Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I pay about $4000/month for my place. Rent would be about $3,000. For six years, there were reasons why nobody in our building could sell. Many had children and wanted larger spaces in the meantime, others had to move for work. This left them with a deficit of $1,000/month for many years. Plus they had to do continual work to deal with being a landlord and several had renters who failed to pay their rent. I think it is entirely understandable that people would like to invest that extra $1,000 elsewhere if they so chose. Also, in order to buy now in my building, you need close to $100k downpayment. Shockingly, some people don't have that.

Wait, so you've lived there for 6 years and you still can't break even on mortgage and cover with rental income? Where are you located?

The question as written is irrelevant, as I have lived there for much longer than that, and I currently have a 15 year loan that has the same cost as my former 30 year loan. This is less than $4k, the $4k number includes condo fees and taxes. If we were talking about a house, you wouldn't have the condo fee, but you would have upkeep that may far surpass the amount paid regularly in fees.

But, during the six years in question (2006-2012), I was paying that on a 30 year loan plus a bit more for a special assessment, the property did not go up in value, and financing for more than 50% was unavailable in our building (which essentially precluded refis and sales). Most were actually renting at about $2,500, so they were taking a huge loss. Those who were able to stick it out have now seen a large increase in value, but there was a lot of pain in the meantime and a lot of tough decisions.

On the other hand, most of the renters in the building have very good reasons for renting. They are in jobs that they may not stay in forever, and they want to keep options open for different career paths (we have high international development and law firm representation) and family situations (many are single).

For me, owning has paid off and has actually helped me because it forced me to stay put when I might otherwise have moved to the suburbs, which I would have hated, but it is not the right choice for everyone at every stage of their lives.

we rent. happily. sure, would be great to have the equity and enforced savings.

but in return we can pick up and move if we want to, we aren't responsible for fixing things that break, etc.

we also don't have enough for a downpayment in a place where we'd actually want to live - somehow, the $400k condo in shirlington doesn't seem like the home of our dreams... (nothing against the shirl. love the movie theater and dog park. it's just not where i want to plant roots.)

tradeoffs. there are upsides to renting you may not have considered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duhhh....but not everyone has a downpayment or the income to own.

In my opinion, if you can pay $3k+ for rent, you can buy.

But maybe not in the same area. If you are paying $3k in Ckarendon, there is no way to stay there without a significant increase on monthly outlay.

Anonymous wrote:I pay about $4000/month for my place. Rent would be about $3,000. For six years, there were reasons why nobody in our building could sell. Many had children and wanted larger spaces in the meantime, others had to move for work. This left them with a deficit of $1,000/month for many years. Plus they had to do continual work to deal with being a landlord and several had renters who failed to pay their rent. I think it is entirely understandable that people would like to invest that extra $1,000 elsewhere if they so chose. Also, in order to buy now in my building, you need close to $100k downpayment. Shockingly, some people don't have that.

Wait, so you've lived there for 6 years and you still can't break even on mortgage and cover with rental income? Where are you located?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I'm not as crass as the 1st poster who said renters are 2nd class citizens, I much, much prefer to live next to owners. Mainly because they take better care of their yards (not always the renters fault, but the combo of landlord + renter normally means it doesn't get done as nicely) and because they stay longer. Previously I lived in a condo where renters moved out every 6mo-1 year. It was frustrating that no one stayed long enough to become good neighbors and they didn't care about the property or community like the owners.

On average this may be true. We are also renters who have lived in our place for 5 years. There are many other renters like us where we live. In fact, renters are on the board of the condo assoc! So while you maybe right on the average, it's not always true that renters are transient and unaccountable.

NP here. There are renters on your board???? That is very odd. It makes no sense, in fact, as they are just playing with other people's money. We have a lot of renters that are fairly permanent, but many owners still look down on them, and they certainly can't vote on issues.

I assume they are non-voting but participate in planning social events or helping with facilities and other projects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I'm not as crass as the 1st poster who said renters are 2nd class citizens, I much, much prefer to live next to owners. Mainly because they take better care of their yards (not always the renters fault, but the combo of landlord + renter normally means it doesn't get done as nicely) and because they stay longer. Previously I lived in a condo where renters moved out every 6mo-1 year. It was frustrating that no one stayed long enough to become good neighbors and they didn't care about the property or community like the owners.

On average this may be true. We are also renters who have lived in our place for 5 years. There are many other renters like us where we live. In fact, renters are on the board of the condo assoc! So while you maybe right on the average, it's not always true that renters are transient and unaccountable.

