Living Car Free - The American Dream is up for Rent

I think we all agree any investment has risk. The dream we are talking about has or had risks. But the reward goes to those who minimise those risks. Landlords run the same risk and have the extra worry if their community passes rent control. But like any other investment people need to look at what they can afford and stay within that budget. I have rented before and all in all it wasn't too bad. except the landlord cold tell me if I could have a pet and where I could park and how many could stay at my house and for how long. And like someone pointed out they can tell you when you have to move.

But the American dream is in trouble and it indeed may take years for it to recover.

No rent control around here and if you are uninformed enough to buy into the American Dream in certain subdivisions they will certainly tell you where to park, what to park and what freakin' mailbox you have to buy.:twitchy: I have done plenty of renting over the years, it has it's advantages, and so does ownership. A house as an investment is a crap shoot...so is the stock market. I have plenty of friends that rent in places like Manhattan and Chicago, makes better sense for them. I have plenty of others that own their own homes and some even own rental property. I have owned a few rentals in the past and was damn glad to be rid of them.

Aaron:)

I wouldn't be surprised if you bought your home before 2004. Almost everybody who bought since then has property that's now worth less than they paid for it.

I'm not against home ownership by any means. I do think that people should realize that it's a financial gamble, and they shouldn't have all their eggs in the basket of their home.

This is what the lax loan standards and overinflated home prices of recent years got most homeowners, far over their head financially, making them spend way too much in mortgage payments, and leaving them little leeway if troubled times fell on them.
One of the most amazing stories I've heard was a few years ago, it was about a condo owner in San Francisco who was estatic about get a lower interest refi, and having his $6500 a month payment lowered to $5000 a month, so he can go out and buy a sectional sofa and have something to sit on.

Yes Roody, we bought our home long before 2004.

Well, you still own your home (assuming the mortgage is paid off), you just owe the gummint various taxes to pay for various services.

Now, if you own rental property, you get a sweet deal, because your renters pay the taxes for you.


Thanks to Cali's Prop. 13, my property taxes are fixed and calculated off our home's value when we bought it in the 80's, making our total insurance and property taxes at just over $100 a month.

The bad thing about owning a rental in our area has been marijuana grows, and the destructive nature on homes being used for indoor pot grows. Not only does the landlord get stuck with the damage bill and passing it on, but the growers are willing pay premium rent prices, driving the rent prices spiraling upward.

There are two rentals down the street from us that are sitting vacant due to the owners' being reluctant to rent them, making the rental market even smaller, once again driving the prices upward.

Gone are the fears of having to uproot the family due of a landlord's poor fiscal management or deciding to sell the property.

Yes, gone are the fears of having to "uproot" the family due to landlords problems, but also gone is the ability to move on your own whim! The ability to take the job in the city and not have to commute 4 hours each day. Im not saying one is better than the other just that they both have pluses and minuses that seem to even out. Given that it is essentially a crap shoot, I would rather have the mobility of a renter with not having to stress about repairs or natural disasters ruining my "nest egg." But thats me, and you are you.

Yes, gone are the fears of having to "uproot" the family due to landlords problems, but also gone is the ability to move on your own whim! The ability to take the job in the city and not have to commute 4 hours each day. Im not saying one is better than the other just that they both have pluses and minuses that seem to even out. Given that it is essentially a crap shoot, I would rather have the mobility of a renter with not having to stress about repairs or natural disasters ruining my "nest egg." But thats me, and you are you.

Zep, I never had a job that didn't take more than 20 minutes to commute to, and I've had several jobs over the years, since family stabilty came first, even if it meant taking a lesser paying job closer to home.

Owning our home has given us a peace of mind that renting could not, as I've watched the tenants of my first apartment complex get evicted due it's sale a couple years after I left. We personally had to move family members into a smaller apartment, since their apartment complex was also sold from under them, and their having to pay a subsequent higher rent for less floor space, and with far more restrictions.
Again, renting is fine for those who are highly mobile, cannot afford a home or do not want the responibilties of homeownership, but owning a home for us has been one the best moves we've made.

I think we all agree any investment has risk. The dream we are talking about has or had risks. But the reward goes to those who minimise those risks. Landlords run the same risk and have the extra worry if their community passes rent control. But like any other investment people need to look at what they can afford and stay within that budget. I have rented before and all in all it wasn't too bad. except the landlord cold tell me if I could have a pet and where I could park and how many could stay at my house and for how long. And like someone pointed out they can tell you when you have to move.

But the American dream is in trouble and it indeed may take years for it to recover.

The problem was that most citizens were not aware of the risks of home ownership. The government and the media "experts" constantly brainwashed us into buying homes, even though that was never the best plan for many people. Tax policies and fovernment assistance with down payments also did much to encourage home ownership. Jon Stewart has got this one pegged exactly right.

Yes, gone are the fears of having to "uproot" the family due to landlords problems, but also gone is the ability to move on your own whim! The ability to take the job in the city and not have to commute 4 hours each day. Im not saying one is better than the other just that they both have pluses and minuses that seem to even out. Given that it is essentially a crap shoot, I would rather have the mobility of a renter with not having to stress about repairs or natural disasters ruining my "nest egg." But thats me, and you are you.

This is a very good point. Ordinarily in a recession, people move out of areas with high unemployment into areas with better job opportunities. In the recession of the 1980s, so many people moved from Michigan to Texas and Tennesee that somebody put up a billboard on the southern state line reading "Will the last one out of Michigan please turn out the lights?"

In this recession, with the bad housing market and shortage of credit, more people are stuck in their current residences because they can't sell their home. This might make recovery much more diffcult.