« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

October 28, 2009

NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

"Plenty of pain yet to come," is how one economist summed it up in an article in the New York Times this morning about the country's housing market. The article's main point is that the improving data we've seen over the past three months may very well be a head-fake rather than the first leg of a recovery:

Artificially low interest rates and a government tax credit are luring buyers, but both those inducements are scheduled to end. Defaults and distress sales are rising in the middle and upper price ranges. And millions of people have lost so much equity that they are locked into their homes for years, a modern variation of the Victorian debtor’s prison that is freezing a large swath of the market.

Closer to home, the data from Case-Shiller show that New York City is still holding up relatively well, with prices down just 10 percent over the last year, as compared to 30 percent in Las Vegas and 15 percent in Seattle.
Fears of a New Chill in Home Sales [NY Times]
Graph from the New York Times

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12042

Comments

This article makes total sense: uptick, followed by more price declines because of unemployment and higher interest rates. Miss Muffet, good news for you. I narrowly escaped becoming a laid-off homeowner this week. My company had layoffs and people to my left and right are gone. Supposedly we won't have more this year, but if advertising doesn't turn around, that could change.

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 9:13 AM

I wouldn't make that much of the expiry of the new homebuyer tax credit. it's not that expensive and it's good bang-for-the-buck for the government, since it moves a lot of low-priced homes. today they reported 400K annual pace for new homes. If a third of that qualified for the 8000 credit, it would only cost 1 Billion. They need to threaten to take the program away to get people to use it. It's an empty threat -- this is one of their better tools, and they'll keep using it to prop up the market.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 10:19 AM

We're all gonna die!!!!! Run for the hills!

Posted by: tybur6 at October 28, 2009 10:20 AM

also, there's no such thing as "artificially low interest rates". government interest rates are set by policy, so either they're all "artificial" or none of them are. Japan has had near zero interest rates for almost 20 years.

The popularity of the US treasury armageddon scenario is way way out of proportion. Did you know that China only owns 7% of our debt, and that fully two thirds of it is owned by americans themselves? And China fully admits that there is really not much else out there to buy with 700Bn of surplus. Further, to buy US treasuries you have to first buy dollars and sell Yuan -- that keeps China's currency down, supporting their exports. They need that. Don't listen to Lou Dobbs. "Communist China" is not bringing our economy down by dumping treasuries. (and speaking of anti-china press, how many of you knew that Japan owns the same amount of our government debt that China does -- but do you hear about it in the news?)

Next. There is no such thing as a "treasury bubble". Bond markets can't have bubbles, because every bond matures at 100c on the dollar. Our "bubble" long bond is at 119, meaning it will lose a little over 20% between now and its 2040 maturity. not really a big deal.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 10:37 AM

Joe , this article isn't propounding the Treasury apocalypse theory. It merely says interest rates will rise when the US stops buying its own debt. Perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 10:45 AM

wow, it has been 2 hours since this post and still not a single comment from the perma bulls.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 11:12 AM

Deja Vu! May thru September!

New York Metro Case-Shiller:

MONTH, READING, FROM PEAK, YOY, REMARK

May-08 194.22 -10.01% -7.74% HEAD FAKE
Jun-08 194.74 -9.77% -7.04% HEAD FAKE
Jul-08 193.70 -10.25% -7.04% HEAD FAKE
Aug-08 193.48 -10.36% -6.61% HEAD FAKE
Sep-08 191.66 -11.20% -7.14% BACK TO REALITY
Oct-08 189.67 -12.12% -7.72%
Nov-08 186.52 -13.58% -8.74%
Dec-08 183.46 -15.00% -9.22%
Jan-09 180.94 -16.17% -9.73%
Feb-09 177.83 -17.61% -10.32%
Mar-09 173.59 -19.57% -11.66%
Apr-09 170.66 -20.93% -12.36%
May-09 171.15 -20.70% -11.88% HEAD FAKE?
Jun-09 172.36 -19.93% -11.49% HEAD FAKE?
Jul-09 173.94 -18.85% -10.20% HEAD FAKE?
Aug-09 174.89 -18.31% -9.61% HEAD FAKE?

Speaking of "Closer to home", there was a story last night on PBS about UPPER EAST SIDERS (posers!) struggling with the economy called, guess what, yup "Close to Home". But the offsheet balance games and foreclosure backlogs by banks (haven't yet realized toxic losses and don't want to dump more inventory on already stifling inventory), the FED-manipulated stockmarket and a temporary "recovery" on taxpayer life support would have you thinking that everything is alright.

