I have seen the below post before or very similar. Find the sentiment quite offensive, really. How do you know the owners of the old homes can't afford the taxes? People have other priorities beyond keeping up with joneses' ( not that there is anything wrong with a gorgeous, latest up to date large new build) However, some may prefer to direct their resources to investing, travel, etc., or may not care about having the largest home on the block.
Some very accomplished people I know live in relatively modest homes. They are simply too busy to decorate or renovate - something has to give and it can't be sleep or relaxation.
Yes, some people in older homes may just be hanging on. The same could be said for a number of people who overextended themselves with homes beyond their means. Bottom line - unless someone is creating a true nuisance, MYOB
Anonymous wrote:
OP, I would be FAR more concerned with an OLD house that the owners clearly can NOT afford (refusing to sell to someone who clearly can); than a new house that a new owner can easily afford, has the money to upkeep, and will likely sell eventually anyway.
There are many old house owners that can barely afford their taxes and should clearly be moving on. They need to realize that their having less money corresponds to their need to make sacrifices. Not stirring the pot, so to speak. It is that simple. And not very difficult to understand.
What I don't understand, is anyone in an old house causing trouble for anyone. Unless they miraculously have deep pockets to defend themselves in court. Which clearly they do not.
I wouldn't be worried about a NEWER house at all. The only possibilities are positive, as they are an asset to the community and county. Their taxes support the tax base of the rest of the the community and county.
You do realize this basic fact, right?
Using the term "McMansion" isn't going to save you from yourself. You need to be less naive and also take a basic economics course.