On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:13:10 -0500, Odinn
wrote:

I'm middle-class, and I can't afford a 250k house. Well, I can't afford
it and still be able to do all the OTHER things I like/want to do.
Everyone I know who has 250k house around here who is in my income
class, struggle to find the money to enjoy doing half the things I enjoy
doing. For me, 5 acres of land and a doublewide trailer, is perfectly
fine. I have a total of about $85,000 invested in the property, the
trailer, the shed/workshop, etc., refinanced a couple of months ago to
shorten my term and knock some points off, and to pay off a few other
bills, and now only have 10 years left to pay instead of 17 and pay
about the same per month as I did before.

Heck, around here you can't own a postage stamp-sized lot that costs
under $250k. Average-sized homes go for over $500k and in some local
areas, for over $750k.

When we bought our house, it was worth less than $250k. Now, our
neighbor, with a smaller house and less land, recently sold his for
close to a million.

On 2/13/2006 1:57 PM Brian Henderson mumbled something about the following:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:13:10 -0500, Odinn
wrote:

I'm middle-class, and I can't afford a 250k house. Well, I can't afford
it and still be able to do all the OTHER things I like/want to do.
Everyone I know who has 250k house around here who is in my income
class, struggle to find the money to enjoy doing half the things I enjoy
doing. For me, 5 acres of land and a doublewide trailer, is perfectly
fine. I have a total of about $85,000 invested in the property, the
trailer, the shed/workshop, etc., refinanced a couple of months ago to
shorten my term and knock some points off, and to pay off a few other
bills, and now only have 10 years left to pay instead of 17 and pay
about the same per month as I did before.

Heck, around here you can't own a postage stamp-sized lot that costs
under $250k. Average-sized homes go for over $500k and in some local
areas, for over $750k.

When we bought our house, it was worth less than $250k. Now, our
neighbor, with a smaller house and less land, recently sold his for
close to a million.

That's why I live 50 miles out from such an area. My house payments and
taxes are so much less, that the extra fuel I spend driving to work is
less than 1/10 the savings. By having a $100k mortgage (doublewide
trailer and 5 acres of land) instead of a $250k or better mortgage, I
can afford to own a fairly new pickemup, a new car, a new Harley. It
allows me to take off almost any weekend and go to a NASCAR race. It
allows me to luxury of spending 3 weeks riding the Harley all over the
country, putting 7500 miles on it in 24 days
(http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/Sturgis2005).

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

Odinn wrote:

That's why I live 50 miles out from such an area. My house payments and
taxes are so much less, that the extra fuel I spend driving to work is
less than 1/10 the savings. By having a $100k mortgage (doublewide
trailer and 5 acres of land) instead of a $250k or better mortgage, I
can afford to own a fairly new pickemup, a new car, a new Harley.

But you own a home that depreciates...

B a r r y said:

Odinn wrote:

That's why I live 50 miles out from such an area. My house payments and
taxes are so much less, that the extra fuel I spend driving to work is
less than 1/10 the savings. By having a $100k mortgage (doublewide
trailer and 5 acres of land) instead of a $250k or better mortgage, I
can afford to own a fairly new pickemup, a new car, a new Harley.

But you own a home that depreciates...

Well, if you've seen the crap they throw up in the metro area that he
is avoiding (I live there), you would realize that his land is the
major investment. The cracker box "investment" house won't last much
more than 20 years, or just till it's about paid off. And the
remaining 1/6 acre lot is worthless. (To me, anyway...)
It's a banker/broker's wet dream. I'm with Odinn on this one...


Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
Well, if you've seen the crap they throw up in the metro area that he
is avoiding (I live there), you would realize that his land is the
major investment. The cracker box "investment" house won't last much
more than 20 years, or just till it's about paid off. And the
remaining 1/6 acre lot is worthless. (To me, anyway...)
It's a banker/broker's wet dream. I'm with Odinn on this one...

You just have to pick your areas. Sometimes you get hit on both ends ... the
"lot/land value" on my tax appraisal is increasing by about 10%/year, while
the "improvements" remain fairly constant.

We are paying $63sf + for "teardowns" on 50' x 100' lots in the area I am
currently building in ... and that's probably gone up in the last 30
minutes.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

Greg G. wrote:

Well, if you've seen the crap they throw up in the metro area that he
is avoiding (I live there), you would realize that his land is the
major investment.

Agreed about the land. No question!


The cracker box "investment" house won't last much
more than 20 years, or just till it's about paid off. And the
remaining 1/6 acre lot is worthless.

Wanna' make a bet?

"Construction quality today" has been a hot topic for what, 100 years?

If the house meets code, even though it will require repairs, the value
will most likely at least keep up with inflation. A mobile home is
guaranteed to depreciate AND require repairs.

Barry

B a r r y said:

Greg G. wrote:

Well, if you've seen the crap they throw up in the metro area that he
is avoiding (I live there), you would realize that his land is the
major investment.

Agreed about the land. No question!

If I had only owned 30 acres of farmland in Roswell...
Growing up, no one wanted it - now it's Yuppie Land.

The cracker box "investment" house won't last much
more than 20 years, or just till it's about paid off. And the
remaining 1/6 acre lot is worthless.

Wanna' make a bet?

Well, you clipped off the "To me, anyway" part.
In an era when land is priced at millions per square foot in, oh, say
Manhattan, it's obviously not worthless to someone. But I place no
value on it, and sure as heck don't want to live there.

"Construction quality today" has been a hot topic for what, 100 years?

If the house meets code, even though it will require repairs, the value
will most likely at least keep up with inflation. A mobile home is
guaranteed to depreciate AND require repairs.

Ahh.. but. the mobile home only cost a few thousand dollars.
It is pretty much a given that it is disposable. As for maintenance,
well, it's pretty basic stuff. In 20 years, that plot of land will be
worth far more than the deteriorating McMansion - even though they
cost the same amount originally.

Perhaps I'm jaded due to the poor quality of new construction here.
I've lived in other states where the quality of work was far superior.
I think it's just a case of Atlanta having been a boom housing market,
and it attracted a lot of carpetbagging, skank developers like Ryland.

We barely have building codes here, compared to the north, and the
inspectors are willing to overlook just about anything - for a price.
Maintenance on the unsupervised beaner built $400k crap put here is
already huge. A large development nearby, less than three years old,
is already having roofs replaced and structural problems. Not to
mention the erosion and flooding problems due to the clear cutting and
terracing of the natural roll of the landscape. They are truly
abominations.

Heck, we live in a 15 year old house that is in need of constant
repair due to the low quality work and the total lack of code
enforcement during it's construction.

Yea, it's a McMansion. I didn't buy it, the other half did, before
her husband died. I'm the idiot who ended up with the maintenance
nightmares. I begged her to sell it right after we met, 'cause I
could see the light at the end of the tunnel - it was the oncoming 120
ton locomotive of major repairs.

No flashing, no drip edges, improper roof framing on the stupid bows
and other such pointless "curb appeal" flash, leaving chipboard as the
sole structural member, framing buried under grade and infested with
termites, etc, etc. Only the electrical and plumbing are even close
to code. Even the HVAC is fubar'd. We've replaced doors, windows,
siding, roof, structural components in much of the roofing and wall
framing. The builder must not have been able to read a blueprint,
because I can't imagine ANY architect designing something the way this
was built. They didn't even manage to get the studs on center
properly. The walls wave in and out so badly that the lap siding had
to be face nailed to keep the gaps from showing between overlaps. The
floors are sinking, uneven and squeak horrifically in the winter.
There were 3" of shingles hanging over all the edges, presumably to
supplant the nonexistant flashing and drip edges. It goes on and on.
A collection of the cheapest "builder special" crap available, thrown
up by the cheapest unskilled and untrained labor they could find.

I want to build my own new home, on a large plot of conservation land,
but ended up rebuilding this turd instead. Just to keep ahead of the
rot, decay and deterioration so we can sell it. Neither my father's
home, nor my first house, have needed any of this bull****, and they
are far, far older.

I could itemize much more here, but the point is that given a choice
between a plot of land, and a 1/6 acre corporate built McMansion - the
McMansion buyer is just a fuel screw for Greedy Corporate America.

Unwittingly, Like Me.


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:


Ahh.. but. the mobile home only cost a few thousand dollars.
It is pretty much a given that it is disposable. As for maintenance,
well, it's pretty basic stuff. In 20 years, that plot of land will be
worth far more than the deteriorating McMansion - even though they
cost the same amount originally.