I overheard a discussion on the train this morning between a man and woman. The woman and her friend were struggling to sell and/or rent their apartments and the guy goes "Just hold on 'til next year. The market will get better." It's amazing but sad how mass psychology can be so swayed by TV and big name newspapers/magazines. This "recovery" blip is to be sold into. Take profits or minimize loss.

And nobody is "trapped" in their home. Turn up the volume on Morris Day and stop the bleeding. Throwing away more cash in the futile attempt to stop your inevitable crash? Not smart. You have bigger problems over the next decade than your credit rating. Better yet, live rent free until you hear that knock on the door - the judges can't decide who owns your mortgage anyway. I know a guy who knows a guy in NYC who hasn't paid his mortgage in over a year.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 11:35 AM

mopar -- I know, I was stretching a little to squeeze in a rant that I haven't found a home for. forgive me. But most of the US treasury debt in the US is owned by pensions and other similar long term investors -- it's not as circular as you make it sound.

I agree that there is a limit to how much mortgage debt can be bought by the treasury (this program has kept the spread down), and there is a limit to how many mortgages can essentially be written (via fannie mae etc) by the government. The private mortgage market is still dead, and the de facto lender is uncle sam itself. but I don't think the current programs are in any imminent danger of collapse. The US still borrows very very cheaply.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 11:36 AM

"We're all gonna die!!!!! Run for the hills!"

LOL. Maybe Carl and Bob need to adjust their "seasonal adjustment" formula 'cause this headfake looks mighty regular.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 11:42 AM

BHO no doubt. besides, credit ratings are such a joke. you can mail in your keys and start borrowing again with a clean slate in 7 years. great country.

one thing to add -- those "head fakes" have another name --- "seasonality". they're all between may and august.

I'm on loan for team Bull. Like when you show up for a little league game and the other team only has 7 players, so they forfeit the game and a couple of your guys switch so you can still play.

The prices have basically bottomed.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 11:43 AM

oh you beat me to it.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 11:46 AM

"....bond mkts can't have bubbles" ....ever hear of Argentina?? Joe do u think the US $ will be weaker or stronger in 2040 ?? ($ vs anything u can think of)

Posted by: bklyn14 at October 28, 2009 11:52 AM

Team Bull Crap needs far more than one man, joe. Matter 'fact, it's not even a team anymore. And I heard you stutter when you said "prices have basically bottomed".

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 11:56 AM

Yes, this is part of why I am patient. I think NYC has not yet bottomed out, and see no reason why prices would go up anytime soon. When we find a place we love that we can afford, we will buy but we are in no rush since reports like this are further confirmation that time is on buyers' side.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 11:59 AM

BHO, i hear you but your anecdotes only support my view that the housing bust is only affecting the low to middle class in new york city, like with the rest of the country. The wealthy bankers are able to receive fat bonuses through tax payer bailouts (TARP) while the rest of the country burns. I can't see how this is not legalized thievery. Wall street was able to blackmail the american taxpayers into handing over trillions to them by threatening economic collapse if they did not. Now that everything is better and they are paying out huge bonuses even at the banks that still kept tarp money, the public is justifiably outraged.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor***

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 12:01 PM

Short term deflation, long term inflation and quite possibly hyperinflation. That's my call.

Interest rate hikes are inevitable but won't affect patient buyers as prices will eventually self-correct for this, independently of corrections already in place.

15% NYC unemployment by next year. 25% plus before real recovery.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:03 PM

As much as I hope you guys get your dream houses, "patient buyers" might be waiting upwards of a decade by your outline here BHO. That's a lot of patience...

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 12:09 PM

Last minute looting, stevieb (still an outrage though). Your typical Goldman employee is worried about the future of their job.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:15 PM

BHO, I am not sure I agree with you about Goldman employees worried about their jobs. Just to give you a sense of how powerful and protected they are, the previous treasury secretary Hank Paulson was in the same room as their current CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, discussing lehman's fate, during the crisis last fall. I can bet my last dollar that Goldman can always draw on tax payer help again if they needed it.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 12:20 PM

bklyn14 -- argentina was a bond default in a collapsing economic bubble at the end of an unsustainable currency regime.

an asset price bubble happens when people think there is no end to the upside in prices, like in dot-com stocks or housing, or tulips. Bonds can't go much past their par value, because they're anchored to it.

