Tag Archives: renting

All The Single Ladies . . . Buy Houses

Posted on by

house-insurance-419058_1920

Realtor.com quote me in More Single Women Hunt for Homes, Not Husbands. It reads, in part,

Alayna Tagariello Francis had always assumed she’d marry first, then buy a home. But when she found herself footloose, free, and definably single in her early 30s, she decided to make a clean break from tradition: She started home shopping for one.

“After dating for a long time in New York City, I really didn’t know if I was going to meet anyone,” she says. “I didn’t want to keep throwing away money on rent or fail to have an investment because I was waiting to get married.”

So in 2006, Francis bought a one-bedroom in Manhattan for $400,000—and was surprised by how good it felt to accomplish this milestone without help.

“To buy a home without a husband or boyfriend wasn’t my plan,” she says, “but it gave me an immense sense of pride.”

It’s no secret that both men and women are tying the knot later in life. A generation ago, statistics from the Census Bureau showed that men and women rushed to the altar in their early 20s; now, the median age for a first-time marriage has crept into the late 20s—and that’s if they marry at all.

The surprise is that even though today’s women still make 21% less than men, more single women than men are now choosing to charge ahead and invest in a home of their own. It’s changing the face of homeownership in America.

And while that decision to buy can help build wealth and ensure financial stability, plenty of women are finding the road from renter to owner is filled with unforeseen obstacles—and plenty of soul-searching.

*     *     *

Why women shouldn’t wait

But then again, few of us have fully operational Ouija boards we can pull out of storage to pinpoint exactly when our ideal significant other will arrive on the scene. So putting house hunting on pause is something fewer women are willing to do.

“Women today don’t sit around and wait for Prince Charming,” says Wendy Flynn, a Realtor® in College Station, TX, who has helped numerous single women buy homes. After all, Flynn points out, “The time frame for meeting your dream man, getting married, and having kids—well, that’s a pretty long timeline.” So even if you do meet The One a day after closing on your home, “you could sell your home in a few years and still make a profit—or at the worst, probably break even.” If you buy right, that is.

That said, women who do want to marry and have kids as soon as possible will want to eye their potential home purchase with that in mind. Is the new place big enough for a family? Or, if you think you’ll sell and move into a larger place once you’re hitched, how easy will it be to sell your original home—or are you allowed to rent it out?

And if you marry or a partner moves in, make sure to consult a lawyer if you want your partner to share homeownership along with you.

“You definitely should not assume that your spouse’s home is transferred automatically to you once you get married,” says David Reiss, an urban law professor at Brooklyn Law School.

The State of Moderate-Income Housing

Posted on by

photo by Jaksmata

The Center for Housing Policy’s most recent issue of Housing Landscape gives its 2016 Annual Look at The Housing Affordability Challenges of America’s Working Households (my discussion of the Center’s 2015 report is here). it opens,

Millions of working households face big challenges in finding affordable housing, particularly in areas with strong economic growth. In 2014, more than 9.6 million low- and moderate-income working households were severely housing cost burdened. Severely cost burdened households are those that spend more than half of their income on housing costs. Overall, 15 percent of all U.S. households (17.6 million households) had a severe housing cost burden in 2014, with renters facing the biggest affordability challenges. In 2014, 24.2 percent of all renter households were severely burdened compared to 9.7 percent of all owner households. These percentages were even higher for working households, of whom 25.1 percent of renters and 16.2 percent of owners had a severe housing cost burden.

Housing costs continue to rise, particularly for working renters, who saw their median housing costs grow by more than six percent from 2011 to 2014. And for the first time since 2011, housing costs increased for working owner households as well, marking the end of a three-year downward trajectory. Additionally, more working households were renting their homes as opposed to buying—52.6 percent of working households were renters in 2014, up nearly two percentage points from 2011, when the share was 50.8 percent.

With more working households renting their homes, demand for rental housing continues to grow, pushing rents even higher in already high-cost rental markets. And although incomes are growing for many working households, this growth is not always sufficient to offset rising rents, meaning that working renter households are increasingly having to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on housing costs each month. (1)

The report outlines a series of good policy proposals (many of which are politically unfeasible in the current environment) to address this situation. But my main takeaway is that the wages of working-class households “are not sufficient for meeting the cost of adequate housing.” (5) Their housing problem is an income problem.

Homeowner Nation or Renter Nation?

Posted on by

Andreas Praefcke

Arthur Acolin, Laurie Goodman and Susan Wachter have posted a forthcoming Cityscape article to SSRN, A Renter or Homeowner Nation? The abstract reads,

This article performs an exercise in which we identify the potential impact of key drivers of home ownership rates on home ownership outcomes by 2050. We take no position on whether these key determinants in fact will come about. Rather we perform an exercise in which we test for their impact. We demonstrate the result of shifts in three key drivers for home ownership forecasts: demographics (projected from the census), credit conditions (reflected in the fast and slow scenarios), and rents and housing cost increases (based on California). Our base case average scenario forecasts a decrease in home ownership to 57.9 percent by 2050, but alternate simulations show that it is possible for the home ownership rate to decline from current levels of around 64 percent to around 50 percent by 2050, 20 percentage points less than at its peak in 2004. Projected declines in home ownership are about equally due to demographic shifts, continuation of recent credit conditions, and potential rent and house price increases over the long term. The current and post WW II normal of two out of three households owning may also be in our future: if credit conditions improve, if (as we move to a majority-minority nation) minorities’ economic endowments move toward replicating those of majority households, and if recent rent growth relative to income stabilizes.

This article performs a very helpful exercise to help understand the importance of the homeownership rate.  This article continues some of the earlier work of the authors (here, for instance). I had thought that that earlier paper should have given give more consideration to how we should think about the socially optimal homeownership rate. Clearly, a higher rate, like the all-time high of 69% that we had right before the financial crisis, is not always better. But just as clearly, the projected low of 50% seems way too low, given long term trends. But that leaves a lot of room in between.

This article presents a model which can help us think about the socially optimal rate instead of just bemoaning a drop from the all-time high. It states that

Equilibrium in the housing market is reached when the marginal household is indifferent between owning and renting, requiring the cost of obtaining housing services through either tenure to be equal. In addition, for households, the decision to own or rent is affected by household characteristics and, importantly, expected mobility, because moving and transaction costs are higher for owners than for renters.  Borrowing constraints also affect tenure outcomes if they delay or prevent access to homeownership. (4-5)

This short article does not answer all of the questions we have about the homeownership rate, but it does answer some of them. For those of us trying to understand how federal homeownership policy should be designed, it undertakes a very useful exercise indeed.

Ending Homelessness

Posted on by

"Homeless Man" by Matthew Woitunski

The Christian Science Monitor quoted me in Los Angeles to Serve as Crucible for Reform in Ending Chronic Homelessness. It reads, in part:

As the heavy winter rains sweep across southern California, Los Angeles’s homeless residents hunker down. Many – like former farmworker Andreas, who huddled in the doorway of a parking structure – are unable or unwilling to find shelter off the street.

These are the chronically homeless, a large portion of the 44,000 people in L.A. that make this city the West Coast’s homelessness capital.

Nationwide, the chronically homeless represent roughly 20 percent of the nation’s homeless population at any given moment. And, both in California and across the country, they form the core target of an intensified effort by activists and politicians determined to get at the roots of intransigent homelessness.

     *     *     *

The US is not going to conquer chronic homelessness until it addresses the structural issues that hand homelessness down from one generation to another, says Brooklyn law professor David Reiss, who specializes in housing issues.

The absence of a safety net for those who fall out of employment is the beginning of the cycle, particularly for at-risk populations such as foster-care children who age out of the system and single mothers with young children. Job scarcity is also a factor. Big cities with the highest cost of living, like Los Angeles and New York, usually present the most possibilities for those in search of work.

“Very low-income people often prefer to stay in such cities, even if they are at risk of homelessness, because it is the best of a set of bad options,” he points out.

The basic costs of maintaining a home are driving more people onto the street, says Professor Reiss – a growing problem tied to the issue of income inequality.

A recent study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies finds that this trend is increasing and, says Reiss, “we should expect more and more households to have trouble paying rent in the coming years.”

Buying in a Boom

Posted on by

Marcin Wichary

TheStreet.com quoted me in How Consumers Can Buy Houses in a Booming Market. The story reads, in part,

The housing market has been rebounding and the increased competition is leaving the number of available homes scarce in many cities.

Home prices have also risen compared to last year as the number of homes sold rose in all parts of the country except for the Midwest, according to a recent report from PNC, the Pittsburgh-based financial institution. The median sale price for an existing single-family home was $288,300 in July, up from $279,700 in June.

“The housing market continues to gradually recover from the Great Recession, supporting economic growth,” Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC. “Stronger demand and good affordability are supporting home sales and pushing up house prices.”

Many economists are predicting that home prices will continue to increase this year. PNC said prices will rise by 3.7% in 2015 and 2.7% in 2016, down from 6.6% in 2014.

“This year we [saw] inventory continue to grow in August and while overall demand is strong, the trend in median days on market is suggesting that the market is finding more of a balance,” said Jonathan Smoke, chief economist of Realtor.com, the San Jose, Calif. real estate service company. “This bodes well for would-be buyers who have been discouraged by the inability to find a home to buy this spring and summer.”

Consumers who are still eager to purchase a home still have many opportunities left to negotiate a deal within their price range. While it is tougher to buy a house in a tight market, here are some tips to give homebuyers a head start.

Looking for a house in the fall is generally a better bet. Even though there are fewer homes on the market right now, there are “definitely less buyers, so there’s less competition,” said Mark Lesses, a broker with Coldwell Banker in Lexington, Mass.

*    *     *

Renters Who Wait Can Benefit

Buying a house during a tight market could prove to be an expensive endeavor. Staying out of the market might be a good option, because housing prices could level off and decline, said David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School in N.Y.

