We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

[Anonymous]

Government stepping in to provide housing? How did that work in Soviet Russia ? Do you like the DC crime spree? Those are the options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

OK, a few things:

1) This idea that EVERYONE, including those with very low incomes, is entitled to owning a house caused a big problem in 2008/2009. Let's not repeat that.

2) There are worse things than renting. My grandparents, low-income work in a factory, rented their entire lives. Their apartment was modest, but it was clean and welcoming, pleasantly furnished, and always had great (cooking) smells.

3) There IS a path to home ownership for low-income people without job skills: Acquire job skills that have a higher market value, and then earn your way into a buying a modest $300,000 condo or townhouse an hour outside DC in one of the cheaper areas.

4) Finally, since I'm guessing you live near the low-income trailers you're talking about, isn't it a crime-ridden area?

[Anonymous]

Still PP from above: A low-income couple, each making $30,000 a year (Walmart is paying more than that these days), can buy a house in the 200s in Woodbridge (as just one example). And before the do-gooders cry about "ooooo......why should low-income people have to have an hour commute," that's what they need to do if they want to buy a house. My own sister leaves in that area, and she takes the VRE into her accountant job in DC (or did before the pandemic). So if it's good enough for a college graduate, it should be good enough for a couple with minimal skills and education. This leftist entitlement attitude is what brought on the Great Recession.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2571-Merrywood-Ct-Woodbridge-VA-22192/12473624_zpid/

And I remind you, this thread HAD been about middle-income. All of a sudden the bleeding hearts turned it into a "woe-is-me; poor people can't afford to own their own house" thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

I have a middle income and, until I was in my 40s, could only have afforded a single family home about 2 hours outside the District. Now, in my late 40s, I can probably do a little better but not by much. My solution has been to live in a 2-bedroom, 1bath apartment with my family. Even so, we were house poor for more than the first decade, and are finding that even with a slightly higher income now we still really can't buy what we would like to have. That's life. I'm more worried about people who can't get a roof over their heads at all. But I don't think the community has any kind of obligation to make it a desirable roof. Lots of us, even people with multiple graduate degrees working in altruistic but not well-compensated jobs, can't live where we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

I have a middle income and, until I was in my 40s, could only have afforded a single family home about 2 hours outside the District. Now, in my late 40s, I can probably do a little better but not by much. My solution has been to live in a 2-bedroom, 1bath apartment with my family. Even so, we were house poor for more than the first decade, and are finding that even with a slightly higher income now we still really can't buy what we would like to have. That's life. I'm more worried about people who can't get a roof over their heads at all. But I don't think the community has any kind of obligation to make it a desirable roof. Lots of us, even people with multiple graduate degrees working in altruistic but not well-compensated jobs, can't live where we want.

My story is similar. This is an expensive area, and the best I could afford as a college graduate 10 years out of school was some tiny condo near Landmark Mall. I would have loved to live in DC or Chevy Chase, but couldn't afford it. It took me another 10 years, with 20 years of professional work experience, to be able to afford a townhouse - in a nicer area but still a good 45 minutes out of town.

I see nothing wrong with low-income people continuing to rent until, and unless, they acquire job skills that enable them to earn enough to buy a modest home out in the suburbs somewhere. If they NEVER get to the point where a home purchase in the DC area is within reach, then they can choose to continue to rent or move to a cheaper area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

OK, a few things:

1) This idea that EVERYONE, including those with very low incomes, is entitled to owning a house caused a big problem in 2008/2009. Let's not repeat that.

2) There are worse things than renting. My grandparents, low-income work in a factory, rented their entire lives. Their apartment was modest, but it was clean and welcoming, pleasantly furnished, and always had great (cooking) smells.

3) There IS a path to home ownership for low-income people without job skills: Acquire job skills that have a higher market value, and then earn your way into a buying a modest $300,000 condo or townhouse an hour outside DC in one of the cheaper areas.

4) Finally, since I'm guessing you live near the low-income trailers you're talking about, isn't it a crime-ridden area?

The 2008 crisis was caused by people getting loans for more house than they could actually afford. Backloading the loans with variable rates, or requirements to refinance at a hopefully lower rate in the future. Had affordable housing been available these people would not have overextended.

Home ownership is one way to build generational wealth. Excluding a segment of the population is creating a permanent underclass.

As for crime. No idea. I haven't been mugged. No one has been shot. Nextdoor is full of pictures of suspicious people walking in the neighborhood. Oh, and snake pictures. This is Fairfax County though. Step out of line and get the boot. Well.. It used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still PP from above: A low-income couple, each making $30,000 a year (Walmart is paying more than that these days), can buy a house in the 200s in Woodbridge (as just one example). And before the do-gooders cry about "ooooo......why should low-income people have to have an hour commute," that's what they need to do if they want to buy a house. My own sister leaves in that area, and she takes the VRE into her accountant job in DC (or did before the pandemic). So if it's good enough for a college graduate, it should be good enough for a couple with minimal skills and education. This leftist entitlement attitude is what brought on the Great Recession.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2571-Merrywood-Ct-Woodbridge-VA-22192/12473624_zpid/

And I remind you, this thread HAD been about middle-income. All of a sudden the bleeding hearts turned it into a "woe-is-me; poor people can't afford to own their own house" thread.