OK, I agree people were too relaxed about lending to argentina, so if you want to call that a bubble, fine, but when I think ASSET bubble I think speculative mania.

As for the US, yes, the dollar is going to be weaker in the long term. But the US is one of the only countries that borrows in the same currency it spends its money in. Argentina had to issue dollar debt to fund Peso obligations. It's a totally different story, and we don't have that problem.

I mean -- are you worried that your swiss franc bank account is going to take a hit when you redeem your US treasury bonds and have to sell the dollars? I don't see the reason to panic.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 12:25 PM

Or NOT, wasder. How'd you extrapolate a whole decade out of my outline? I said short term deflation.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:28 PM

TYPICAL Goldman employee, stevieb. The one who might have any relevance to the Brooklyn market (granted you were discussing the market at large). I have a source inside.

But yes, the upper echelon worries not.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:35 PM

"How'd you extrapolate a whole decade out of my outline? I said short term deflation"

A decade was a wild guess of course, but the point is we are already a year and a half into your master plan. Had I listened to you last summer when I was weighing whether to buy and you and I used to mix it up in less jovial ways than we do now, I would definitely still be waiting. And given short term deflation plus the fact that once the price declines do start back up (if they do) it will take a while to reach your desired levels of decline, it strikes me that the "patient buyer" will be waiting quite some time. I don't know too many people who can operate with that level of insecurity and instability for that long.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 12:35 PM

"China only owns 7% of our debt, and that fully two thirds of it is owned by americans themselves?"

But joe, what are the numbers on newly issued debt?

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:38 PM

on the bonus thing: you have to rememeber that the number of people getting those checks is way smaller, even though the checks are big, and they are mostly repeat-check-getters. There are not a lot of new millionaires being minted. So you are getting folks with 5MM in the bank moving up to 6MM. That's going to affect the high-end market, and at the same time you still have a massive destruction of wealth crippling the trust-fund set, so who knows what the net impact is.

The 1-2MM pad has been incredibly firm in my view, but it's because a lot of people are long time owners, and people didn't go crazy with financing. Look at the OTHER three hundred thousand financial workers, the "banking middle class" who are still working at half their 2006 compensation, for the brooklyn story. It's going to be an agonizingly slow drift, and it will be driven more by relocations than foreclosures -- I'm on board with the bottom coming 5 yrs from now 25% below where we are now.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 12:44 PM

>TYPICAL Goldman employee, stevieb

BHO, i am not sure about the typical goldman employee, but I read about record bonuses getting paid out this year at places like Bank of America and Citigroup who kept tax payers money. Key bank and wells fargo also received and kept tax payers money and are paying out bonuses.

How scared can you be after you receive a few million dollars of bonus at one of these tarp banks? The money is yours to keep and the rest of the country can burn.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 12:49 PM

"I'm on board with the bottom coming 5 yrs from now 25% below where we are now."

While this would be a long, slow, disconcerting decline, at the same time that would mean prices bottoming at 35% below the peak of the bubble, which is hardly a complete collapse.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 12:53 PM

My master plan? I love it, wasder. How 'bout the inscurity and instability of a depression risk (as pessimistic as I can get about this real notion)? Is signing a few leases and paying a few moving companies more inconvenient than losing a few hundred thousand dollars? It's all over the news, the brownstoner forum, subway conversations and inventory calculations, the rental market is collapsing. Family size apartments or temporary homes in the suburbs will be had at cheaper rates than ever. Your type of security and stability is bankrupting people.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 12:53 PM

>on the bonus thing: you have to rememeber that the number of people getting those checks is way smaller, even though the checks are big, and they are mostly repeat-check-getters.

here is a quote from the WSJ from oct 14th:

"Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their employees about $140 billion this year -- a record high that shows compensation is rebounding despite regulatory scrutiny of Wall Street's pay culture.

Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers and stock and commodities exchanges can expect to earn even more than they did the peak year of 2007, according to an analysis of securities filings for the first half of 2009 and revenue estimates through year-end by The Wall Street Journal."

link attached:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125547830510183749.html

Total bonus pool going up after 100,000 layoffs translates to much higher pay check per person. There is no guarantee that it will not affect the PS housing market. I think it will.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 1:02 PM

"25% below where we are now" = -40% from peak. Ah, round down to half off, joe! WE DO know what the net impact is: down. Don't get lost in the details.

stevieb - Read joe @ 12:44. All is not well for the "banking middle class".

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 1:03 PM

I guess if a depression happens we will all be screwed and me only somewhat more severely than the average renter. I can only speak for my particular family and situation but the stability and security I get from knowing my home is my home and knowing that the payments I make on it will always be the same is worth the risk of losing a few hundred thousand dollars. I don't know any people with kids who are willing to live in year to year leases for any extended period of time. That is why that aspect of the rental market may be collapsing (I have been blissfully unaware of the rental market for some time now)---there may not be enough takers for those properties.

This is where your master plan has always fallen apart. The number of people with the flexibility and fortitude to stand like Don Quixote and tilt at the windmill of price collapse is very small.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 1:05 PM

BHO -- numbers on newly issued debt don't matter. for China, new issues are small drops in a big bucket. if they want to marginally change their holdings, say from 700Bn to 600Bn, it's more efficient to turn the spigot off than to dump out of the bucket (sell bonds) why? because the older, "off-the-run" treasury bonds that they own are less liquid than new ones, so they'll pay a transaction cost if they sell. It's cheaper to adjust their position if they just let bonds mature. You can't read that spigot-shutting as a total rejection of the US treasury market; it's just not so. People are using that new-issue data to mislead the public.

The relevant number concerning new issue debt is what the treasury has to pay in interest to borrow. It's historically low, which means that investors, wherever they are in the world, are happily stepping in to invest in the US.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 1:15 PM

"35% below the peak of the bubble, which is hardly a complete collapse"

But 75% loss on 20% down damn near is, wasder. Deleverage is a bitch!

"Total bonus pool going up after 100,000 layoffs translates to much higher pay check per person."

Theoretically could be 5 people. Get my drift? Less people eyeing a fatter inventory IF they even want to buy RE. Bonuses are overhyped by agents. Didn't stop prices from declining 20% in better times (recovery my ass).

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (TUESDAY!!!)***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 28, 2009 1:17 PM

With all due respect, Wasder, I don't think you can attribute the softening of the rental market to there being no takers since families would prefer to own. I hear what you are saying about the security that comes with owning your own home, but I also see that rents are relatively cheap these days and in this climate, I'm more nervous about spending a few hundred thousand dollars extra to buy, than I am spending a few years as a renter. I have kids, and many people I know with kids DO rent year to year - don't forget, NYC is still primarily a renters town. It's just that NYC is getting hit by all the bigger economic forces, and that's why rents are coming down, and prices on purchases too - albeit slower than initially predicted.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 1:18 PM

> The number of people ... is very small.

Hey Wasder,

I don't know how small that number of people is. If half the people in this city are single, and therefore more flexible than those with kids, there are plenty of people able to wait.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 1:20 PM

"Hey Wasder,

I don't know how small that number of people is. If half the people in this city are single, and therefore more flexible than those with kids, there are plenty of people able to wait."

Snark--you are likely right that the group of single or childless people should be fairly large. However, BHO was referencing family size apts and houses in the suburbs so I was responding to that. My situation did not allow for that kind of flexibility but I can't speak for anyone else.

Miss Muffett--I was careful to say that I don't know if this is the reason, just guessing. Also careful to say that I personally do not know any renters with kids. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I do think that there must be something to the fact that smaller apts seem to be taking more of a whack than whole homes in Brooklyn but I don't pretend to have some overarching economic or social theory behind it. Just the anecdotal info that its tough to be a renter with kids.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 1:25 PM

"Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers.... "

stevieb maybe a broader swath of people is getting paid than I thought. my business is still crushed, so I may be a little biased. That raw number is high, I can't argue that -- but I would still point out that hedge funds don't have very many employees, i-banks only made so much because they had less compitition, and a lot of the pay is going to be in shares and deferred comp. Still, you're right, it will support park slope.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 1:26 PM

"Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers.... "

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 1:26 PM

Wow Wasder, that's amazing that you don't know any renters with kids. I wonder if it has to do with the neighborhoods. For sure, tons of families rent in Park Slope because of the great schools. I imagine the same must be true of other neighborhoods with good schools i.e. PS29, etc. Maybe, if a neighborhood does NOT have great schools, the people that move there with kids have basically decided that they are moving there for the real estate opportunities and thus decide to buy - and then maybe hope the local public schools improve over time, or else they send their kids to private school?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 1:30 PM

> BHO was referencing family size apts and houses in the suburbs...

