Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nyxnars t1_j8r4sm6 wrote

So still too expensive for most San Diegans, but cheap enough for corporations to buy them up!

28

nimama3233 t1_j8sj7zu wrote

Super disingenuous headline. They predict national prices will fall 5%, while the worst / most affected market, Phoenix, will fall 18%.

> A new model of forecasting home prices based on consumer demand predicts that prices for housing will decrease by 5% nationally and 12% in San Diego County by the end of this year. The model, which highlights online search activity, was recently published in a new study from the University of California San Diego’s Rady School of Management.

…

> But home prices in other cities are expected to fall even more. Phoenix, AZ, is predicted to have the biggest drop at 18%. Other metropolitan areas where prices are predicted to be on the decline include Stockton-Lodi, CA (down 13%), Las Vegas, NV (down 13%), followed by San Diego and Tucson, AZ. The cities with the most price stability include the metropolitan area of Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA and Kansas City, MO both predicted to rise by 2%. Other cities with forecasts of stable prices include Hartford, CT, Harrisburg, PA and Omaha, NE.

One city has this 18% drop, and the title doesn’t accurately state that. Crummy journalism by Eurekalert on this one.

24

ShelbySmith27 t1_j8r44sy wrote

Watch it follow the upper limit of those error bars and continue to climb

9

danielravennest t1_j8trtn6 wrote

Higher interest rates have knocked the stepladder out from under rising prices. People can't afford the higher priced houses because the monthly payments are too high.

3

ShelbySmith27 t1_j8tydhb wrote

Tell that to wealthy multinational investors looking for property. Until supply of housing is increased were stuck with this I feel

5

danielravennest t1_j8u13cs wrote

I'm working on the idea of "housing cooperatives" similar to how Habitat for Humanity works. You put in some sweat equity and end up with a house a lot cheaper than developer prices.

I've done property development for myself my whole life. That's either upgrading an existing home, or building from bare land. And I did it as a side gig while having a regular day job.

The stuff I can handle I did myself, and hired contractors for the big heavy jobs. It is not that complicated, you just have to show people how and have a plan. You do need some starter capital, at least enough to buy some bare land and put the utilities in, or for a down payment on a "fixer-upper" that you can then upgrade.

1

ShelbySmith27 t1_j8u8lty wrote

That doesn't address problem to me though. There isn't enough supply of land or fixer uppers to make these options affordable for most, so it doesn't lower demand, and we don't get lower prices. Your plan obly works if the person has enough capital to buy land or a house, which people don't have

2

ThermoreceptionPit t1_j8uhk29 wrote

They could do it through community land trusts, which is basically where a nonprofit owns the land but leases it to the tenants at very low rates with the purpose of keeping housing affordable in perpetuity. One of the ways community land trusts get land is by having rich people donate it to them and then deduct the value of the land from their taxes. One reason coop housing doesn't get built as much (in the US at least) seems to be that coop housing used to get more funding from local governments, but local governments have favored low income rental housing construction for several decades, because of these getting tax credits that housing cooperatives don't.
Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives
Tax Credit

1

danielravennest t1_j8wp7xz wrote

> There isn't enough supply of land

I live on the outskirts of the Atlanta metro area. Beyond where I live, there nothing but undeveloped forest. Developers have been gradually buying up and building, which is how Atlanta has grown. My little town has a "seed and feed" store and a Tractor Supply store. Both of those cater to farmers and large land lots, not 1/4 acre suburban. They would not be here if there weren't the kind of owners they cater to.

> Your plan only works if the person has enough capital

I'm an engineer, so I had enough income to do it. But not everyone does, which is why I mentioned a cooperative approach. People pitch in a little bit each, plus their labor, and fix up or build one house at a time to start with. One of them takes out their share and buys it conventionally. The loan proceeds then return the capital to the group so they can work on the next.

If you get one member like myself who has the spare capital, the other members don't have to contribute anything but labor.

1

ThermoreceptionPit t1_j8uibp1 wrote

Always thought a kind of massdrop-esque system for people to find places other people were interested in forming coops and try to pool funds to buy land would be neat.

2

AutoModerator t1_j8r3oc3 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1