It's already "Public" so just move ppl in.
Equity
If they don't install more kitchens and bathrooms the govt can sue NPR to put them in.
Posted on 04/18/2024 12:31:09 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Among the many hard truths for those trying to enter America's brutal housing market, here's one: Baby boomers continue to own many of the country's large houses, even after their households have shrunk to one or two people.
Baby boomer empty nesters own twice as many of the country's three-bedroom-or-larger homes, compared with millennials with kids, according to a recent analysis from Redfin. That means those larger homes aren't hitting the market, one factor limiting the supply for the younger generations who could use those extra bedrooms.
Some baby boomers, the generation now between the ages of 60 and 78, are happy in their large homes, using the extra bedrooms for hobbies and visiting family. Others say they want to downsize, but it just doesn't make sense financially.
Some want to downsize, but the numbers don't add up
Sherry Murray, 73, and her husband, 80, bought their house in the North Hills of Pittsburgh in 1991, for $240,000. It's got four bedrooms, including some they don't use anymore. Many of her friends are in the same boat.
"What a lot of us have done is not walled off the extra bedrooms, but closed the doors, and you try not to have to maintain them," she says. "It's just too much house at this point."
The house is paid off, and Murray has wanted to downsize for a while, but she says homes that fit what she's looking for – 2,000 square feet, all on one level, in the same suburban area – sell quickly and for a lot of money.
So they've stayed put.
"You don't want to be economically stupid. If my house is worth even $650,000, I don't want to spend $1.1 million to downsize substantially, knowing that on top of that, I'm probably going to have to pay some [homeowner association] fees," she says.
Smaller homes can cost more if they're newer, or are part of a community that provides extra services. Some metro areas have few one-story homes, making them hot commodities.
Some homeowners are also affected by what's known as the mortgage lock-in effect. While 54% of baby boomer homeowners own their homes free and clear, according to Redfin, most of those with mortgages have low rates. So it doesn't make much sense to take out a new mortgage, with rates now around 7%.
"It just is a dumb economic decision to spend that much extra money for getting so much less," Murray says.
Across the country, many baby boomers are facing their own version of this calculus: It can be cheaper — and more appealing — to stay in their current, large house, than to sell it and move to something smaller.
This doesn't only affect younger buyers.
"You've got a pure housing mismatch for older homeowners. They are mismatched physically or functionally with the house that they're in," says Gary Engelhardt, an economist at Syracuse University who studies aging and housing markets. "That's because it's multifloor living. It's stairs. It's also other upkeep."
Engelhardt says that's a serious concern because it can can lead to things like falls. "And falls can be very devastating, could have very devastating health consequences, especially for the oldest old," he says. "In general, we would like to have older homeowners ... matched with their housing in a much better way than we currently have."
So what could be done?
Engelhardt says there are basically two policy approaches to deal with what's happening.
First, he says, is to provide subsidies or tax credits for home modifications that allow older adults to age in the homes they have. While that could make seniors' current housing safer, it doesn't put those houses back into the market.
Second, encourage building housing that's well suited to older Americans, Engelhardt says: "You promote the construction of new residential units that are going to be ADA compliant, that are going to have universal design and all the types of features that lend themselves to a better match of functionality at older ages."
For instance, the government could create a tax credit to encourage developers to build accessible housing, akin to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit that incentivizes building affordable housing.
Jenny Schuetz, a housing policy expert at the Brookings Institution, says in trying to incentivize older adults to move out of homes that are now too large for them, different tools are needed depending on their geography and financial resources. For instance, a lower-income homeowner of a deteriorating row house might be willing to a swap for a newer, smaller apartment in an elevator building, if there was a program for that.
But longtime California homeowners who've seen their property values skyrocket would likely require a different approach, Schuetz says. There, Proposition 13 strictly limits increases in property taxes – so that many longtime homeowners pay taxes on a small fraction of their home's value. That created its own lock-in effect, though a recent rule change allows those over age 55 to keep their lower tax rate if they buy and move into a home of equal or lesser value.
Building more housing that's attractive to seniors
There are other policy changes that could make it easier to build housing for different life stages and thereby entice boomers to downsize.
"I think one of the things that we know to be true is that older adults want to be able to age in their communities," says Danielle Arigoni, managing director for Policy and Solutions at National Housing Trust. That's where they already have friends and neighbors, doctors and bus routes they know — familiarity that makes aging in their community possible.
They want to put the illegals in them
Not in my neighborhood
So what? It's nobody's stinking business what size house someone chooses to live in.
What about the mansions we see politicians owning? Can they be *enticed* to sell them?
Probably a website that shows them to make things easier for squatters to short list them for when the owners go on vacation.
Funny, I would have thought that if the Boomers decided their houses were too big for them, they could opt on their own to sell them into what is a favorable market.
Hadn’t realized it was up to someone else to decide whether they had too much house for themselves.
” as he signed a bill lifting limits on occupancy of homes.”
We have two houses in our middle class neighborhood that are Mexican barracks and the city does NOTHING.
Eventually there will be a rebellion against AirBnB properties. I wouldn't want to own one for that reason.
For $2000 or so, you can get a chairlift installed on your stairway that will make your two floor house effectively a single story.
Kick out every last illegal. The housing “crisis” will be solved!
Maybe we could force them out at gunpoint. “Your house is too big, comrade! Out you go!!”
LOL. thought the same thing. Before too long, US Marxists are going to make you declare how much sq.ft you own, and force you to "share" some of it.
A used car salesman rents my sister’s midget house in the back yard for $700/mo. Stays there on the weekends. His own house goes for $750 on those weekends. Airbnb. Pretty smart.
GFY, NPR.
You don't get to define what's "too big". That's for the OWNERS to decide, you communistic bastards!
It's already "Public" so just move ppl in.
Equity
If they don't install more kitchens and bathrooms the govt can sue NPR to put them in.
Just watch out for those Gremlins...
To each according to his need, with the commissar making the expert determination. Right?
I’ll decide if my house is too big. No one else.
..... The New World Order does .... The Democrats are currently in the process of Rebuilding America ( aka: Build Back Better) to comply with the mandatory global requirements of this new Utopian World of theirs.
.
euthanasia is the obvious solution
they are no longer productive members of the collective
The response to this article shouldn't be: What a commie!
The response to this article should be: As conservatives we realize that not all problems can be solved, and certainly not with a one-size-fits-all solution.
One potential solution for SOME people (emphasis on the SOME), is to make it easier for a house to be subdivided into a duplex or triplex. ADU's are all the rage now, where garages are being turned into separate units. This could be extended to the house itself. There would be some inconvenience as the seniors would most likely have to live out of a hotel for some period during the remodeling, but that could be paid for by the builder.
The seniors might even get a break from their mortgage since the new units would be generating property taxes.
Of course the kids won't like this, because they will feel that their parents' house (which they may have had nothing to do with its purchase) is their birthright and they want the full profits when their parents die and they get to sell the property. But again, this might work for SOME people.
I’m a widow. My house is paid for. I’m not going anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.