Starting to like Bloomberg

[Vic]

...he's not a Dictator?

You don't need to be a dictator to be an effective leader.

 

[Vic]

He nominates a conservative judge because he's a conservative. The fantasy scenario is right wing Bloomberg who believes the right wing narrative about the economic collapse of 2008, who almost certainly agrees with the Citizens United ruling, who was against minimum wage increases, and who supported Guliani's unconstitutional stop and frisk has all of a sudden turned over a new leaf and is now going to appoint liberal justices and work to sign liberal bills into law. Just because Trump is a lazy bastard who handed his presidency over to McConnell doesn't mean Bloomberg will do the same with Schumer.

Link to Bloomberg saying the housing bust happened because banks were forced to make 'bad loans' to minorities?

 

[mect]

Yang proved Democrats can't even figure out how to give free money away properly and UBI is a loser.

He was a quirky enough candidate pushing an novel form of free money, but he could never explain it well to a public that doesn't understand what ubi is (not that it's even been proven to even work...)

It came off just sounding like a gimmicky welfare and his results in ia and nh were terrible.

Here's the lesson:

Keep it simple, just promise big tax cuts.

Ubi is dead as an issue.

At least when you say tax cuts, people believe it's keeping more of the money they earned rather than an expensive program to give welfare away to people sitting at home on their asses.

Considering Yang ran the most successful campaign in modern history for someone with absolutely 0 name recognition or background in politics, I hardly think anyone is in a position to criticize his campaign.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Link to Bloomberg saying the housing bust happened because banks were forced to make 'bad loans' to minorities?

there was the recording last week from some time ago where Bloomberg basically said making banks issue loans for under qualified people in redlined districts caused or contributed to the bank failures
Not his exact words but that’s sort of how I remember it.

Tricky subject because to help poor people out we need to get them properties to own, to do that banks likely need to be more forgiving about debt to earning ratios which sets the purchasing family up for failure the instant something goes wrong.
doing nothing just encourages investors to buy the properties to rent which doesn’t help many people out. Giving out state or federal money to low income firs time buyers works for a little while but soon the market adjusts to the new increased purchasing offers, as in if every person with x salary buying in y area gets $10k to put down on a house, y areas prices will increase $10k pretty fast. Loans could be like VA loans which are fully backed by the federal government so if the vet defaults the government will pay the balance of the loan plus have a senior officer call or stop by the vets house to asks wtf is going on. This will just piss off people who don’t qualify especially if a shit ton of them fail. More qualified people did everything right and followed all the rules, why do they need to pay more. I know I’d think that way. Plus hello more bank bailout which we all hate.
In the case where a purchasing program becomes very successful with no fallout, that areas rent will increase and now low income people are being evicted or forced to mover further away from their jobs because the rent market has increased.

Really difficult subject to take on because there is no easy answer that is “fair” to everyone. Property transactions always have a winner & a loser. Winning might be buying the property at a price you can afford, losing may be selling the property for 95% of what you could have got. Tricky subject that runs deep down the rabbit hole.

 

[Blackjack200]

Link to Bloomberg saying the housing bust happened because banks were forced to make 'bad loans' to minorities?

LMAO. You guys are so bad at this.

Bloomberg Said Ending a Racist Housing Practice Caused Financial Crisis

Video of Mike Bloomberg placing the blame for the financial crisis on the elimination of racist districting policy surfaces.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[senseamp]

Bernie seems to be unable to get above about a third of Democrat support despite having more in 2016. A bad sign for the general.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Link to Bloomberg saying the housing bust happened because banks were forced to make 'bad loans' to minorities?

Page 3 of this thread I posted a video when he went with the typical right wing explanation for 2008. Of course he's trying to walk it back now and claim he wants to regulate Wall Street, which I believe about as much as Trump saying he was for universal healthcare, that he'd raise his own taxes, and that he wouldn't go after Medicare and Social Security.

 

[Vic]

there was the recording last week from some time ago where Bloomberg basically said making banks issue loans for under qualified people in redlined districts caused or contributed to the bank failures
Not his exact words but that’s sort of how I remember it.

Tricky subject because to help poor people out we need to get them properties to own, to do that banks likely need to be more forgiving about debt to earning ratios which sets the purchasing family up for failure the instant something goes wrong.
doing nothing just encourages investors to buy the properties to rent which doesn’t help many people out. Giving out state or federal money to low income firs time buyers works for a little while but soon the market adjusts to the new increased purchasing offers, as in if every person with x salary buying in y area gets $10k to put down on a house, y areas prices will increase $10k pretty fast. Loans could be like VA loans which are fully backed by the federal government so if the vet defaults the government will pay the balance of the loan plus have a senior officer call or stop by the vets house to asks wtf is going on. This will just piss off people who don’t qualify especially if a shit ton of them fail.
In the case where a purchasing program becomes very successful with no fallout, that areas rent will increase and now low income people are being evicted or forced to mover further away from their jobs because the rent market has increased.

Really difficult subject to take on because there is no easy answer that is “fair” to everyone. Property transactions always have a winner & a loser. Winning might be buying the property at a price you can afford, losing may be selling the property for 95% of what you could have got. Tricky subject that runs deep down the rabbit hole.

Well then, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg's comment because, as 25 year mortgage professional, I know for a fact that they aren't true. While mortgages were made to people who couldn't afford them, almost all of those were not made under any govt pressure (govt backed mortgages like FHA and VA made up less than 5% of originations at the height of the boom), nor to help those people obtain homeownership. Quite the opposite, they were predatory, and made by private subprime lenders, backed by Wall Street, for the purposes of pumping even more money into the already over-inflated housing market. And while most of those predatory loans did eventually default, triggering the initial crisis, they were largely foreclosed on and written off the books by 2010. The bulk of the mortgage defaults after that were strategic, intentional defaults by borrowers who could afford their mortgages (or were offered affordable modifications) but chose not to pay them because they were underwater.
And I want to reiterate that I know this for a fact. I underwrote countless numbers of these deals on both sides, at origination and at foreclosure.

I also disagree that this is that much of a tricky subject, or a zerosum game where every transaction has a winner and a loser. Tolerating high debt ratios and low down payments only works when there are strong compensating factors present (VA loans have the highest historical default rates, by far). Otherwise, you're just setting people up to fail, which does not encourage homeownership. If you want to increase homeownership (something I strongly support BTW), then we need to improve financial education, increase wages (especially on the lower end), and most importantly, increase the housing stock in order to make housing more affordable.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well then, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg's comment because, as 25 year mortgage professional, I know for a fact that they aren't true. While mortgages were made to people who couldn't afford them, almost all of those were not made under any govt pressure (govt backed mortgages like FHA and VA made up less than 5% of originations at the height of the boom), nor to help those people obtain homeownership. Quite the opposite, they were predatory, and made by private subprime lenders, backed by Wall Street, for the purposes of pumping even more money into the already over-inflated housing market. And while most of those predatory loans did eventually default, triggering the initial crisis, they were largely foreclosed on and written off the books by 2010. The bulk of the mortgage defaults after that were strategic, intentional defaults by borrowers who could afford their mortgages (or were offered affordable modifications) but chose not to pay them because they were underwater.
And I want to reiterate that I know this for a fact. I underwrote countless numbers of these deals on both sides, at origination and at foreclosure.

I also disagree that this is that much of a tricky subject, or a zerosum game where every transaction has a winner and a loser. Tolerating high debt ratios and low down payments only works when there are strong compensating factors present (VA loans have the highest historical default rates, by far). Otherwise, you're just setting people up to fail, which does not encourage homeownership. If you want to increase homeownership (something I strongly support BTW), then we need to improve financial education, increase wages (especially on the lower end), and most importantly, increase the housing stock in order to make housing more affordable.

Well said, look for a PM from me

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

increase the housing stock in order to make housing more affordable.

Funny thing, depending on the area that doesn't always happen.

Looking at new developments being created in my area, apartment complex about to be finished up, will have 6x 332SF studio for $1,300/mo, 29x ~550SF 2BR apartments for $3,000/mo, and 43x ~400SF 1BR for somewhere in between (nonspecific pricing).

Here's a pic from another one, to give you an idea of their target market.


So yeah, sometimes more housing doesn't mean lower prices, it just means more people think they can build expensive as shit housing. End result, people pay it because they have to, and before you know it everyone's throwing half their gross at rent payments wondering why they'll never retire and never own a home.

 

[Blackjack200]

Funny thing, depending on the area that doesn't always happen.

Looking at new developments being created in my area, apartment complex about to be finished up, will have 6x 332SF studio for $1,300/mo, 29x ~550SF 2BR apartments for $3,000/mo, and 43x ~400SF 1BR for somewhere in between (nonspecific pricing).

Here's a pic from another one, to give you an idea of their target market.
View attachment 17253

So yeah, sometimes more housing doesn't mean lower prices, it just means more people think they can build expensive as shit housing. End result, people pay it because they have to, and before you know it everyone's throwing half their gross at rent payments wondering why they'll never retire and never own a home.

Oh cool it comes with parking for my yacht.

 

[Blackjack200]

Bernie seems to be unable to get above about a third of Democrat support despite having more in 2016. A bad sign for the general.

$350 million spent has gotten Bloomberg to half that level of support. A bad sign for the general.

 

[herm0016]

so we should start tearing down homes so that they get cheaper?

yes, more housing in a market that is heavily constrained will generally be on the higher end, but more is more and at some point, it creates less competition for housing and prices level or drop. Its happening here right now. We finally hit some kind of wall where the new, fancy developments have outpaced sales and prices are leveling off or dropping slightly on the low end of the market, starting on the outskirts of boulder.

of course, the city will continue to espouse diversity and inclusion while they spend money on recognizing countries that don't exist as countries, fighting to keep height limits in place and increasing taxes to keep out the riff raff that make under 1m per year/ force out the poors by buying low income housing and building "low income" condos that cost 4 or 500k and wont allow the owners to take advantage of the increase of the value of the property, but let the city make money on them.

i have 3 rental units and am happy i did not raise rents to crazy levels. level and straight at she goes. my long time tenants will not be looking for cheaper places as prices level and drop at the low end of the market in the next year.

Funny thing, depending on the area that doesn't always happen.

Looking at new developments being created in my area, apartment complex about to be finished up, will have 6x 332SF studio for $1,300/mo, 29x ~550SF 2BR apartments for $3,000/mo, and 43x ~400SF 1BR for somewhere in between (nonspecific pricing).

Here's a pic from another one, to give you an idea of their target market.


So yeah, sometimes more housing doesn't mean lower prices, it just means more people think they can build expensive as shit housing. End result, people pay it because they have to, and before you know it everyone's throwing half their gross at rent payments wondering why they'll never retire and never own a home.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

so we should start tearing down homes so that they get cheaper?

yes, more housing in a market that is heavily constrained will generally be on the higher end, but more is more and at some point, it creates less competition for housing and prices level or drop. Its happening here right now. We finally hit some kind of wall where the new, fancy developments have outpaced sales and prices are leveling off or dropping slightly on the low end of the market, starting on the outskirts of boulder.

of course, the city will continue to espouse diversity and inclusion while they spend money on recognizing countries that don't exist as countries, fighting to keep height limits in place and increasing taxes to keep out the riff raff that make under 1m per year/ force out the poors by buying low income housing and building "low income" condos that cost 4 or 500k and wont allow the owners to take advantage of the increase of the value of the property, but let the city make money on them.

i have 3 rental units and am happy i did not raise rents to crazy levels. level and straight at she goes. my long time tenants will not be looking for cheaper places as prices level and drop at the low end of the market in the next year.

I have no idea what the solution is, I just know that you represent the minority if you aren't raising rents to crazy levels. I got phenomenally lucky when I moved here, and got into a ~1300SF place for $1400/mo, comparable places were upwards of double that price. That was six years ago, housing market has absolutely exploded here and NONE of it is cheap. Average rent price here is over $1800/mo. It's been over $1000 since 2011. Hell, according to rentjungle the average is up 22% since last year! I don't know where this wall is but I don't want to be renting when we hit it.

I'll note that the median income for this city is $30k. How does that make sense? Averaging $21.6k/yr for rent in an area where the average income is $30k.

 

[Vic]

By increasing the housing stock, I did not mean building more second homes and vacation rentals. I assumed most people would get that.
OTOH, it is normal that new construction is generally of the 'move-up' category, which current homeowners move up to, selling their old homes to new first-time homebuyers. That's how this works and always has. For good reason, 'affordable' new construction is generally a failure, as the cost cutting and poor construction quality required to make that affordable rarely ages well, resulting in future slums.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

By increasing the housing stock, I did not mean building more second homes and vacation rentals. I assumed most people would get that.
OTOH, it is normal that new construction is generally of the 'move-up' category, which current homeowners move up to, selling their old homes to new first-time homebuyers. That's how this works and always has. For good reason, 'affordable' new construction is generally a failure, as the cost cutting and poor construction quality required to make that affordable rarely ages well, resulting in future slums.

Right, so what happens if the town's population is increasing from more people moving in, but there's no housing available that isn't affordable? These aren't second homes and vacation rentals, despite what the imagery for building proposals might indicate. They're locals that want to live and work in the same town, rather than driving a half hour each way.

Also, not buying the idea that these rentals being built are being charged at fair market value, it's not like there's something about these apartments that warrant a 4x $/SF price over any other home.

 

[Vic]

Right, so what happens if the town's population is increasing from more people moving in, but there's no housing available that isn't affordable? These aren't second homes and vacation rentals, despite what the imagery for building proposals might indicate. They're locals that want to live and work in the same town, rather than driving a half hour each way.

Also, not buying the idea that these rentals being built are being charged at fair market value, it's not like there's something about these apartments that warrant a 4x $/SF price over any other home.

There's no easy answer to this. IMO if a city's population is increasing from people moving in faster than there is housing available, then something must be done to discourage more people from moving there. And while it sometimes sucks for the locals, higher housing prices are one way to accomplish that discouragement.

 

[herm0016]

boulders median income is over 100k and median home price is over 1m.

the city i live in next door is substantially less and boulder would like to charge a per parking space tax on the people that live here and work there to discourage commuting, because obv. everyone can afford to live in boulder! ( of if you cant, we don't even want you working here)

lots of small time real estate investors value longevity over short term gain. lots of us are in it for someone else paying for a property while the property value goes up, not necessarily for monthly profit on a shit hole that will not go up in value over time.

if people will rent them out, they are at market value. "fair market value" is a term used by people who don't get it, or are appealing to people who don't get it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Bloomberg asks other candidates to drop out.

Bloomberg camp's "dire" warning: Bernie Sanders will soon be unstoppable

"I don’t think many people understand the dire circumstances here."

www.axios.com

Mike Bloomberg's campaign is sounding the alarm that Bernie Sanders will soon amass an unsurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split — and took the extraordinary step of suggesting laggards should drop out. "
"

 

[Blackjack200]

By increasing the housing stock, I did not mean building more second homes and vacation rentals. I assumed most people would get that.
OTOH, it is normal that new construction is generally of the 'move-up' category, which current homeowners move up to, selling their old homes to new first-time homebuyers. That's how this works and always has. For good reason, 'affordable' new construction is generally a failure, as the cost cutting and poor construction quality required to make that affordable rarely ages well, resulting in future slums.

And this is why we need public housing.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Bloomberg asks other candidates to drop out.

Bloomberg camp's "dire" warning: Bernie Sanders will soon be unstoppable

"I don’t think many people understand the dire circumstances here."

www.axios.com

Mike Bloomberg's campaign is sounding the alarm that Bernie Sanders will soon amass an unsurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split — and took the extraordinary step of suggesting laggards should drop out. "
"

OH NOES!

 

[Aikouka]

By increasing the housing stock, I did not mean building more second homes and vacation rentals. I assumed most people would get that.
OTOH, it is normal that new construction is generally of the 'move-up' category, which current homeowners move up to, selling their old homes to new first-time homebuyers. That's how this works and always has. For good reason, 'affordable' new construction is generally a failure, as the cost cutting and poor construction quality required to make that affordable rarely ages well, resulting in future slums.

One of the larger issues that I'm seeing in my area is that your description of "cost cutting and poor construction quality" is largely affecting the homes that would be in your move-up category. My guess is that it's likely due to fixed-price construction costs, poor workmanship, and/or poor materials. Of course, I should also include tight deadlines due to an increased flow of people into the area due to multiple new employers moving in bringing thousands of new jobs, which leads to an increase in new house orders. Honestly, some of the horror stories that I've heard from people around here and the issues that I've had with contractors have made me wary of making my own jump to a "move up home".

Of course, this has lead to an increase in the price of older homes. I bought my house a few years ago at about $75/sqft and the guesstimates are it would go for between $90-$100/sqft now.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just saying, I'm still not liking Bloomberg.

 

[ch33zw1z]

OH NOES!

Better let him borrow Bucky's fainting couch. Hand grenadier lost his in a freak nade fumble accident

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just saying, I'm still not liking Bloomberg.

and I am entirely cool with that because I know if asked the Supreme Court picks question you’d pick Bloomberg over The President without hesitation. Because you get it, winning and getting some of what you want is far better than losing and getting nothing