Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh no...I once lived several years in a rented guest house. I wanted to buy it, but government wouldn't let the owner sell it to me, since it shared a lot with another (larger) house, and the lot could not be split because of minimum lot size requirements. So when the property was sold, it was both houses or none, I couldn't afford both, a new owner wanted to move in an adult child, and I had to move.
You have nicely set up my point, which is that government DENIES poor people the option of purchasing a home through rules like minimum lot sizes.
Because government denies me the option of purchasing a home, I remain a rent slave, and thus I maintain standing to complain.
And that ONE guest house was your ONLY option of buying?
Besides, perhaps there was an issue with ingress/egress or something, I have no idea. There is no reason something can't be split unless there is a valid reason like the lot would then be too small (there are laws about setbacks and whatnot, and if the lot would have been too small to accommodate this, too bad, so sad) or problems with entering the premises without trespassing on the other property if it was split, or even something like drainage issues or wastewater (like your septic system would have to be replaced if both houses were connected to just one tank).
To say that the gov't is not allowing you any purchasing options is just ridiculous, I'm sorry to say.
Then rent. Again problem solved. Part of the housing crisis came about because too many people bought houses they could not afford. We ought to have no vested interest in encouraging such policies long term.
First, government (urban and suburban) prohibited ownership options lbow income people could afford.
Second, liberals said, government must fix this problem.
Third, the 'fix' was to finance houses that these people could not sustainably afford.
Fourth, this caused a housing bubble which popped when the unsustainable could no longer be sustained.
Moral of story: This would have never happened if government let the free market provide affordable ownership options without helping people buy more home than they could afford.
I don't have a car and require medical services not easily found in rural areas. (Presumably I'd have to live within walking distance.)
You'd say that's my problem, but government shouldn't be in the business of preventing willing sellers and willing buyers from transacting in a free market.
I think you're doing a very good of exhibiting the sort of qualities that many of us find so offputting in the article in the OP. I'm a liberal. As a liberal I think the government should assume certain responsibilities. This includes providing decent schools to all citizens, access to health care, and making sure that people don't starve or freeze to death.
But beyond that? You're on your own. The government should not be in the business of bailing out rich bankers OR providing ideal housing for someone who does not work.
If you want to lobby otherwise go argue with government officials. I daresay that's a far more productive use of your time than making excuses and blaming the average hardworking middle class homeowner.
Why work hard to be able to afford a nice home in a nice neighborhood when you can just get a free, all-expenses paid check from the government? Even landlords prefer Section 8 renters over working renters because they know that Uncle Sam will keep the money flowing. It removes the incentive to save to an extent.
I mean, if you absolutely knew that the government would handle your basic expenses, would you work particularly hard?
Here in CA I think the section 8 voucher is worth less than $600. The person has to pay the rest and I don't know the amount is different elsewhere.
That said, we have no business beyond maybe 6 months doing this at all unless the principle is totally disabled for life.
I once calculated I could afford about a 400 square foot house on perhaps 2500 square feet of land, which under normal configurations would be fully compliant with normal setback requirements.
Unfortunately, minimum lot size here is 5,000 sf, and usually 10,000 sf.
Condos are theoretically affordable, but they are overpriced from the start, so even a tiny condo probably wouldn't be affordable.
Some years ago I had my eye on an adorable small 2BR house with enough space to park exactly one car. The lot was approx 0.025 acre (it was an older house which predated zoning) and I called it God's Little .02 Acre.
I was all set to jump on it when I saw it was for sale...until I learned that it was offered only as part of a package which included two adjacent properties.
The municipality requires 5000 sf or 10k sf lots? Or the development you're looking at? There are 43k sf in an acre, and where I'm from, quarter acre lots are the norm, give or a take a little bit. But that is not a minimum, that's just what is typical of developments in that area. To be honest, a 5000 sf lot is pretty darn small and barely enough for a house to fit on after you add in driveway and setbacks. I don't know if you're kidding about the 400sf house on a 2500 sf lot, but that's barely more than a studio and you would not have room for a driveway or anything like that.
The package deal situation is not anything to do with the gov't, that's to do with the seller.
The only options of which I am aware are rural - I am not aware of any urban or suburban options. This really is a cultural, a societal issue, which exists all across urban and suburban America. If you disagree, read your local zoning codes, it's right there in print for all to read.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying you have no options in an urban or suburban area? Have you seen the MLS lately?
Many people do not seem to understand how expensive home ownership is. It costs more than PITI, there is actual maintenance which is involved. If someone cannot even afford a down payment, how will they afford when the house needs a re-pipe or new roof?
A reroof is not that expensive. It depends on how big the home is and if you need to do a tear-off or just add another layer of shingles. Most homes don't need to have new pipes or electrical put in for YEARS after they were built. My home is almost 35 years old now and nowhere near needing that stuff. Shingles should last at least 10 years and reshingling and not that expensive when compared with a complete tear-off and re-roof, which may need to be done every 30+ years depending. Either way, you PLAN for these expenses. If you purchase a home that needs work done, you negotiate down on price or you ask for a credit at closing so you have the cash to pay for the repairs.
If you cannot afford a down payment, btw, you have no business buying a home.
I worked in a convenience store with two dozen other people. We all were paid within 20 cents of minimum wage. Only one of us had kids, only two were married, most of us were over 30, several were over 50...
...and nobody owned a home or had any realistic hope of owning a home.
Then maybe y'all should be branching out and looking into a better work situation so you CAN own a home. People are not supposed to work for minimum wage for their entire lifetime. Hope is there for the taking, as are the houses, if you make wise decisions in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