NP here. There are renters on your board???? That is very odd. It makes no sense, in fact, as they are just playing with other people's money. We have a lot of renters that are fairly permanent, but many owners still look down on them, and they certainly can't vote on issues.

I pay about $4000/month for my place. Rent would be about $3,000. For six years, there were reasons why nobody in our building could sell. Many had children and wanted larger spaces in the meantime, others had to move for work. This left them with a deficit of $1,000/month for many years. Plus they had to do continual work to deal with being a landlord and several had renters who failed to pay their rent. I think it is entirely understandable that people would like to invest that extra $1,000 elsewhere if they so chose. Also, in order to buy now in my building, you need close to $100k downpayment. Shockingly, some people don't have that.

Anonymous wrote:While I'm not as crass as the 1st poster who said renters are 2nd class citizens, I much, much prefer to live next to owners. Mainly because they take better care of their yards (not always the renters fault, but the combo of landlord + renter normally means it doesn't get done as nicely) and because they stay longer. Previously I lived in a condo where renters moved out every 6mo-1 year. It was frustrating that no one stayed long enough to become good neighbors and they didn't care about the property or community like the owners.

On average this may be true. We are also renters who have lived in our place for 5 years. There are many other renters like us where we live. In fact, renters are on the board of the condo assoc! So while you maybe right on the average, it's not always true that renters are transient and unaccountable.

OP,leave it, leave it -don't give them any ideas...
I hope my tenant is not reading this.I gave him a good deal though and haven't bothered him since.

Not if you bought in 1996. Tenants paid off my mortgage years ago. It's all free money now.

Duh. Thank you, too. It's not 1996 anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP may be surprised that people pay $3K per month in rent (more in my neighborhood), but the mortgage costs in my neighborhood for the same home would be closer to $5-6K per month, so home owners are losing significant investment opportunities.

This. Thank you. I chuckle every month when I write the rent check, knowing the landlord is getting zero return on his "investment." Buy if it makes you happy, sure, but it is not any kind of investment in the DC market, but a losing proposition, financially.

Not if you bought in 1996. Tenants paid off my mortgage years ago. It's all free money now.

This exactly. Prices are inflated because of the bubble and market manipulation by the Fed. But if you look at *equivalent* properties (same location, size, quality), renting is way cheaper month to month.

Being a landlord only makes sense if you bought 20 years ago, like OP. Clearly OP is a feckless landlord, since he doesn't understand that if he paid the current prices on his property, it would be a decade before he is cash flow positive (accounting for opportunity cost of downpayment, taxes, maintenance, vacancy periods). He *might* cover his monthly mortgage in a few years, but unlikely.

We were renting a condo for 2.8k; if we were to buy it (they sold for $775k, with an $800/month condo fee), our monthly cost would be $4.5k/month, on top of any maintenance or special assessments.

Also, there are very, very few options for entry level home purchases in good school districts. Builders and hot money investors have scooped up all tear-down properties with cash only deals; there are condos available but there are a *lot* of risk with condos (escalating condo fees, ownership tilting to over 50% renting so you can *never* sell to someone financing with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, special assessments, etc), and honestly looking at then numbers listed above, condos sell for quite a premium compared to what you get.

While I'm not as crass as the 1st poster who said renters are 2nd class citizens, I much, much prefer to live next to owners. Mainly because they take better care of their yards (not always the renters fault, but the combo of landlord + renter normally means it doesn't get done as nicely) and because they stay longer. Previously I lived in a condo where renters moved out every 6mo-1 year. It was frustrating that no one stayed long enough to become good neighbors and they didn't care about the property or community like the owners.

Anonymous wrote:

OP may be surprised that people pay $3K per month in rent (more in my neighborhood), but the mortgage costs in my neighborhood for the same home would be closer to $5-6K per month, so home owners are losing significant investment opportunities.

This. Thank you. I chuckle every month when I write the rent check, knowing the landlord is getting zero return on his "investment." Buy if it makes you happy, sure, but it is not any kind of investment in the DC market, but a losing proposition, financially.

Not if you bought in 1996. Tenants paid off my mortgage years ago. It's all free money now.

OP may be surprised that people pay $3K per month in rent (more in my neighborhood), but the mortgage costs in my neighborhood for the same home would be closer to $5-6K per month, so home owners are losing significant investment opportunities.

This. Thank you. I chuckle every month when I write the rent check, knowing the landlord is getting zero return on his "investment." Buy if it makes you happy, sure, but it is not any kind of investment in the DC market, but a losing proposition, financially.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Renters are also considered second class citizens in a neighborhood.

Is that so??? What neighborhood is that? I need to know never to stop foot in it.

All of them

Really? You lived in all of them? Wow, some superwoman you are.