Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GodGunsGuts

There was something economically wrong with your information -- if it's much cheaper to rent than own, it would mean that everybody who is running rental property in San Fransisco is losing tons of money, and would be better off selling out.

So I did a quick google search for actual rental prices in San Fransisco, and here was the first set of 10 listings:

1 Bedroom, 1 Bath = $2,950
2 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $2,600
2 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $1,700
3 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $3,300
3 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $3,800
3 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $3,500
4 Bedroom, 3 Bath = $4,800
3 Bedroom, 2 Bath = $2,400
5 Bedroom, 3 Bath = $6,000
3 Bedroom, 1 Bath = $2,950

That averages to a 3-bedroom, 2-bath house (not large by any means) at about $3400, or about twice what your article suggested a rental would go for.

But that doesn't mean you are wrong. One advantage to buying that isn't listed is that, while it might be a negative cash flow now, you have locked in your costs. Rental costs could double in the next 10 years, and home prices could double as well, but you will be paying about the same 10 years from now as you do today (of course, your real estate taxes will be higher, as will your insurance payments).

In a housing market with known falling prices, it almost never is better to buy (if the price is cheap enough, it is possible that the loss of capital doesn't outweigh the savings of rental), but who knows WHEN the housing prices are going to fall, or when they will stop.

The pundits have been predicting the real estate price collapse for 3 years now. At the moment, people in OUR area who decided not to buy 3 years ago, but to wait for the collapse to "buy cheap", are looking at spending 20-50% more for their houses than if thy had bought then.

However, I don't think I'd buy a home right now, because I'd expect a lot of people are wondering like I would be, and would be hesitant, which should drive prices down a bit.

Of course, in our particular area there are not a LOT of empty houses waiting to be purchased, and we have increasing population AND employment, so people DO have to buy houses, and the supply is not outstripping the demand as badly as other areas.

I don't expect my property taxes to drop. When housing prices went up, they lowered our RATES so the increases were under 10%, mostly. I'm pretty sure they are addicted to the money, and as prices drop they will RAISE the rates to keep the tax money flowing.

I hate property taxes, they don't reflect either the cost to the government for providing services to your house, OR the ability of you to pay for those services. I don't think you should have to pay taxes based on how much stuff you bought is worth.

A "square-footage" tax might be better, or a "residence" tax, although they also have the problem of not reflecting people's ability to pay. But a "residence" tax would also discourage large groups of unrelated adults from living in a house.


111 posted on 12/13/2006 6:06:23 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT; GodGunsGuts
That averages to a 3-bedroom, 2-bath house (not large by any means) at about $3400, or about twice what your article suggested a rental would go for.

There has been an uptick in rental rates in the city of San Francisco lately, but his estimate is pretty accurate for the rest of the Bay Area. Rents aren't even close to monthly mortgage payments - usually around 50-60% as much.

124 posted on 12/13/2006 6:18:28 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
You can't tell a lot about the rental market by looking at rents in google or craigslist. I think the Bay area has a form of rent control so only the least desirable units get advertised.

The rental market has been miserable for landlords for the past 5 years. It's been great for renters. In Boston, for example, units that used to bring in $2500 a month are getting $1600. and places that were 5k are now renting for half that.

Not all landlords are hurt equally. New landlords probably have been hurt the most because they expected a much higher return and thus probably paid more for the property. Long term landlords have tremendous tax benefits and may have some solid returns to balance off the losses, so net after taxes they're doing okay.

As a landlord you are very vulnerable the first few years. Over time with inflation, appreciation and depreciation your vulnerability decreases.
142 posted on 12/13/2006 6:31:58 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson