-sf in-city lot, a builder could also put four townhouses on the lot, too. Seems to me it would be more efficient and less resource-intensive to build a two-story, seven unit apartment building (condo), or maybe even a three-story, eleven unit condo.
The short answer is economic - the market value of the land has to do with how it can be maxed out ("Highest and Best Use"), and to under-develop it would require that somebody take a financial hit.
Another part is that new construction is expensive, and while people of modest means can buy homes, they pretty much have to either be resale, condos, or both.
I agree with you that there would be a market for small, say, 600-sf homes in-city, and while you could put four of them on a 5000-sf in-city lot, a builder could also put four townhouses on the lot, too. Seems to me it would be more efficient and less resource-intensive to build a two-story, seven unit apartment building (condo), or maybe even a three-story, eleven unit condo.
- Caveat Emptor
- Contributions:500
Buyers who qualify can have their property taxes exempted for 10 years.
really? Portland is on my short list, I wonder if I qualify 0.o
really? Portland is on my short list, I wonder if I qualify 0.o
- Jane Becker, "Jane Becker"
- Contributions:4
Well, a condominium ownership is one way a single person can start real estate investment. Many condominium communities are supporting business professionals, single and couples because the lack of exterior maintenance appeals to the owners. I would recommend you looking into the benefit of owning a condominium. Keep in mind this is not a style of a home. Rather is is a form of ownership. You own the inside walls of they property 100%, while the exterior is owned in partnership with all of the owners. Let me know if you have any questions.
- Caveat Emptor
- Contributions:500
"That means, even if a newly constructed property is located in the Homebuyer Opportunity Area, it will not qualify for the program unless the builder applied prior to taking out their building permits."
since I have no intention to buy a new home... probably not. Shame.
since I have no intention to buy a new home... probably not. Shame.
Let's build affordable tiny homes for singles!
So why doesn't some innovative developer build these homes? Someone did buy a lot and built three small houses on it which they sold as condos. (They had to be structured as condos because the lot was not large enough to legally split into three.) While I thought the three condos were overpriced, all three sold within four weeks.
A related question: if homewnership is so good and is socially desirable, why does government promote homeownership for everyone but those at lower incomes? (I believe that homeownership - by stabilizing and locking in the buyer's housing costs - is crucial for low earners if they are ever to build wealth and to ever be able to retire.) Why does government actually prevent low earners from buying homes they can afford (by prohibiting the tiny homes they could afford to buy)?
This suggests to me that a market exists for such homes. I can understand that conventional condo developers would ignore or reject projects like this of such small scale, and that single-family builders also might be uninterested (because they don't have the condo expertise required).
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.