I think we're comparing apples to oranges. I don't remember ever
comparing building and mobile home values to unimproved land values.

Compare the actual resale values of ten year old mobile homes to ten
year old fixed homes, ANY ten year old home, on a lot of land of
identical value. If you like, feel free to find the most cherry mobile
home you can and the worst constructed 10 year old home you can, as long
as it can legally be occupied.

How's the resale value, vs. the new cost, expressed as a percentage,
look now?

The mobile home will almost always be less than 100% of it's value ten
years ago. The _house_, even if it's manufactured somewhere else, but
finished on site, will nearly always be more than 100% of it's value ten
years ago. If by chance, the mobile home is actually worth the same or
more than the purchase price 10 years ago (meaning a really strong local
real estate market), I'll bet the house has appreciated exponentially.

There's at least 50 years of data backing my point up in any real
estate, tax collector, or property appraiser's office. Just the way the
two items are treated differently by money lenders should give you at
least SOME clue. G

Greg G. wrote:

Ahh.. but. the mobile home only cost a few thousand dollars.
It is pretty much a given that it is disposable. As for maintenance,
well, it's pretty basic stuff. In 20 years, that plot of land will be
worth far more than the deteriorating McMansion - even though they
cost the same amount originally.

I have a workshop in a retail/residential building in what is currently
a very trendy and "gentrifying" neighborhood on the corner of a busy
intersection.

The owners have a nice valuable piece of property. But sitting on it is
an old (four storey) masonry building with massive cracks in the
masonry, buckling concrete pad, with no end of plumbing problems,
electrical problems, and the floors and walls degrading, etc.

I believe they wanted to sell the property when, recently, property
rates hit their peak.[1]

But they were determined to sell it as a piece of valuable land plus a
revenue generating building, where the buyers (again, speculation) were
looking at it as land value *minus* demolition cost... and then rebuilding.

So the building on the property could be viewed as negative value if it
is as derelict as that one.

[1] because they replaced the back door knob! And put a coat of ugly
paint around the first floor externals and doors.

er
--
email not valid

Greg G mused:
Perhaps I'm jaded due to the poor quality of new construction here.
I think it's just a case of Atlanta having been a boom housing market,
and it attracted a lot of carpetbagging, skank developers like Ryland.

We barely have building codes here, compared to the north, and the
inspectors are willing to overlook just about anything - for a price.
Maintenance on the unsupervised beaner built $400k crap put here is
already huge. A large development nearby, less than three years old,
is already having roofs replaced and structural problems. Not to
mention the erosion and flooding problems due to the clear cutting and
terracing of the natural roll of the landscape. They are truly
abominations.

Heck, we live in a 15 year old house that is in need of constant
repair due to the low quality work and the total lack of code
enforcement during it's construction.

Hey Greg, if you think that your descriptions of Mcmansions are just
restricted to them or to your area, think again. Sadly, this greedy
mentality has permeated every area, including here in the northeast -
codes notwithstanding.

Our house was built in the late 70's, and you described it almost to a
"T" in your description of problems. They even used cinder block for the
basement when it had been outlawed here for home construction by code
some 20 years earlier due to its problem of disintegrating from the wet
ground. (And they didn't even have the decency to put sealer on the
outside of the block) The building inspectors inspected just the first
house in the development to be built, and signed off on all the other
'to be built' houses - leaving the builder to do anything he wanted.
There isn't much of anything I can find in this house that was built
properly or to code, including the electric and plumbing systems, the
undersized floor joists, the phenomenal warpage in the walls, the floors
that move up and down when you walk, every copper pipe joint springing
leaks, improper heating system design, ect, ect, ect. The fact that a
house today can get a certificate of occupancy is a testament to how
much a builder can bribe the local officials. But when a homeowner fixes
something and tries to get it inspected....

One of the largest builders in NJ is well known for building really nice
looking houses/condo's/etc., but after people move in and discover what
a peice of total crap it is, they are very often willing to take a huge
financial hit by selling out immediately and moving. He hires all
non-english speaking laborers for pennies on the doller and is presently
worth billions. This seems to be the norm, not the exception here. And
unfortunately, most all builders here are trying to compete with these
scam artists and so can not afford to do things "right" lest they go
broke. (At least that's their story)