2023 Real Estate Observations (Boston: deals, millionaires, weight)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Many people don't want all these changes in their quiet suburban towns, that is correct, I'm not sure why they get so much of the blame? Many people bought in a suburb because they wanted to be away from crowded city living and liked the space. For me personally I also think it's disturbing the amount of green space that gets destroyed ruining nature and displacing poor innocent animals. It's sad.

It's funny that we are all called NIMBY's when what we don't want is more forests getting torn down to house some millionaire and his family in his new 4000 sq ft home. That's really what is happening...at least in my town. So yes, I can see why people in my town (and me) are tired of new developments. Is it a bad thing to not want nature destroyed ? I don't want it happening in the next town over either to the extent that it is.

Again move the jobs somewhere else, spread 'em out. People aren't going to just ignore what's happening.

It's not as if going all Fern Gully on the forests is the only way to build new housing in Massachusetts. Much of the space where people would like to build is already cleared - underutilized or vacated industrial spaces, dying strip malls and malls, former farmland/golf courses/school campuses/military bases, etc., oversized/under-used surface parking lots, and a whole lot more.

Besides, there's a lot of preserved forest and wetland in Massachusetts that's not going anywhere. And we're one of the most densely forested states in the country in spite of the fact that we're also one of the most densely populated.

[matrix5k]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Many people don't want all these changes in their quiet suburban towns, that is correct, I'm not sure why they get so much of the blame? Many people bought in a suburb because they wanted to be away from crowded city living and liked the space. For me personally I also think it's disturbing the amount of green space that gets destroyed ruining nature and displacing poor innocent animals. It's sad.

It's funny that we are all called NIMBY's when what we don't want is more forests getting torn down to house some millionaire and his family in his new 4000 sq ft home. That's really what is happening...at least in my town. So yes, I can see why people in my town (and me) are tired of new developments. Is it a bad thing to not want nature destroyed ? I don't want it happening in the next town over either to the extent that it is.

Again move the jobs somewhere else, spread 'em out. People aren't going to just ignore what's happening.

You want prices to come down so more people can stay in MA (but not immigrants cause it's too crowded), but you don't want people to move into your town cause it'll disturb the green space, but you want a recession to come but only for the high earners. Huh?

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Lobster rolls and ice cream shouldn't be lumped with real estate either.

If you bought your house in 2009 and did the 2 1/2% fixed rate refinance in 2020/2021, you can afford lobster rolls?

There’s a reason why there is no inventory. Median home ownership length aligns with those dates and events.

I zeroed out the mortgage on my December 2009 purchase years ago but anyone sitting on one of those low fixed rate mortgages is unlikely to be in a hurry to trade up.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Well then we need a recession that will hit the high earners my friend.

Yeah, just tax them a lot more.

[matrix5k]

Originally Posted by simplexsimon

Yeah, just tax them a lot more.

They'll just leave the country then. What incentive do people have to earn more?

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

You want prices to come down so more people can stay in MA (but not immigrants cause it's too crowded), but you don't want people to move into your town cause it'll disturb the green space, but you want a recession to come but only for the high earners. Huh?

A recession for the high earners might level the playing field. I don't want to see people go hungry of course (we already have some of that) but as redplum said there is too much money out there right now and it's affecting people working in MA in that they can't find the mansion of their dreams in a top 10 town and yes it's disrupting people with all these new developments and the tearing down of green space. Seems like some people need to be thrown back to reality a bit. Too many seem to have millions sitting in the bank with no house to buy.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by lrfox

This is not even remotely true. There's plenty of land to build on in the Boston area (including a lot within the city itself). The factors limiting construction in the Boston area have much more to do with strict municipal zoning; a permitting process that's lengthy (often antagonistic), costly, and not developer friendly; expense land; expensive materials; expensive labor, etc.

It's hard for local policy to significantly improve land, material, and labor costs; but it can be changed to expedite permitting processes and not allow NIMBY neighbors to dig their heels in and slowly kill projects by tying them up with frivolous litigation and delays both of which drastically increase the cost (and risk) for developers. Making those changes would certainly spark new development at all density levels, but it takes political will and local cooperation which isn't likely to happen. There's very much an "I've got mine" attitude (you can see it on full display even on this forum), so the loudest voices in the communities where these changes are needed will be the ones saying "no!" because they're already there and don't want changes.

I’m in Vancouver this week. It has a housing crisis that makes metro Boston look like West Virginia. 80% of the city is small lot single family homes. There is no limited access road infrastructure. All of Vancouver is streets with stoplights. They’ve rezoned the transportation corridors for high density. When the Canada Line went in from the airport to Downtown, there are cranes everywhere building mid rise and high rise buildings walkable to subway stations. The low rise neighborhood shopping areas on the bus corridors are now mid rise mixed use. Parking under. Commercial on the ground floor. Several floors of apartments and condos above. All the transportation corridors have dedicated bus lanes and it’s an enormous fine to obstruct a bus so the bus system is efficient. The other thing British Columbia does is a 2% property surcharge for nonresidents. If your $4 million Vancouver house is a bolt hole to flee from China in a hurry, it will cost you an extra $80k in property taxes.

You can’t fix metro Boston without fixing the transportation infrastructure. Increasing the density without doing that would be suicide by car.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I’m in Vancouver this week. It has a housing crisis that makes metro Boston look like West Virginia. 80% of the city is small lot single family homes. There is no limited access road infrastructure. All of Vancouver is streets with stoplights. They’ve rezoned the transportation corridors for high density. When the Canada Line went in from the airport to Downtown, there are cranes everywhere building mid rise and high rise buildings walkable to subway stations. The low rise neighborhood shopping areas on the bus corridors are now mid rise mixed use. Parking under. Commercial on the ground floor. Several floors of apartments and condos above. All the transportation corridors have dedicated bus lanes and it’s an enormous fine to obstruct a bus so the bus system is efficient. The other thing British Columbia does is a 2% property surcharge for nonresidents. If your $4 million Vancouver house is a bolt hole to flee from China in a hurry, it will cost you an extra $80k in property taxes.

You can’t fix metro Boston without fixing the transportation infrastructure. Increasing the density without doing that would be suicide by car.

All good stuff. Enforcement here is a huge issue - bus lanes (and stops) and bike lanes are basically parking and pick-up/drop off zones. I love the 2% surcharge for nonresidents - especially if that can be funneled into things that help the residents.

Agreed. Our road network can't handle added traffic and we don't have the ability to add much more car capacity. We need to fix our transportation infrastructure in a bad way. Drop "commuter rail" and create true regional rail. Add bus lanes (separated when possible) on major arteries, etc. Do everything possible to make transit the more efficient and affordable option for most people. But getting the ball rolling on increasing density (specialized zoning, infrastructure work, etc.) along transit corridors can certainly happen simultaneously.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

They'll just leave the country then. What incentive do people have to earn more?

I don't quite follow. You mean quit their high paying job and take a much lower paying job outside the country? Tax that person's replacement in the high paying job.

Or did you mean keep their job/income but move out of the country? They'll still have to pay U.S. taxes.

Or did you mean get rid of U.S Citizenship? I guess that's one option...how many would do that?

Higher taxes would not dissuade me from wanting to make more money.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

They'll just leave the country then. What incentive do people have to earn more?

The US has astoundingly low tax rates. Converting to US dollars, the combined Canadian/British Columbia top tax bracket starts at USD $172k. It is a jaw dropping 53.5%. 33% federal. 20.5% provincial. Most places in Europe are similar. Any “I’m leaving the United States because of high taxes” comment is laughably uninformed.