Ah yes. As Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind."

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 1:34 PM

> Still, you're right, it will support park slope.

Joe, I am sorry to hear about your business. What industry are you in? I think the reason that your business got crushed is because you have not yet found a way to blackmail american tax payers into handing over their money. May if you could be a bit more thuggish or find a way to use scare tactics effectively, you could get some of that money as well.

That being said, $140Bill of bonus money is a lot of firepower and will support Park Slope.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 1:40 PM

> $140Bill of bonus money is a lot of firepower

Isn't most of this deferred, in the form of stocks and such that will not actually vest for a few years?

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 1:42 PM

MM--For whatever reason, the folks that I know with kids all rent. There may be some people that I know (I am sure this is likely) casually through my daughter's pre-school rent, but in terms of my close social circle with kids, they all own. And it is true neighborhood may have something to do with it as I only know one family with kids in the Slope (and they own a condo). Most of the others are in Clinton Hill, with a smattering of other neighborhoods in the mix (Windsor Terrace, Jackson Heights etc).

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 1:46 PM

snark, yeah it's going to be partly deferred but I think the takeaway is that this year is proving that the bastards are going to find a way to get paid no matter what..

stevieb my business was arranging credit derivative trades. I understand if you want to withdraw your sympathy. As you can imagine, there's not a lot of new business in that area. you know...a few bad apples...

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 1:54 PM

Meant of course to say above that all the folks I know with kids own...

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 1:55 PM

> the bastards are going to find a way to get paid no matter what...

True that, joe, true that.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 1:58 PM

Wasder - I'm genuinely curious - what are you planning to do about school? You have little ones, I know, but are they school age? We already have our oldest in public school so probably don't want to buy too far from where we're currently renting (younger one may not get a variance) but every so often I think about a more radical change i.e. your neck of the woods, but what is the school deal there?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 2:01 PM

miss muffet, I'm in the same boat. I've got a little bummer on the way. I am worried about a related problem - having my school zone yanked out from under me after I purchase.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 2:07 PM

Joe, you still have my sympathy because you have not taken any money from me (or tax payers).

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 2:09 PM

"Wasder - I'm genuinely curious - what are you planning to do about school? You have little ones, I know, but are they school age? We already have our oldest in public school so probably don't want to buy too far from where we're currently renting (younger one may not get a variance) but every so often I think about a more radical change i.e. your neck of the woods, but what is the school deal there?"

My oldest is a couple of years away from public schooling but once she is going to kindergarten we will try to get her into PS 11 which is a few blocks away and gets good ratings. Failing that, there is an elementary school in Boerum Hill that I know some people send their kids to over here. So, barring PS 11, it would be a situation of finding an out of neighborhood school for her. I am hopeful about 11 however.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 2:13 PM

joe, how could that happen? sorry to hear about the school zone. do they have a right to do that?

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 2:14 PM

Joe if you are contemplating buying in 321 I would be concerned about the zone changing - and for that matter, other popular schools. Alas, the popular schools are getting more crowded and the prospect of rezoning is definitely under discussion. It's very thorny and complicated but I would be concerned too.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 2:14 PM

Miss Muffett, where would be a safe zone? PS 58, 107, 39 or 29?

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 2:19 PM

It is great to have MM, BHO, JTB, DitmarsSnark, on this thread so we could all have a nice conversation without the perma bulls chiming in.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 2:24 PM

no stevie it hasn't happened yet. Little B is due in Becember. But I'm afraid to pay a premium to buy in 321 and then get shunted into another zone. I think if your kid is already in the school you get a variance, but I would take 5 years of risk.

and yes I'm definitely a net payer in the tax picture. come hang out the next time the subject of affordable housing comes up!!

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 2:30 PM

joe, I think MM, BHO, DitmarsSnark, you and I should have a get together. We could even invite the What if you want. It will be our answer to the get togethers that the perma bulls have.