Is her commute subsidized by any chance?

[Anonymous]

group homes were really popular in DC in the 90s for college grads/entry jobs. Have they gone out of style? More recently, some apartment building have been built in Arlington with the 'communal area' emphasized. I think this is a good entry to the market / middle ground for some low middle income folks. I don't think single family and duplexes need be razed to build them...as eventually that's what lots of these folks may aspire to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:group homes were really popular in DC in the 90s for college grads/entry jobs. Have they gone out of style? More recently, some apartment building have been built in Arlington with the 'communal area' emphasized. I think this is a good entry to the market / middle ground for some low middle income folks. I don't think single family and duplexes need be razed to build them...as eventually that's what lots of these folks may aspire to.

Anecdotally, a lot of those group homes seem to have been refurbished and then sold as single-family dwellings. Urbanism and apartments are great ideas but the market is sending a clear demand signal for more single family with parking spaces, so that’s what will be delivered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:group homes were really popular in DC in the 90s for college grads/entry jobs. Have they gone out of style? More recently, some apartment building have been built in Arlington with the 'communal area' emphasized. I think this is a good entry to the market / middle ground for some low middle income folks. I don't think single family and duplexes need be razed to build them...as eventually that's what lots of these folks may aspire to.

Anecdotally, a lot of those group homes seem to have been refurbished and then sold as single-family dwellings. Urbanism and apartments are great ideas but the market is sending a clear demand signal for more single family with parking spaces, so that’s what will be delivered.

I can imagine that. That's what people want at a certain point, and I'm not sure why GGW is trying to decimate existing stock in DC. There are plenty of places where building apartments make more sense than razing a SFH with parking, and it seems to me there is actually a surfeit of apartments in DC and around.

[Anonymous]

^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, 20% of a $400k house is still $80k. That’s a lot to save on $108k household income (median for MoCo). I love how our definition of “affordable” has ballooned.

So? There are options there as well. One can get an FHA mortgage with 5% down (it might be as low as 3.5%), meaning all they need is $20,000. With an income of $108,000, they can save that in two or three years if they put their minds to it. And true, they'll have to pay PMI, but I had to do that with my first place, too.

What is it with all these people and the excuses for why people can't buy a home? And who says it has to be a single-family house? What's wrong with a 3-bedroom townhouse with two full bathrooms - one for the parents and one for the kids? Until I was 13, we lived in a house of five people with 1 full bathroom (plus a half-bath by the rec room). Way too much entitlement these days.

Because there is demand at the low end that can never be satisfied as the politicians moved to eliminate that low end housing. Currently, the board is desperate to replace a couple trailer parks along Route 1. Those homes will be replaced with smaller apartments (rental only to ensure you don't build equity) and "middle income" townhouses. The trailer park home owners will be displaced becasue with a government subsidy, they aren't going to be able live in the same location.

Where did we switch to talking about low-end housing? Isn't this thread about middle-income" buyers? And middle-income buyers can afford a $400,000 rancher or townhouse out in Sterling or Wheaton.

Trailer-park homeowners are a different topic. That's low-income.

So, people with low incomes shouldn't have a path to home ownership unless they live two hours outside the metro area? Removing the low priced homes, only drives up the median and mean.

OK, a few things:

1) This idea that EVERYONE, including those with very low incomes, is entitled to owning a house caused a big problem in 2008/2009. Let's not repeat that.

2) There are worse things than renting. My grandparents, low-income work in a factory, rented their entire lives. Their apartment was modest, but it was clean and welcoming, pleasantly furnished, and always had great (cooking) smells.

3) There IS a path to home ownership for low-income people without job skills: Acquire job skills that have a higher market value, and then earn your way into a buying a modest $300,000 condo or townhouse an hour outside DC in one of the cheaper areas.

4) Finally, since I'm guessing you live near the low-income trailers you're talking about, isn't it a crime-ridden area?

The 2008 crisis was caused by people getting loans for more house than they could actually afford. Backloading the loans with variable rates, or requirements to refinance at a hopefully lower rate in the future. Had affordable housing been available these people would not have overextended.

Home ownership is one way to build generational wealth. Excluding a segment of the population is creating a permanent underclass.

As for crime. No idea. I haven't been mugged. No one has been shot. Nextdoor is full of pictures of suspicious people walking in the neighborhood. Oh, and snake pictures. This is Fairfax County though. Step out of line and get the boot. Well.. It used to be.

Home ownership in the US has generally been in the 60s%. Focusing on increasing home ownership among lower income citizens is off base. Perhaps, we can increase home ownership by a few percentage points, but there is no way that a dramatic increase is affordable or doable.