Debate of Subdivision Morals

Debate of Subdivision Morals

New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes

I'd like to talk about this topic with everybody because I feel its a legitimate problem. WIth a recession upon us we know the housing boom was part of it. Including the fact that some entire housing developments were made just for people who couldnt afford them.

Do you ever look at airial photography and plot viewers and think to yourself "man, that guy subdivides like a jack###"? Some maps tell house density, ranging from 1 to 4 or 5 dwellings per acre of land.

When will developers draw the line between putting people in danger and trying to make a profit? Now I know the idea is to get as many as you can, but when one house catches on fire and takes 2 more with it, there is a problem. It dont matter what the extent of the damage is, most of the time its bad, especially when houses are 20 - 30ft apart. This would be an example of roughly 3+/- houses per acre.

There was a development nearby years ago, i seen for myself. These houses that people were charged anywhere from 85,000 to 120,000 for sure did get the shaft IMO! When you look at all the prefab walls, not 1 2x4 was whole. Instead spliced and glued together in pieces no more than 18 inches long. Things like the storm sewers lacked proper bedding material for code that would wash out easy under asphalt. Oh yea, and the asphalt was ontop of dirt. No stone subgrade. So you get all these junk cracker boxes that aint worth what people are paying for then they default on their loans? No wonder the bailouts had to happen! I mean duh, come on!

I would not buy a house in these types of neighborhoods. The only way i would buy in a neighborhood like that is if i could get 5 houses together for no more than 50,000. Keep one house, demolish the house on both sides of me, and 2 behind me while im at it. Afterwords it would be questionable if i would go ahead and do the house i'd want to keep, infact i would if it was on a concrete slab, becasue you cant get to the utilities without digging inside of your house.(common sense went out the window again didnt it?). I wouldnt care about the hastle with permits and utility disconnects, it would bring me joy to go in and have 5 houses down and cleared out in less than 2 to 3 days.

So with all this said, we got these hands off landlords that try to make money by marking up what somebody else put there further inflating the price on the junk house, in the process of all this, a house may sit for years. Lets say it develops a gas leak because nobody checks on the property? The gas company has to come out a few times, luckly the house doesnt blow up and kill the neighbors or somebodies kids playing in the street..

I say they should make a federal mandate that you cant develop more than 1.5 to 1.75 an acre for starters. Houses with 40 to 50ft between them would be better, plus you would have value in extra land and would benefit the consumer. This would be a appealing for the sale.

If you are a developer to be reading this, I hope you take this into consideration. You dont have to loose the shirt off your back but you dont need be greedy either. You might miss out on some money in the short term but the good you pay forward will always come back to you. After all, isnt that what this forum is about? Sharing information helps alot of people unlock potential they didnt know they had once they learn to see through smoke and mirrors.

Good day to all.

0Reply
67 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
13y

You seem to be confusing shoddy building practices with building density. Just because there is a high density of housing doesn't mean the builder cut corners or is putting anyone at risk.

By your arguments above, builders should never build townhouses, apartments, row houses, etc., because a fire in one unit can threaten other units. Does that make sense to you?

See this reply in the discussion

71 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Clairemont, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:
    [I see your from california, that explains where your post is coming from quite well.

    Actually I'm from FL which is also where I invest and the state that I love. I moved to CA while I was on Active duty in the military. When I separated from the military I stayed here not because I like CA but because I love my 3 y/o daughter; her mom, my ex does not want to leave and I want us to have a good relationship for her so I make sacrifices and live on smaller lot in CA and don't blame anyone for having built that way.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:
    Karen Margrave Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I certainly do.

    That's called an opinion. You have every right to have one. As does Karen and everyone else on this thread. You've expressed yours; others have expressed theirs.

    When it comes to opinions, it's okay not to agree...

  • Civil Engineer · Orange County, CA · Member since 2012 · 189 posts · 45 votes
    13y

    Ryan Watson, all real estate is local. You cannot compare California to a place like Indianapolis. I am not sure where those Google Earth images are from but in California there are a lot of people in a little area so density is already high and while people say everyone is leaving California the population there is still growing and those people are willing to live in a smaller home to stay there and pay more.

