Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the answer is people of your generation need to vote in droves in your local elections and show up at city council meetings and public comment meetings to advocate for large increases in housing stock in your communities. The price explosion of housing near cities is almost entirely driven by the lack of supply. And every time developers propose projects to increase the numbers of units, homeowners show up to oppose them in order to protect their home values. You can't have a say in your community if you don't show up to voice it.

Good point, though part of the problem is that the people who want the density often don't live in the jurisdictions. I live near the proposed Westbard development in Bethesda, and the NIMBYs opposing it all are SFH owners in the neighborhood who don't want further development because of all the usual ostensible reasons - schools, traffic, environmental, overcrowding. (Unsaid, of course, is that brown or, even worse, moderate income people might move in. the horror!) The people who would benefit form the additional housing often don't even know about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born in 88 and have a house over $1 MIL without parents support.

And you also have an inability to answer the question. *HOW*?

By having a high-paying job

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, it's been public policy in recent years (most egregiously post-2008 fin crisis) to move heaven and earth to keep housing prices AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE! Think about that: the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can. When you understand that this is concurrent with policies to suppress wages as much as possible, you should see this as a very bad situation.

Can you explain a little more about these policies- who is making these decisions and what is the mechanism that carries them out? Thanks!

Bank bailouts, conservatorship of Fannie/Freddie, and QE. 37% of home purchases were made by investors last year. Yeah this is sustainable.

What do you mean when you say, "...the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can." Who is forming this public policy? Elected officials? Or private business people? Where is the policy coming from?

I'm a new PP but seriously you don't understand this?

You bail out the banks to ensure that credit flows freely. People can buy houses, with higher price points, thanks to mortgages. Prices therefore go up. If the banks had not been bailed out, credit would have been tighter. Lots of people would not have qualified for mortgages. Lots less people would buy. People would need higher downpayments. Higher interest rates. Total available mortgage levels would decrease. Less people buying houses, and those that are buying have less cash to do it. That means housing prices don't get bid up.

Fannie/Freddie: same thing as previous paragraphs.

Mortgage interest deduction. Encourages people to buy more houses than they can afford. Also, no rental interest deduction. What is that??? How is there not a rental deduction? This is one of the most fucked up US policy things I've ever heard of.

Fed has spent a lot of time not actively enforcing regulations regarding oversight of foreign money coming into the US. Lots of that money is being parked into buying real estate. Drives up prices. Cash buyers. Makes it harder for non cash buyers.

First time home buyer programs.

Fed has kept interest rate crazy low to encourage spending, spending, spending. Whether real estate or otherwise. Manipulated low interest rates mean house prices go up.

That's just a few I thought of off the top of my head.

Other countries don't even have 30 year mortgages yet real estate in cities is still sky high. It's a trope of the "we hate real estate" class to say the government is wrecking it.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am absolutely sympathetic. Things are crazy expensive in DC now, and if you come with student loans and no family help, the numbers in 2017 bear no resemblance to the stories of woe about the kid who graduated in 1993, bartended to pay for school, and "scrimped" for all of 2 years and then bought a house that appreciated 3x within 8 years. Those days are done. You have nothing but sympathy from me, and the back patters on this site are delusional if they think their fortune comes only from their own hard work and smart choices. Statistics and data say otherwise.

All that said, when I moved to DC in the late 90s, this city sucked. Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle were essentially exactly what they are today. Then you had a handful of restaurants up by the National Cathedral. And Georgetown. And the same strip in Glover Park that exists today. housing was quite a bit cheaper, but still decently expensive in the nicer parts of town. Jobs were not flashy, and the options were much more limited than today. You had government workers, and associations and nonprofits, and embassies. A few government consultants and contractors. But in general, most people were tied to shitty government salaries. It wasn't the booming economy it is today. There was almost no private industry, and none of the salaries that went along with them. Law firms were tiny little offshoots in the 90s with salaries in the 5-figures. In 1995, there was no concept of gentrification. No one was moving to 14th street and making money, because the idea was lunacy back then. There were no cute gentrifying neighborhoods where prices were lower. So there were a lot of people making $50k living in a small, dull town with very little to do. We used to live in Dupont, and people used to regularly go up to cactus cantina by the cathedral because it was "a restaurant". People used to line up for hours at Two Amys. There were two places to get an after dinner drink downtown: John Harvards and Harrys. Can you imagine that now?

The point of all this is: We were able to buy houses on much lower salaries yes. And maybe enjoyed price appreciation. But it wasn't a super fun, trendy city back then. If your primary concern is just being able to buy a house (which is the only thing you complained about; you weren't complaining about not enjoyed price appreciation), then I'd suggest leaving the DC area. Go to Baltimore. Or philly. Or somewhere in the southwest, or Tampa, or Raleigh. Sure, those are all smaller, less interesting towns. But they all look a lot like what DC looked like 20 years ago (cost of living, traffic, typical salaries, job opportunities).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, it's been public policy in recent years (most egregiously post-2008 fin crisis) to move heaven and earth to keep housing prices AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE! Think about that: the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can. When you understand that this is concurrent with policies to suppress wages as much as possible, you should see this as a very bad situation.

Can you explain a little more about these policies- who is making these decisions and what is the mechanism that carries them out? Thanks!

Bank bailouts, conservatorship of Fannie/Freddie, and QE. 37% of home purchases were made by investors last year. Yeah this is sustainable.

What do you mean when you say, "...the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can." Who is forming this public policy? Elected officials? Or private business people? Where is the policy coming from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, it's been public policy in recent years (most egregiously post-2008 fin crisis) to move heaven and earth to keep housing prices AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE! Think about that: the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can. When you understand that this is concurrent with policies to suppress wages as much as possible, you should see this as a very bad situation.

Can you explain a little more about these policies- who is making these decisions and what is the mechanism that carries them out? Thanks!

Bank bailouts, conservatorship of Fannie/Freddie, and QE. 37% of home purchases were made by investors last year. Yeah this is sustainable.

What do you mean when you say, "...the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can." Who is forming this public policy? Elected officials? Or private business people? Where is the policy coming from?

I'm a new PP but seriously you don't understand this?

You bail out the banks to ensure that credit flows freely. People can buy houses, with higher price points, thanks to mortgages. Prices therefore go up. If the banks had not been bailed out, credit would have been tighter. Lots of people would not have qualified for mortgages. Lots less people would buy. People would need higher downpayments. Higher interest rates. Total available mortgage levels would decrease. Less people buying houses, and those that are buying have less cash to do it. That means housing prices don't get bid up.

Fannie/Freddie: same thing as previous paragraphs.

Mortgage interest deduction. Encourages people to buy more houses than they can afford. Also, no rental interest deduction. What is that??? How is there not a rental deduction? This is one of the most fucked up US policy things I've ever heard of.

Fed has spent a lot of time not actively enforcing regulations regarding oversight of foreign money coming into the US. Lots of that money is being parked into buying real estate. Drives up prices. Cash buyers. Makes it harder for non cash buyers.

First time home buyer programs.

Fed has kept interest rate crazy low to encourage spending, spending, spending. Whether real estate or otherwise. Manipulated low interest rates mean house prices go up.

That's just a few I thought of off the top of my head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, it's been public policy in recent years (most egregiously post-2008 fin crisis) to move heaven and earth to keep housing prices AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE! Think about that: the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can. When you understand that this is concurrent with policies to suppress wages as much as possible, you should see this as a very bad situation.

Can you explain a little more about these policies- who is making these decisions and what is the mechanism that carries them out? Thanks!

Bank bailouts, conservatorship of Fannie/Freddie, and QE. 37% of home purchases were made by investors last year. Yeah this is sustainable.

What do you mean when you say, "...the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can." Who is forming this public policy? Elected officials? Or private business people? Where is the policy coming from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With trump presidency I would be VERY skeptical of Anacostia or PG gentrification.

If you're looking for a quick profit, sure. If you're looking to live in your house and maybe trade up in 10-15 years presidential administrations matter very little. The pendulum will swing back in 2020 or god forbid 2024, and life will go on.

Even if my house doesn't appreciate a cent, I'll still have over $70k in equity just from principal payments in 10 years. Plus just from seeing the houses that are selling in my neighborhood and meeting the new neighbors, gentrification is certainly happening, albeit at a slower pace than other areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, it's been public policy in recent years (most egregiously post-2008 fin crisis) to move heaven and earth to keep housing prices AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE! Think about that: the government works to make a fundamental human need as expensive as it can. When you understand that this is concurrent with policies to suppress wages as much as possible, you should see this as a very bad situation.

Can you explain a little more about these policies- who is making these decisions and what is the mechanism that carries them out? Thanks!

Bank bailouts, conservatorship of Fannie/Freddie, and QE. 37% of home purchases were made by investors last year. Yeah this is sustainable.

Anonymous wrote:

With trump presidency I would be VERY skeptical of Anacostia or PG gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go east of the river.

Renovated townhouses can be had there in the low $300s. It's not the greatest area but it's also not nearly as bad as its reputation. It's also very conveniently located if you work downtown and is a short Uber from nightlife spots.

With trump presidency I would be VERY skeptical of Anacostia or PG gentrification. A lot of middle class Feds are losing their jobs and the city has lost its cool with Obama departure. Look at someplace like capital heights. Close in easy commute but terrible investment

Are you Marty McFly who is coming back from the future with this little nugget? Because presently, middle class Feds aren't losing their jobs.

They pulled the nuclear option in Supreme Court but will bend on budget? Things are going to get raw and Feds have a target on their back.

I work in SE across the river. It's a BIG gamble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go east of the river.

Renovated townhouses can be had there in the low $300s. It's not the greatest area but it's also not nearly as bad as its reputation. It's also very conveniently located if you work downtown and is a short Uber from nightlife spots.

With trump presidency I would be VERY skeptical of Anacostia or PG gentrification. A lot of middle class Feds are losing their jobs and the city has lost its cool with Obama departure. Look at someplace like capital heights. Close in easy commute but terrible investment

Are you Marty McFly who is coming back from the future with this little nugget? Because presently, middle class Feds aren't losing their jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go east of the river.

Renovated townhouses can be had there in the low $300s. It's not the greatest area but it's also not nearly as bad as its reputation. It's also very conveniently located if you work downtown and is a short Uber from nightlife spots.

With trump presidency I would be VERY skeptical of Anacostia or PG gentrification. A lot of middle class Feds are losing their jobs and the city has lost its cool with Obama departure. Look at someplace like capital heights. Close in easy commute but terrible investment

Anonymous wrote:Go east of the river.

Renovated townhouses can be had there in the low $300s. It's not the greatest area but it's also not nearly as bad as its reputation. It's also very conveniently located if you work downtown and is a short Uber from nightlife spots.