LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,715
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
My mortgage is about $60 more than I was last paying in rent, but knowing the landlord can't sell the place out from under me is more than worth the extra coin.
Funny, I have just figured out, the Queen Anne I bought is not going to work for my needs! I am lucky, and have a peace of land I bought in a pretty ritzy neighborhood, no HOA though! Talking to my friends, they are telling me what I need to build for resale, 4,000 sq ft, 4 bedrooms 5 baths, I haven't even broken ground and they want me to sell! I don't want half that size, smallest house with the biggest garage the city will let me get away with. If I build, they will either take me to a home, or out the front door boots first, either way, I'm not selling, and who ever gets the house should be great full for however much money they get out of the house!I didn't personally know anyone who lived thru the Era who was a "climber" when it came to houses. Granted, I only knew working class people, but none of them ever had any ambition whatsoever to have a "bigger or better" house. Those who owned houses generally bought them in their thirties, and kept them until they died. These were not large houses at all by modern standards -- my grandparents raised two kids in a house of about 1000 square feet, and most of the houses in the neighborhood were of similar size. They bought the houses to live in, not to profit from. The idea of a house as an "investment" was utterly alien to their way of thinking.
Sometimes, it's simply a matter of taking existing equity and applying it to a property that has greater investment and resale potential. You "trade up" because a bigger home in a better neighborhood has greater resale potential and is a more prudent investment. I'm not sure that potential existed back in the Era, or that people who were raised in the Era recognized it when things changed to where it became a reality.
I can't understand why my parents insisted upon staying in the same home for all of my childhood (1961-1975) over a period of time when my father's income had risen considerably and a home in a more desirable town, with better schools, transportation, public services, etc., could have improved their financial situation.
And my mom's parents were even more short sighted, to my way of thinking: after more than 40 years of marriage they finally moved out of their tiny one bedroom apartment (which they shared with an adult son, my bachelor uncle) and "got a place of their own:" an even tinier one bedroom condo that the three of them shared. Four years later, they sold the condo (undoubtedly taking a hit on taxes) and moved back into another apartment.
Perhaps I don't understand the economics of the times back then, or perhaps people were gun-shy about investments after having lived through the Great Depression. And admittedly, hindsight is 20/20. But I'd be curious as to whether others "traded up" on homes based upon greater equity potential 1920's- 1950's.
Funny, I have just figured out, the Queen Anne I bought is not going to work for my needs! I am lucky, and have a peace of land I bought in a pretty ritzy neighborhood, no HOA though! Talking to my friends, they are telling me what I need to build for resale, 4,000 sq ft, 4 bedrooms 5 baths, I haven't even broken ground and they want me to sell! I don't want half that size, smallest house with the biggest garage the city will let me get away with. If I build, they will either take me to a home, or out the front door boots first, either way, I'm not selling, and who ever gets the house should be great full for however much money they get out of the house!
I completely understand. I bought my house at 35, only after I was very comfortable on being able to make payments. Yes, my rent was as much or more than my mortgage note, but there is no long-term commitment with that.
My mortgage is about $60 more than I was last paying in rent, but knowing the landlord can't sell the place out from under me is more than worth the extra coin.
Nothing like private ownership of private - gives you a lot of control and freedom from the dictates of others. If you itemize and if it makes sense - all things that depend on your personal financial situation - you can deduct some of your mortgage payment and might actually bring the monthly cost below what you were paying in rent, but I am sure you know that.
Didn't do me much good last year, but I only owned the house for four months, so we'll see what happens this year. I already have to itemize because of my writing jobs.
I ended up buying on very short notice last year -- the landlord decided very abruptly he wanted to sell, and gave me thirty days notice, so the choice was either buy the place or move, and the latter option was essentially impossible given how busy I was at work at the time. So I was and remain very thankful for the USDA Rural Development mortgage program, which made it possible at a very reasonable interest rate. It's the successor to the old Farmers Home Administration program, which made it possible for my mother to buy a house fifty years ago.
Trading up is my goal. My dad is a real-estate developer and always taught me that rent was for suckers and that for the same price as owning a house, you could be building equity.
Funny you mentioned 952 sq ft! A while back, I measured how much of my house I actually use on a given year. Even with being quite generous, I came up with only 900 sq ft!USDA-RD is very strict -- locked interest rate, full documentation of all sources of income, and strict income requirements. It also has to be in what's defined as a small town/rural area and the house must be "modest" in both size and price. My place, 952 square feet abutting an abandoned junkyard at the rear, is exceedingly modest. But that's all I need, and the junkyard helps scare off gentrifiers. The neighborhood has gotten a lot quieter since they closed down the meth lab up the street.
I doubt I'll live long enough to pay it off, but they also require life insurance so they won't be left holding the bag.
Funny you mentioned 952 sq ft! A while back, I measured how much of my house I actually use on a given year. Even with being quite generous, I came up with only 900 sq ft!
Around here square footage is based directly on the figures on file with the tax assessor's office -- the broker doesn't have anything to do with it, and is therefore unable to chisel. I imagine part of the problem has to do with the sheer size of New York City -- it's easier to get away with things in a big city than in a small town.
When I bought this house I actually got out a tape measure and figured out the square footage myself. The Assessor's Office had it right on.
Around here square footage is based directly on the figures on file with the tax assessor's office -- the broker doesn't have anything to do with it, and is therefore unable to chisel. I imagine part of the problem has to do with the sheer size of New York City -- it's easier to get away with things in a big city than in a small town.
When I bought this house I actually got out a tape measure and figured out the square footage myself. The Assessor's Office had it right on.
Same here! My Victorian is actually smaller by a couple of hundred, but, the 60s tri-leval that I am in is actually several hundred bigger then the county records!Around here square footage is based directly on the figures on file with the tax assessor's office -- the broker doesn't have anything to do with it, and is therefore unable to chisel. I imagine part of the problem has to do with the sheer size of New York City -- it's easier to get away with things in a big city than in a small town.
When I bought this house I actually got out a tape measure and figured out the square footage myself. The Assessor's Office had it right on.
HAHA! Likewise ...Nice use of purulent. The imagery gave me the willies.