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 2:43 PM

wasder -- have you checked out "insideschools.org"? I've been pulling up some schools in there. Almost all of them seem to have 4 or 5 stars in reading or math, so I tend to ignore that. There are some other statistics on each school that can help you focus on what's right for your kid. Plus, very helpful: you can click on a zone map.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 2:44 PM

don't they have get-togethers for everyone? we could just hoard some tables. I've been afraid of two things -- first, obviously, getting my ass kicked by enraged homeowners. Second, well...I think there are some gentlemen using this site as a kind of social network that...um, I'm not part of. so, yeah, if you promise to call the cops if it gets out of hand let's all go to the next b-stoner thing. It must be hilarious to see what people actually look like.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 28, 2009 3:01 PM

JTB, maybe a better idea is to crash their cozy homeowners' get togethers. we bitter renters can show up with our pitch forks. This bstoner website is a microcosm for the class struggle that is on going in the rest of the country. for the longest time, the republicans have pulled wools over our eyes with their promise of prosperity by getting us to deregulate and cut taxes, while what they have done is "re-distribute" wealth from the poor and middle class to the already wealthy. Real wages have stagnated for the past 30 years while the gap between the rich and poor is the widest it has ever been post second WW.
This is why i support Bill Thompson over slimy bloomberg. Bill will soak the rich and maybe get some of our money back.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor (Tuesday!!!)**

Posted by: stevieb at October 28, 2009 3:12 PM

> Social network that...um, I'm not part of.

No homo joe?

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 3:38 PM

I would just like to point out that renters with kids are the vast majority of people in Brooklyn. I guess that's pretty obvious. About two-thirds of my neighbors are renters with kids, and the other third own the building they live in. Most of them are plumbers, handymen, own laundromats or small stores, construction workers, movers, work for Verizon or National Grid, electricians, drive a car service, etc. Quite a bit of talent on my block, makes me feel safe.

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 3:58 PM

What are you all smoking? The housing crisis is over, just like that! Reason? DIBs the money manager living in the ghetto said so! As a bonus, the forums' 300 sq foot owning official "Liason to the Stars" 11217 agrees.

Posted by: cornerbodega at October 28, 2009 3:59 PM

You guys are joking, right? Lots of renters at Brownstoner gatherings. At least half, maybe more.

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 3:59 PM

And for the next three weeks I am both. Very handy in debates.

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 4:00 PM

Look who's back! All my eyes and ginger!

Posted by: mopar at October 28, 2009 4:01 PM

moparty!

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 28, 2009 4:03 PM

mopar, pointing out incorrectly there.

There are 880,727 households out of which 33.3% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 38.6% are married couples living together, 22.3% have a female householder with no husband present, and 33.7% are non-families. 27.8% of all households are made up of individuals and 9.8% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 2.75 and the average family size is 3.41

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 28, 2009 4:34 PM

mopar---of course there are many many renters with kids but my choice was between selling my coop apt on the birth of my second and buying a house or renting. That what was spurring my part of this debate, whether or not it would be better to buy into a declining market for the security and comfort of it or rent indefinitely as BHO was advising me to do last summer.

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 4:41 PM

Wasder - you made your choice and you have pointed out here you are happy with it. Sounds like you love your home, got a pretty good deal, and can afford it. So, that's great! But I still think there IS an argument to be made for renting in this climate. I don't think that we are going to be renting "indefinitely" - I hope to buy sometime within the next few years - but if I have to wait a bit longer before finding something I like at a decent price, I really don't mind, when the market direction is stagnating at best, or more likely, continuing to drip down further. For us, school is a major piece of our decision too since we're renting in a good school zone, and maybe once our youngest is in school, we'll feel more "free" to buy anywhere (until that time, we're looking only in areas with very good public schools).

Posted by: Miss Muffett at October 28, 2009 4:54 PM

MM--no doubt about everything you said. Every person's experience and needs are different. I have an unusual amount of flexibility in my live/work situation which makes owning more affordable to me than to a lot of people. And as you know I completely respect your choices and your attitude about the whole thing. Your situation makes perfect sense to me. Anyway, cheers to everyone for an interesting discussion on a frequently heated topic!

Posted by: wasder at October 28, 2009 5:32 PM

>>>>

Mopar, which brooklyn neighborhood do you live in?

Posted by: dandel at October 28, 2009 7:16 PM

I am really sorry I missed this calm and well reasoned discussion that happened on this thread.

Posted by: dandel at October 28, 2009 7:17 PM

We live in Bushwick, and we are moving to Bed Stuy in a few weeks. People tend to have children after they complete their education. The vast majority of people in my neighborhood have children.

Posted by: mopar at October 29, 2009 8:45 AM

« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

October 28, 2009

NYT: Housing Not Out of the Woods Yet

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions