Affordable & unaffordable real estate markets

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well theres always the option where the government doesnt spend stupid amounts of money and spreads the cost fairly and evenly.

I think there is currently a small group of Chupacabra that are proposing this to the legislature in a secret session in area 51 right this minute.

Given that option isnt going to work ever because its diametrically opposed to the way politicians work, you're stuck with simply trying to protect long term residents, especially retirees, from being priced out of their home.

Like I said, its not like its a permanent advantage for all...only until somebody moves. While I'm currently paying 40% more in prop taxes on my house than my immediate two neighbors are, statistically they'll sell within the next 4 years and the new neighbors will be paying 30-40% more than I am for 3 years until I most likely move...et cetera.

[LEX]

TH:

Aside from the general trend for moving every seven years, which is a good way to ride the equity wave as regional markets expand, once one retires I would suggest retired folks make fewer moves, and the ones they do make are for down sizing from the original kid raising homestead to the lower maintenance condo or town home. The worst case is for a retired couple to have to move due to tax based "eviction" from the home they have lived in for decades.

Many, if not all the ER's on this board who own their own place are going to experience "Property Tax" shock coincident with the rapid escalation of house values and resulting tax base adjustment across most parts of the US. This should be a hot area of contention as folks attempt to live out their retirement on fixed incomes in "the old homestead".

Hi LEX. This is one reason why I like owning 2 homes.
I realize not everyone can do it, still.....................if one
gets uncomfortable because of taxes or whatever, we
can sell or lease and live in the other. It's a nice option to have IMHO.

JG

[Jarhead*]

TH:

Aside from the general trend for moving every seven years, which is a good way to ride the equity wave as regional markets expand, once one retires I would suggest retired folks make fewer moves, and the ones they do make are for down sizing from the original kid raising homestead to the lower maintenance condo or town home. *The worst case is for a retired couple to have to move due to tax based "eviction" from the home they have lived in for decades. *

Many, if not all the ER's on this board who own their own place are going to experience "Property Tax" shock coincident with the rapid escalation of house values and resulting tax base adjustment across most parts of the US. *This should be a hot area of contention as folks attempt to live out their retirement on fixed incomes in "the old homestead".

Lex: Don't know if you were living in Calif. when prop 13 was passed, but it was in the late 70's.
Your "property tax shock" statement was exactly what was happening to senior, retired folks in Calif. There was lots of publicity, articles in Wall Street Journal, etc. etc., about long time homeowners that were being forced out of homes unable to pay their property tax.
Most of them were long time Californians, and had spent 20 to 30 years enduring one of the highest, if not the highest state income tax, high sales tax, property tax, when all combined made Calif. a true "Tax Hell".
The spirit of prop 13 was to allow long time residents who had paid plenty of dues to the state, an opportunity to stay in their home.
Actually, the state has done quite well with this approach.
About every 5 years or so, there is an effort to appeal prop. 13, but it hasn't been even close to passing.
The fact that property has appreciated, and when sold reverts to new tax-base, has given the local gummint plenty of money to squander however they see fit.
I am surprised that there aren't more states that have seen fit to try a similar approach.
I for one, wouldn't be in my home if my taxes were what some of the Eastern Seaboard States are paying.
Regards, Jarhead

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Aside from the general trend for moving every seven years, which is a good way to ride the equity wave as regional markets expand, once one retires I would suggest retired folks make fewer moves, and the ones they do make are for down sizing from the original kid raising homestead to the lower maintenance condo or town home.

Got some data on that because I'd be interested. Seems to me of the both the "traditional retirees" and "early retirees" that they have just as many moves, if not more in them. I did move once to downsize, but I may upsize within the next 7-10 years. I want to stay where I am as its a PERFECT place for my kid to grow up...a small cul-de-sac full of kids and young parents that actually have good morals and values. But by the time he's a little older we may want to move to some place that isnt 100+ degrees in the summer, and my dad may need to move in with us as he ages.

My moms parents moved a half dozen times after they started collecting social security. My dads parents sold their house, bought an RV and didnt sit still for almost 10 years.

Listening to the ER's here, lots have or will be moving, have bought their 'retirement home' or are planning it, have multiple properties and snowbird, etc. Sounds like a moderately mobile group.

But that aside...I think the original point was the state feeling they're just not getting their tax money and wanting to repeal tax freezes like californias prop 13. I think most people will agree that porking retirees by doing this is bad, but the politicians will find fair game in the non-retired...and theres plenty of good data that shows that the average homeowner sells every 7 years, and the vast majority sell in 10 years. The world average excluding the US is 10 years. With that in mind, I still stand by the statement that the state gets the bulk of their adjustments, they just have to be a little patient before getting them.

Besides, tell me the truth...if we gave the CA legislature 5x the money we're giving them now, you think they still wouldnt find a way to spend it and still be sniffing around for more dinero?

[ESRBob]

Besides, tell me the truth...if we gave the CA legislature 5x the money we're giving them now, you think they still wouldnt find a way to spend it and still be sniffing around for more dinero?

I agree: you have to keep a lid on tax revenues as the only reasonable way to keep a lid on spending.

I was one of a handful of vocal agitators in our local city council meetings and we have elected a slate of councilpeople who are likeminded, and passed a zero-property-tax increase this past December. It's a small city, but it can be done.

Of course, the school taxes and county taxes are outside our control pretty much, and seem to have a life of their own: up about 100% in the ten years we have lived there.

We definitely know lots of people who have been 'tax-evicted' -- almost always elderly people moving out while young families move in. The only consolation is that the elderly people do get a good price for their homes when they sell, but we are going down the road of creating a "monoculture" here with only people at the peak of their careers able to comfortably afford the taxes.

I think this issue will balloon into the defining issue of our generation. I for one am preparing my exit plan to some tax-friendly or downsized country in the 10-20 year time horizon. That of course will be just about the time everybody else wants to sell, so it will be pretty uncomfortable all around, I'm guessing. But in the meantime we'll log some good years here.

Still if you own your own house free and clear, you'd think it would feel somehow like "yours". It isn't. You have the right to live there only as long as you pay the various monopolistic entities running the town that the property exists in. It might as well be theirs, and they just charge you rent. What you do on the property is your business, (construct a big house, a little house whatever) but you have to pay rent to live there.

wasn't an issue before and still isnt in many places because the numbers are still relatively tame. But it is a big issue on the coasts.

[nwsteve]

I bought my small acreage ranch in Texas Hill Country about 4 years ago at $6500 per acre on the highest ridge in the county.

II figure by 2007 - 2011 when the masses begin to retire the land will be much more valuable. Time is running out for anyone who wants to stay ahead of this curve. Buy your special place now ... do not wait much longer!

Ol Rancher & Other Central Texans REs
Better batten down the hatches. Your neighborhood just made another list of Best Places to Live. This time by the Progressive Farmer who listed the best places in rural america.
http://www.progressivefarmer.com/far...ces/top10.html.

They have listed the top 10 which includes Gillespie County (south of Austin) ranked at number 6.

For others checking out "rural america" the site also includes the top 20 in every region.

Nwsteve

[unclemick]

My longest tenant retired to Rankin county, Ms on the list after living in the duplex through the previous owner and ten years while I owned it.

Near to the stomping grounds of his youth.

I just want to warn everyone to ignore what these
"best places to live/retire" articles say. Texas is a terrible place. Flat, windy, rattlesnakes, fire ants, high property
taxes, lots of guns. Stay as far away as possible.

JG

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Not to mention those danged texans...

[REWahoo]

Not to mention those danged texans...

JG, you failed to mention the opressive summer heat, scorpions, chiggers, ticks, and wild hogs (both 2-wheeled and 4-footed). Just look at a map...the entire state (except Austin) is red. A lousy place to even visit, much less think of retiring here.

REW

[Ol_Rancher]

Gillespie County, Texas is a terrible tourist trap ... Fredricksburg is full of RV snowbirds in the winter and school kids on vacation running amok in the summer. It is the home of the $4 scoop of ice cream.

I wouldn't live there if you gave me the house. The race is on from boomers in San Antonio and Austin to pay too much for a parcel of land. I just closed on some acreage adjacent to mine and had to pay 30% more that it cost three and 1/2 years ago. I will not mention the county I am in but it borders Gillespie.

Try central Texas in August ..... Ha! even the ticks can't stand the heat. The ground cracks, the grasses are dead brown, rattle snakes and lizards chase your pets or grandkids. ... In the fall hunters shoot anything that moves. Ten acres gets you hunting rights even if you open a day care school next door. And all Texans have guns and we like to shoot 'em.

Stay where it is safe, and civilized ... Anywhere but Texas ...

[REWahoo]

Gillespie County, Texas is a terrible tourist trap ...I wouldn't live there if you gave me the house.

Ol_Rancher, you are dead on about Freddyburg. Tourist trap is an understatement. And did you click on that Progressive Farmer link and check out the two jackasses in the Gillespie County photo?
REW

[Ol_Rancher]

Yes, I checked that photo out. Those two represent what is going bad in Texas. ... And just what the hell is a Progressive Farmer? .. A latte drinking executive couple who can afford to run up land prices and chase away the rural heritage that attracted them ... if they moved next to me and asked for advice on how to be a rancher so they can get an Agricultural tax exemption, I would begin shooting clips of ammo over their property line, start wearing camo clothes, hang human profile targets on the fenceline and flying the Republic of Texas flag. Yee Haw!

[REWahoo]

... if they moved next to me..., I would begin shooting clips of ammo over their property line, start wearing camo clothes, hang human profile targets on the fenceline and flying the Republic of Texas flag. Yee Haw!

All you folks considering Texas as a retirement location, give Ol_Rancher a call. He will send the welcome wagon out to greet you at the border.
REW

[nwsteve]

... And just what the hell is a Progressive Farmer? .. A latte drinking executive couple who can afford to run up land prices and chase away the rural heritage that attracted them

Actually they are " Greenies" (most likely from a Blue State) who think farming is about doing little but talking a lot" *I think in Texas the phrase is "all hat, no ranch"
Got to be one of the most incongrous oxymoran to be ever created by some PR flax.
Nwsteve

Actually, it's "All hat, no cattle!"

JG

[Jarhead*]

Actually, it's "All hat, no cattle!"

JG

That kinda reminds me of the 3 Texans in a conversation. The first one was bragging to the other 2 about having 300 acres in the hill country. The next one stated that he about 500 acres outside of San Antonio.
The 3rd. one chimed in and said, well you guys beat the heck out of me. I only have about 55 acres.
The lst. guy asked where the 55 acres were located.
"Downtown Dallas", the 3rd. replied.

[REWahoo]

...located in Wisconsin about 25 miles From St. Paul. Beautiful property. All Maple, Oak, Birch and Aspen. With 3 Spring fed ponds. One pond is 4 acres.

Sounds really nice CT. All you out there thinking about retiring in TX should check out the property adjoining CT's spread. No mention of fire ants, excessive property taxes or opressive heat. And the map shows Wisconsin as a brilliant shade of blue!

REW

Wisconsin is a liberal mecca. Not sure why. And, the
winters are awful, the ticks prolific, mosquitos as
big as pigeons, Lyme disease, mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease (no, I don't mean the legislature )
And, a lot of the lakes are poisoned with mercury.
Nice.

JG