“Sometimes it is cheaper to rent,” he said. “Don’t try to time the real estate market. Look at your needs and what you could afford, and consider if it is a good choice.”

Gen X & Millennial Renters

Posted on by
Gen X

Jason Michael

MainStreet quoted me in Generation X and Millennials Are Choosing to Remain Renters. It opens,

Although James Crosby is getting married later this year to his college sweetheart, the financial analyst said they do not have plans to buy a home in Atlanta in the next few years.

While Crosby, who is 25, said he loathes paying rent and not building up equity in a home, renting has its benefits. Right now, it’s easy for him to budget for rent in an apartment, because the amount he pays each month is static and he will not be faced with any costly surprises such as repairing an air conditioner.

Like Crosby, fewer Americans are drawn to owning a home and plan to keep renting as wages remain stagnant and home prices have risen. A recent Gallup poll found that many people are content to be renters with 41% of non-homeowners who said they do not plan to purchase a home in “the foreseeable future.” The gap is widening since only one of three people agreed with this sentiment two years ago. The percentage of people who own homes has dropped to 61%, which is the lowest figure in almost 15 years, the poll revealed.

Tepid Economy Plays a Factor

Both the desire and ability to buy a house is waning among some individuals, because “the economy has kept young people from forming their own households as quickly as they had before the financial crisis,” said David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Some Gen X-ers and Millennials are also living at home longer than previous generations and wind up deferring homeownership. The weak and soft job markets have impacted Millennials who are also faced with carrying a heavy debt load from having to finance their undergraduate degrees.

“I would predict that if the economy warms up for a reasonable time, expectations about homeownership are likely to change quickly,” Reiss said.

Abusive Non-Rent Fees for Rent Stabilized Tenants

Posted on by

The Urban Justice Center’s Community Development Project has issued a report, The Burden of Fees: How Affordable Housing is Made Unaffordable. The introduction reads,

Tenants in New York City’s poorest neighborhoods are under attack. Despite the existence of laws such as rent stabilization to protect tenants from high rents, landlords are creating new ways to push rent stabilized tenants out of their homes. One such tactic is the use of non-rent fees, a confusing and often times unwarranted set of charges that are added to a monthly rent statement . . .. These include fees on appliances (air conditioner, washing machine, dryer, and dishwasher), legal fees, damage fees, Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases and other miscellaneous fees. Often these fees appear on a tenant’s rent bill without any explanation. If a tenant fails to pay, even if they are unaware of why the fee was imposed, they are sent letters that make them feel that they are being harassed and are threatened with eviction by the landlord. Most tenants have a right to object to many of these fees, and landlords are legally prohibited from taking tenants to Housing Court solely for non-payment of additional fees. But many tenants don’t know their rights about the fees and often pay them when they shouldn’t. For low-income and working class tenants who struggle each month to pay rent, these fees add up and make their housing costs unaffordable. While some of the fees are legal, many of them are not, and the consistency and pattern of the way the fees are being charged and collected suggests that some landlords are intentionally increasing tenants’ rent burdens to push out long- term, rent stabilized tenants.

This problem is proliferating in the Bronx, where New Settlement’s Community Action for Safe Apartments (CASA) works to improve living conditions and maintain affordable housing. This is particularly apparent in buildings owned by Chestnut Holdings, a company that is fast becoming one of the biggest landlords of rent stabilized buildings in the Bronx.

*     *     *

All survey respondents live in rent stabilized buildings owned by Chestnut Holdings. In total, the coalition collected 172 surveys from 23 buildings, representing 13% of the number of apartments in those buildings. The research sample accounts for 4% of all the apartments that Chestnut Holdings owns, and 28% of the buildings. Researchers also collected rent bills and other supplemental materials (including letters to and from landlords, housing court decisions, and more) from 196 Chestnut Holdings tenants. Coalition members chose to focus on these buildings because they are rent stabilized and located in the neighborhoods where each organization is actively working. Data in this report comes from surveys, recent rent bills collected from Chestnut Holdings’ tenants and interviews with tenants.

Overall, we found that the problem of non-rent fees is serious and widespread in the Bronx. 81% of the tenants we surveyed had been charged some sort of fee. From the rent bills we reviewed for this report, the average tenant had $671.13 in non-rent fees on their most recent rent bill. (1-2)

This document is obviously an advocacy document and not a piece of objective scholarship. Moreover, its methodology may not be rigorous enough to allow us to extrapolate much from its findings. That being said, the survey responses themselves reveal a serious problem: alleged average non-rent fees of nearly $700 for each survey respondent seems very, very high, even if we limit the findings to the respondents themselves.

In the 1970s, predatory landlords hired bruisers with bats and pit bulls to frighten tenants into leaving their homes. In the 2000s, a new generation of predatory landlords used abusive court filings to achieve the same purpose. There is a very real risk that high non-rent fees represent a new tactic for predatory landlords to drive out rent-regulated tenants with under-market rents. To the extent that non-rent fees represent a new tactic to harass tenants, government regulators should actively seek to end it and punish those who employ it.