Real estate commissions likely to change forever

[Brainonska511]

you don't go to the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk for $4.00...but have to outbid 10 other people to get it for $8.00

You might if there was an extremely limited supply. There is a reason that the horseman for famine is frequently depicted with a scale - you'll never guess what happens to food prices in a famine.

 

[Greenman]

The next thing that needs to be changed is the way we sell our houses. If you offer your house for $XYZ, then sell it for $XYZ, don’t use that amount as the opener for an auction/bidding war. If you want MORE than $XYZ for your house, list it for what you actually want. (and, yes, if you don’t get offers for that amount, you can accept lower offers…just stop the whole bidding war bullshit.

That depends entirely on the market. In a popular area with a strong market bidding is how the value is determined.

 

[Greenman]

Disagree.

We need BETTER types of building at less cost. We need $50,000 house, not $500,000 houses. We need to stop sprawl and renovate existing city housing, or demo and rebuild city housing. Less 'Burbs and McMansions. More places people can afford to live and shop.

I'll go back to Detroit for example because it's the city I once knew. There are vast sections of blocks and blocks and blocks that are unliveable. Derelict houses falling down, burned out, long abandoned. These are where neighborhoods used to be viable, people gathered, shopped and worked for most of their lives within walking distance of where they were born. The 60s, 70s and 80s took their toll with urban decay and flight to the 'Burbs. Preople left houses on postage stamp lots with parks nearby you could walk to for postage stamp lots with parks miles away you had to drive to and MUCH larger bills for mostly everything. But the city didn't learn and they never revised the tax codes. The taxes on some of thsoe derelict houses on abandodned lots are ridiculously high.


Bulldoze those blocks. Tear everything out including water, sewer, gas and everything else below ground. That stuff is close to 100 years old in some places and prone to imminent failure. No one wants to build when the utilities could fail at any moment. Do it in those areas instead of what used to be farm fields or natural areas 50 miles or more out of town.

Lay out new housing on 100' x 200' lots instead of the 30' x 60' lots I grew up on. Where a block had 40 homes back then, place 20 now. Build houses working people can afford. Basic houses. Two or three bedrooms, one or two baths, a kitchen, living room and dining room. People don't NEED great rooms, vast entry ways, home theaters, eight bedrooms, six baths a dedicated recreation/game room, home office, indoor garden/plant room, extra rooms for hobbies and crafts, and so on. Millions and millions of us grew up without that stuff.

But to do that, we need a mass re-think and the cities need to completely rework their zoning and property tax laws.

$50k will get you a single wide mobile home and no place to put it. There are $50k homes here in Mississippi, but they're in areas that no one wants to live in, or so far out in the sticks that the sun sets between the house and the road.
The simple reality is that homes in popular areas are popular, that will always drive up the price.

 

[Brainonska511]

$50k will get you a single wide mobile home and no place to put it. There are $50k homes here in Mississippi, but they're in areas that no one wants to live in, or so far out in the sticks that the sun sets between the house and the road.
The simple reality is that homes in popular areas are popular, that will always drive up the price.

It's all about location, location, location (and also land).

But if we did want to bring construction down, unifying some of the building codes instead of every municipality doing their own thing would be a start. We could then take advantage of centralized manufacturing of homes that could just be shipped or quick-assembled on a prepared site. We could also look at allowing lot splits by right to put more homes on a single plot instead of McMansions.

 

[Red Squirrel]

They need to open up more unorganized township land. Cheap land, but you need to clear and build yourself and there's no services. It's not for everyone, but it could be a good starter for some people since it's so cheap and easy due to less regulations to navigate. Clear an area and park a trailer or bring in a prefab home or hell live in a tent if you really want to. No permits or any petty rules, just live how you want with nobody bothering you. Would save a ton of money too as the property taxes are usually fixed like $100/year. Make the lots like 1 acre each or something.

 

[Brainonska511]

They need to open up more unorganized township land. Cheap land, but you need to clear and build yourself and there's no services. It's not for everyone, but it could be a good starter for some people since it's so cheap and easy due to less regulations to navigate. Clear an area and park a trailer or bring in a prefab home or hell live in a tent if you really want to. No permits or any petty rules, just live how you want with nobody bothering you. Would save a ton of money too as the property taxes are usually fixed like $100/year. Make the lots like 1 acre each or something.

Continued greenfield sprawl is just about the worst thing we could do for solving the housing costs. Let's push more people to live in areas far from services and thus require expensive, ongoing commitments to automobiles and the associated automobile infrastructure.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Continued greenfield sprawl is just about the worst thing we could do for solving the housing costs. Let's push more people to live in areas far from services and thus require expensive, ongoing commitments to automobiles and the associated automobile infrastructure.

Clearly the current system is not working. Nobody can afford a home because they're all half a million dollar homes that come with tons of expenses such as high property taxes. Need to open up areas that are cheaper to buy and cheaper to live in. Unorganized is the way to go for that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Clearly the current system is not working. Nobody can afford a home because they're all half a million dollar homes that come with tons of expenses such as high property taxes. Need to open up areas that are cheaper to buy and cheaper to live in. Unorganized is the way to go for that.

Those high property tax come from having to support sprawling infrastructure.

Spreading stuff out means per capita infrastructure costs are going to go up, and if you reduce services, people will pay in other ways.

Why not just let have a market solution that lets people build and buy what they want? If someone wants to be a hermit out in the boonies, fine. Just don't force that choice onto everyone else because we artificially limit any sort of infill housing.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Those high property tax come from having to support sprawling infrastructure.

Spreading stuff out means per capita infrastructure costs are going to go up, and if you reduce services, people will pay in other ways.

Why not just let have a market solution that lets people build and buy what they want? If someone wants to be a hermit out in the boonies, fine. Just don't force that choice onto everyone else because we artificially limit any sort of infill housing.

I'm not saying it should be forced it should just be an option. Right now there really isin't a lot of land like that but there is a high demand for it. Lot of people are fed up of the BS that comes with living in regular city. High costs are only part of that. I'm seeing a lot of people who are looking at moving further out. People don't want to live in high rises or even tight residential neighbourhoods, where they can't afford anything.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm not saying it should be forced it should just be an option. Right now there really isin't a lot of land like that but there is a high demand for it. Lot of people are fed up of the BS that comes with living in regular city. High costs are only part of that. I'm seeing a lot of people who are looking at moving further out. People don't want to live in high rises or even tight residential neighbourhoods, where they can't afford anything.

People are moving out because high housing costs are driving them out.

But we can get costs to go down: Austin, TX and Minneapolis, MN have both shown recently that if you build enough, you can not just stabilize rent, you can actually drive rents down, because now landlords need to compete for tenants since vacancy rates have risen enough. But to do that elsewhere actually requires allowing people to build stuff.

If people want to live in a detached, single-family home - bully for them. They can shell out the money for it wherever they can afford that. There is no right to be able to afford such a prime piece or real estate in an urbanized area. Life is all about trade-offs. If you want to live close to your job in an urbanized environment where you might be able to live car-free or car-light, you're probably looking at some denser form of housing: be it slimmer detached homes or townhouses to living in a high rise. Nothing wrong with living in a high rise, but I can see why some might dislike it.

But back to the original point: denser areas bring in more revenue per acre and cost less per capita to maintain government services. Pushing for sprawl does the exact opposite for lowering property taxes. And pushing for people to live without government services just seems counterproductive, with the whole losing economies of scale or individuals then having to pick up entire costs on their own by buying a service separately or having to expend more money to take advantage of services that are now further off.

 

[MrSquished]

People are moving out because high housing costs are driving them out.

But we can get costs to go down: Austin, TX and Minneapolis, MN have both shown recently that if you build enough, you can not just stabilize rent, you can actually drive rents down, because now landlords need to compete for tenants since vacancy rates have risen enough. But to do that elsewhere actually requires allowing people to build stuff.

If people want to live in a detached, single-family home - bully for them. They can shell out the money for it wherever they can afford that. There is no right to be able to afford such a prime piece or real estate in an urbanized area. Life is all about trade-offs. If you want to live close to your job in an urbanized environment where you might be able to live car-free or car-light, you're probably looking at some denser form of housing: be it slimmer detached homes or townhouses to living in a high rise. Nothing wrong with living in a high rise, but I can see why some might dislike it.

But back to the original point: denser areas bring in more revenue per acre and cost less per capita to maintain government services. Pushing for sprawl does the exact opposite for lowering property taxes. And pushing for people to live without government services just seems counterproductive, with the whole losing economies of scale or individuals then having to pick up entire costs on their own by buying a service separately or having to expend more money to take advantage of services that are now further off.

Yep. There is even a fun story about a township that the mayor was begging the people to allow some mid-rise apartment buildings to go up because the town needed more tax revenue to survive but the NIMBY's were blocking it.

The fifteen minute city is extremely desirable to probably a majority of people, it's just that it's not affordable due to NIMBY'ism. The main reason people are moving out from cities they want to live in or very near to, is not because they don't like the lifestyle and amenities, it's because it's too pricey per sq ft. That is an inventory problem.

Also, living in a more walkable city type situation is far more environmentally friendly. An average New Yorker has like 70% less of a carbon footprint that someone living out in a single family home, which uses much more energy to keep going. Also, by using mass transit or walking or cycling to do many daily errands, that is seriously reducing emissions by ICE cars/trucks. Also not having these big lawns that use up a ton of water, and often pesticides, to be green and grassy, essentially for bragging rights. Walkability is also healthier for the human body. And mentally, nature is great, but as we see in this country, when you get the least exposure to city life, you become regressive and ignorant fascist nationalists. So it's better for democracy and decency too.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Not everyone wants to rent, and that shouldn't be what we even try to push for. Single family home is a basic standard of living that should be obtainable by anyone who works a full time job. In a rich country it's not a lot to ask for. I consider myself lucky things were more sane back in 2009 when I bought but I do feel bad for people trying to buy a house today. A place to live is not something people should need to trade off on. It's literally the whole point of living and having a job. It's why you spend ~1/3 of your life in school. To have a job and be able to afford a place of your own to live and enjoy your life, whether that's hobbies, or raising a family, or both. Having to do all that, only to rent, would be a pretty sad existence. That seems to be what people are pushing for, which is quite ridiculous. You'll own nothing and be happy.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not everyone wants to rent, and that shouldn't be what we even try to push for. Single family home is a basic standard of living that should be obtainable by anyone who works a full time job. In a rich country it's not a lot to ask for. I consider myself lucky things were more sane back in 2009 when I bought but I do feel bad for people trying to buy a house today. A place to live is not something people should need to trade off on. It's literally the whole point of living and having a job. It's why you spend ~1/3 of your life in school. To have a job and be able to afford a place of your own to live and enjoy your life, whether that's hobbies, or raising a family, or both. Having to do all that, only to rent, would be a pretty sad existence. That seems to be what people are pushing for, which is quite ridiculous. You'll own nothing and be happy.

You can buy condos/townhomes/whatever too. No need to rent. But also nothing wrong with renting. Some people don't want to be homeowners, for whatever reason. You know, individual preferences.

Why is owning a single family home the standard? Who decided that? Stop trying to force your car-centric prefences on everyone because *you* have a specific preference.

 

[BoomerD]

Why the fuck do people think we need India-like population density here in the US of A?

 

[Brainonska511]

Why the fuck do people think we need India-like population density here in the US of A?

Maybe you can point to where anyone is advocating for that.

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe you can point to where anyone is advocating for that.

Seriously, what the hell are they talking about?

 

[dullard]

Clear an area and park a trailer or bring in a prefab home or hell live in a tent if you really want to. No permits or any petty rules, just live how you want with nobody bothering you. Would save a ton of money too as the property taxes are usually fixed like $100/year.

That has been tried. It didn't go too well:

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

What they needed was... someplace where land was cheap, where they could come in and buy up a bunch of land... And they wanted a place that had no zoning, because they wanted to be able to live in nontraditional housing situations...a nontraditional housing situation meant a camp in the woods or a bunch of shipping containers or whatever. They brought in yurts and mobile homes and formed little clusters of cabins and tents...so they successfully put a stranglehold on things like police services, things like road services and fire services and even the public library. All of these things were cut to the bone...

As you can imagine, things got messy and there was no way for the town to deal with it. Some people were shooting the bears. Some people were feeding the bears. Some people were setting booby traps on their properties in an effort to deter the bears through pain. Others were throwing firecrackers at them. Others were putting cayenne pepper on their garbage so that when the bears sniffed their garbage, they would get a snout full of pepper.

The issue is that a petty rule to you is extremely important to a neighbor. And vise versa. A petty rule to a neighbor may be of utmost importance to you. And then everything goes downhill.

I like your idea, but it just needs to be toned down to actually work in practice. Minimal permits and minimal "'petty" rules can work. Having none of them has so far always lead to disasters.

 

[MrSquished]

That has been tried. It didn't go too well:

How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

Seriously, this happened. You should absolutely read about it.

www.vox.com

The issue is that a petty rule to you is extremely important to a neighbor. And vise versa. A petty rule to a neighbor may be of utmost importance to you. And then everything goes downhill.

I like your idea, but it just needs to be toned down to actually work in practice. Minimal permits and minimal "'petty" rules can work. Having none of them has so far always lead to disasters.

Where he lives is a net loss financially for the government. Rural areas don't pay for themselves, they take money from the coffers more than they put in.

The ironic thing about these libertarians is they're the ones most reliant on government.

 

[dullard]

Where he lives is a net loss financially for the government. Rural areas don't pay for themselves, they take money from the coffers more than they put in.

The ironic thing about these libertarians is they're the ones most reliant on government.

People value money lost WAY more than they value money gained. If you were taxed $100 and given $120 back, that is a fantastic deal for you in theory as you gain $20 each time this occurs. But people FEEL like they were taxed $200 and got $60 back. It FEELS like you lose $140 each time it occurs. This pattern occurs throughout the economy--it isn't solely related to the government.

So, even if someone or some town gets a net boon from taxes, they don't feel like they do.

 

[Greenman]

It's all about location, location, location (and also land).

But if we did want to bring construction down, unifying some of the building codes instead of every municipality doing their own thing would be a start. We could then take advantage of centralized manufacturing of homes that could just be shipped or quick-assembled on a prepared site. We could also look at allowing lot splits by right to put more homes on a single plot instead of McMansions.

I believe that every state has adopted the IRC, some of them add local modifications to address specific conditions. Some municipality's do add their version of stupid to the mix, but that's generally about lot size, set backs, and building height.

 

[Brainonska511]

I believe that every state has adopted the IRC, some of them add local modifications to address specific conditions. Some municipality's do add their version of stupid to the mix, but that's generally about lot size, set backs, and building height.

The funny thing about the "international building code" is that many other peer nations do not follow them. Things like requiring two stairs instead of point access blocks (think of modern apartment/condos vs older pre-war style buildings) means more inefficient floorplans, more wasted space, and higher costs per square foot.

The things municipalities add do add to the costs, because now you can't use the same plan over and over again. There are also things like arbitrary design reviews, because they're so afraid of "ugly" buildings (which ironically ends up leading to building designs people really hate).

 

[Greenman]

A single access point into a multi unit structure isn't safe, that's why it isn't used.
You're right on with municipalities, they do get out of control. Where I used to work a year to get a building permit wasn't unheard of. Most of the city's in the area viewed permits as a cash cow. They charged outrages fees but it didn't affect enough people for it to become an issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

A single access point into a multi unit structure isn't safe, that's why it isn't used.
You're right on with municipalities, they do get out of control. Where I used to work a year to get a building permit wasn't unheard of. Most of the city's in the area viewed permits as a cash cow. They charged outrages fees but it didn't affect enough people for it to become an issue.

Why are they not safe? Fire deaths in Europe are much lower than in the US, despite Europe preferring point access block construction.

 

[MrSquished]

Why are they not safe? Fire deaths in Europe are much lower than in the US, despite Europe preferring point access block construction.

That's because you don't build homes out of fire tinder. Now they are even starting to build 5 and 6 over ones. Ground floor brick, then up to 6 floors of wood. It's horrible.

 

[Brainonska511]

That's because you don't build homes out of fire tinder. Now they are even starting to build 5 and 6 over ones. Ground floor brick, then up to 6 floors of wood. It's horrible.

Even with wood frame construction (ie, the type 5 in the 5-over-1), modern construction techniques, like fire-proofed stairwells/elevator shafts, sprinklers, and fire-proofing between units is fine. We could even use mass timber, which is even more fire resilient than light wood construction.