    I do however think you are over emphasizing the risk of fire. Chances of your housing just catching fire this year are 1:400 (NFPA.org), chances of you dying are 1:130 (crude estimate with a lot of assumptions but you get the point, 2.4M deaths in 2012, 313M population in the US). I am sure the risk of your house catching fire because of the home next to you is even less.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Chad Ballard:
    Ryan Watson, all real estate is local. You cannot compare California to a place like Indianapolis.

    I wasnt, it was more like the fact i was being asked to apologize for an opinion that goes against a trend. Bunch of left wing extremists that think their sh** dont stink. I dont want to get started on california real estate. Especially looking at hollywood. I'm not going to go there. Haha

    Grant P.

    That is a very interesting statistic you have there for people 25 to 35. It really shows how narrow minded people are starting to become. Thats exactly the mentality, they dont want to take responsiblity for themselves let alone houses and land. They want to just go play all the time care free. smh

    I am 25 years old and I care about having land. To me land is wealth and i have no problem working to take care of the property.

  • Rental Property Investor · Mercer Island, WA · Member since 2008 · 22k+ posts · 14k+ votes
    13y

    No, I see nothing wrong with that picture. Perhaps not where I would choose to live, but I see nothing at all wrong with that sort of density. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

    Funny that you rail against "Bunch of left wing extremists" yet at the same time rail against builder's "outragous markup". IMHO, anyone who would try to dictate limits on the profits from someone else' business would be pretty far on the left end of the scale.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Jon Holdman:

    No, I see nothing wrong with that picture. Perhaps not where I would choose to live, but I see nothing at all wrong with that sort of density. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

    Funny that you rail against "Bunch of left wing extremists" yet at the same time rail against builder's "outragous markup". IMHO, anyone who would try to dictate limits on the profits from someone else' business would be pretty far on the left end of the scale.

    Thats the best way to describe cali in my opinion. Things you can get away with in other parts of the country is against the law there.

    I aint trying to dictate anything, anybody with half a brain can look and see they mark up a house to 100,000 when it only cost 20 to build it. They replicate and cram as many as possible on a street. These people have no yard, and their value is for the house and not the land. I cant believe people fall for these kinds of houses.

    Theres some things in life you just dont do, and building crackerboxes should be one of them.

    When you compare the american dream of 1950 to the dream of 2013, its a major rip off!

  • Civil Engineer · Orange County, CA · Member since 2012 · 189 posts · 45 votes
    13y

    In favor of more regulation and intervention seems to the left as well. I have no problem with going against the grain you can talk to many here that do not take the non-traditional route. I do think we can have a conversation about differences without belittling each other. I think that is what the apology is about, not that you have a different opinion.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Chad Ballard:
    In favor of more regulation and intervention seems to the left as well. I have no problem with going against the grain you can talk to many here that do not take the non-traditional route. I do think we can have a conversation about differences without belittling each other. I think that is what the apology is about, not that you have a different opinion.

    I never did use any direct name calling toward members? As far as the rest of it thats just how i like to get my point across. I'm the last one that likes to see big brother regulations but if its for the common good then have at it. When builders market a product thats a rip off and putting others in danger due to close proximity, something should be done. So many people conform and think inside the box and they dont process these kinds of stipulations untill something happens.

    The apartment referances are pretty much off topic for this thread, they have a place like i said before. When we are talking about a house, something americans shape their life around to aquire, that changes the ball game. To some people that started late on retirement, this is their only wealth. I dont see how they would hold value, they are nothing more than over priced lemons.

  • Investor · Southeast, MI · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    13y

    My family is planning to move this year. I would like to be on a huge lot, but my wife wants neighbors and kids close by. If she looked at those two maps that you showed, she would prefer the one where the houses are close together.

    I'd be willing to bet that the houses in the second picture cost about twice as much as the ones in the first picture. While you may want everyone to be far apart, it's not practical in this economy.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Rob K:
    My family is planning to move this year. I would like to be on a huge lot, but my wife wants neighbors and kids close by. If she looked at those two maps that you showed, she would prefer the one where the houses are close together.

    I'd be willing to bet that the houses in the second picture cost about twice as much as the ones in the first picture. While you may want everyone to be far apart, it's not practical in this economy.

    The funny thing is rob, its the opposite. The ones closer together actually cost more in the area.

    I wonder if the insurance would be higher as well?

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Karen Margrave:

    Ryan Watson Google Huntington Beach, CA, and look at the lots there, you can't find one cheaper than $1,000,000! Even if you can find a "deal" for a $350,000 lot in Orange County, the house is going to be $1,000,000 or more! It's crazy, and that's why density has to be so high.

    What your talking about makes sense given the area. This entire thread is geared towards those big time developers, like X.X. Morgan in indiana. When they got a shop making houses that range from 120 to 160, using whole boards to build the walls, then turn around and take all the cut scraps and glue them back together to make homes ranging from 85 to 120. Then they buy a 150 acre corn field on the outskirts of the city limits and put these houses on it. Doesnt that seem a little unethical? I didnt factor in that with all the development that there was a new elementary school built in the area. How much of that burden comes back on the developers? If its quite a bit i could understand density a little better.

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    Ryan Watson First off, you are welcome to your opinion, and I take no offense at your views. Though, I think your view of the world is very simplistic and naïve. You have no idea of all the issues that affect the prices of housing, and there's not enough space on BP to educate you. There's environmental regulations, fuel costs, costs of permits and fees, ever increasing costs for materials, skyrocketing insurance, tightened financing, over regulation of every aspect of the business, school fees, traffic fees, park requirements, etc.

    Developers don't just pick numbers out of the air, they are based on many factors. Unfortunately, when people don't understand all that builders already have to pay, they go to the polls with thinking like yours and say, let's stick it to the developers, and make them do more. That thinking increases the cost of every dwelling built, be it an apartment or mansion. In the end, the consumer pays the price, in higher rents, and purchase prices. Everyone in America, especially now, cannot afford to purchase their own home, and buy a house on a big lot. Owning real estate isn't a right. Many people rent apartments, and houses, and are very happy doing so.

    In America we have homes on some of the largest lots in the world, with the highest square footage, our building standards are second to none. You can go scream at the wind, or educate yourself on this business before you go off blaming developers for all your woes.

    Believe me, I don't just push papers. I've been in excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, etc. on jobs, I've helped shoot grades, watched them pull wire and lay utilities. I KNOW development, construction and real estate. Maybe you should widen your horizons and learn the business end of development.

    The difference between now and the 50's, is out of control government!

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    When we are talking about a house, something americans shape their life around to aquire, that changes the ball game.

    From what I've read, it appears that your thinking on this topic is very one dimensional (could perhaps even use the term "inside the box"). The above sentence is a great example of that...

    Perhaps YOU shape your life around acquiring a house, but that doesn't mean everyone does. To many people, a house is just a place to sleep and store their stuff. To others, a house is just a doodad to show off status. And to others, a house is just a temporary place to call home until the next relocation and new adventure.

    Many people don't want a big yard -- they want something that's easy to maintain. Many people don't want a big house -- they don't need it and don't want to keep it clean. Many people want to be 15 feet from their neighbors -- they like the interaction and it makes them feel safe.

    You seem to assume that the bulk of the people want what YOU want. Do you have some data to support that? Or is it just an opinion that you think will be perceived as fact if you state it loud enough and repeat it enough times with a harsh tone?

    Just my opinion, of course...

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Karen Margrave:
    Ryan Watson Your view of the world is very simplistic and naïve. You have no idea of all the issues that affect the prices of housing, and there's not enough space on BP to educate you. There's environmental regulations, fuel costs, costs of permits and fees, ever increasing costs for materials, skyrocketing insurance, tightened financing, over regulation of every aspect of the business, school fees, traffic fees, park requirements, etc.

    Developers don't just pick numbers out of the air, they are based on many factors. Unfortunately, when people don't understand all that builders already have to pay, they go to the polls with thinking like yours and say, let's stick it to the developers, and make them do more. That thinking increases the cost of every dwelling built, be it an apartment or mansion. In the end, the consumer pays the price, in higher rents, and purchase prices. Everyone in America, especially now, cannot afford to purchase their own home, and buy a house on a big lot. Owning real estate isn't a right. Many people rent apartments, and houses, and are very happy doing so.

    In America we have homes on some of the largest lots in the world, with the highest square footage, our building standards are second to none. You can go scream at the wind, or educate yourself on this business before you go off blaming developers for all your woes.

    Believe me, I don't just push papers. I've been in excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, etc. on jobs, I've helped shoot grades, watched them pull wire and lay utilities. I KNOW development, construction and real estate. Maybe you should widen your horizons and learn the business end of development, and quit viewing it from Google Earth!

    First off, google earth is just a referance to get others envolved in the discussion. I have quite wide views of the world thank you very much, thats why i made this thread. The tone was set by design for a good friendly debate, with a little heat. Not enough to burn. LOL

    Okay so you just confirmed that the majority of society cant carry themselves like they did years ago. Every person has the potential to break that cycle of poverty. You're right people do rent for different reasons. There are people out there that cant take responsibility for themselves hence why people cant buy homes anymore.. atleast what i would call a home. All im trying to do is spark the idea. This is not my problem, i can politely look the other direction while i do my thing. There are innovators watching this forum, just because you want to get mad about this thread today doesnt mean somebody 15 years from now wont take this into account and do something about it. Handle the situation. If you cant crunch the numbers and loose some of the density then you dont do it. Its that simple. We need to keep the standards high.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by J Scott:
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    When we are talking about a house, something americans shape their life around to aquire, that changes the ball game.

    From what I've read, it appears that your thinking on this topic is very one dimensional (could perhaps even use the term "inside the box"). The above sentence is a great example of that...

    Perhaps YOU shape your life around acquiring a house, but that doesn't mean everyone does. To many people, a house is just a place to sleep and store their stuff. To others, a house is just a doodad to show off status. And to others, a house is just a temporary place to call home until the next relocation and new adventure.

    Many people don't want a big yard -- they want something that's easy to maintain. Many people don't want a big house -- they don't need it and don't want to keep it clean. Many people want to be 15 feet from their neighbors -- they like the interaction and it makes them feel safe.

    You seem to assume that the bulk of the people want what YOU want. Do you have some data to support that? Or is it just an opinion that you think will be perceived as fact if you state it loud enough and repeat it enough times with a harsh tone?

    Just my opinion, of course...

    Thats fine if thats what they want. Lets hope the majority of people dont think thats the only thing they can afford. That whole neighbor security thing you mention sounds like a sheepish mentality to me but if thats what they want then fine.

    Most people dont think about in case of a disaster, your home was destroyed and insurance wont cover it, nor will FEMA. Once all that mess is done and you decide to sell your property and move on, thats the only money you can get out of it after loosing everything. Back to that part Karen was talking about with nobody being able to afford a home anymore, thats becasue they got to get up and go to work 5, 6, or 7 days a week to make it happen. Sometimes 2 jobs, theres no place for much of a life there. Those are the people i have in mind with this thread. Not those that think its another random object, and they can have a few to wheel and deal on.

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    Ryan Watson We live in a country that is based on the free enterprise system. That system allows people that work hard, have educations, or ? to make money. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same capabilities, and though we may wish we could make life fair and everything equal for everyone, we can't. The alternative is living in a country where the government tells us what we can build, where we can build it, who gets to have a house, who doesn't, and what we each get to do for a living.

    I will take living in a free country, whether I get to live in a big house or in a tent over losing my freedom. If people have to rent over being able to buy a house, that's not some big sacrifice. As J Scott basically said, a house is a house, nothing more, nothing less.

    Your statement about doing a few less houses shows how little you know about development. Those few house can be THE profit on the job. I've got an idea, why don't you do a virtual development, and figure out ALL the costs involved to bring a subdivision to market, build it, market it, pay real estate agents, etc. :)

  • Investor · Clairemont, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    13y

    Ryan Watson have you ever built a home before? That is a serious question I'm not being facetious, I'd like to know.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y

    nope, however i know people who do. Union Carpenters, all of which agree on this same issue and hate seeing this practice as much as I do.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    Most people dont think about in case of a disaster, your home was destroyed and insurance wont cover it, nor will FEMA.

    What type of disaster are you talking about? Earlier, your major concern about building close together was that it easily allowed fire to spread from one how to another. Why wouldn't insurance cover fire damage?

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    I'm not really sure what is getting "debated" on this thread, but there seems to be a lot of pissing and moaning. If you don't like the density rules or local rules GET OFF YOUR *** AND GO GET THEM CHANGED! Instead of whining about things go get involved and do something to fix what you perceive to be a problem.

    Before you do this you may want to go talk to some of the folks buying the properties you're deeming fire safety hazards though. Ask them if they'd be prepared to pay more to have the gov-mint regulate the developer to death and increase the cost of their housing. Ask them if they could pay 20% more for the property after the developer has to jump through all the hoops.

    Note that the developer doesn't just get to randomly assign a value to what they develop either. The houses have to appraise and the market forces dictate what they're able to charge for their end product.

    I think you may feel differently about all of your opinions if you actually go develop some projects. Development is certainly lucrative if you can avoid a big recession, but there are very real risks to it and there is a lot of gov-mint red tape you have to put up with to get things done. I suppose you're expecting the developers to take on this risk and work for less money. That's fine ; I get it. Until your money is on the line and you've done some actual development projects you don't understand all the risk and energy that goes into making a project successful.

  • Karen MargraveBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    13y

    Ryan Watson Oh now I get it. Union carpenters? Let me tell you about the reality of unions. The wages charged by union workers helps to drive up the cost of doing everything. It's why houses are so expensive, why government is so out of control on spending, etc.

    In northern California where workers were plentiful, housing prices were lower, etc. we had very few union jobs (except of course govt. bids) When 5 of the local unions needed to lease office space, they wanted "affordable space". They leased from us, contractors that didn't use union labor. Why? Because we could build a project for far less than it would have cost using union labor, therefore; our end lease rates were far less than had we built using union workers. The QUALITY of our project was every bit as good, or better, as any that could have been built by paying union workers. In fact, the free market insures better quality. When a union is protecting substandard workers because they pay their union dues, it lowers standards, not raises them, so you subdivisions may have been built using union labor.

    Unions have their place, in a few industries, but unions don't guarantee quality. Look at our educational system!

    I'm sorry Ryan, but you've lost this debate, but hopefully you've learned a few things!

  • Investor · Orlando, FL · Member since 2012 · 431 posts · 106 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Karen Margrave:
    Steve K Most people have NO idea all the hurdles developers have to jump over in order to bring a project to the point of actually building it. In a subdivision we built, we were hung up over a year while the Army Corp of Engineers and the City fought over whether or not a gate should go in a fence around 'sensitive' ground (a gully). Once we finally got our map approved and built, we offered upgraded cabinets, flooring, lighting, countertops, appliances inside the house as standards. Outdoors we had concrete mow strips, stamped concrete borders on the driveways, etc. again standard. It was by far the best buy for the money in town - we offered those features as standard, because we know how hard people have to work for their money, and what it takes to raise a family, and though we would have made less money, we thought it was worth it to offer good value. However; the market crashed while we were half way into the build out. The year lost because of the Corp and City made the difference in the project. But, that's how it goes, you pick up the pieces and move forward.

    Karen Margrave You're giving me bad flashbacks to the entitlement process and having to deal with extreme government inefficiency and unjustified expense. Were you able to hold on to the lots you didn't get to build on before the market imploded? A similar thing happened to me in one of my developments and I'm just now starting to build on the balance of the lots.

    I've never understood why planning and zoning departments want to battle you every step of the way as if developers are the enemy. We're increasing the tax base of the municipality and the faster we can plat a new parcel the quicker they can start generating new tax revenue.

  • New to Real Estate · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 170 posts · 23 votes
    13y

    I'm learning from this thread pretty good. Its taught me some things and confirmed things i havnt quite put my finger on untill now. So what type of deal does a developer reach with a township to meet the future school requirements? Is it a meet in the middle type thing between developer and township or a percentage of what a new school would cost to build?

    The Union Carpenters statement was just to reference my sources are qualified, - yea when you stop laughing at that statement, there are good workers out there that dont want to work for penuts, just like how you feel about developers being on the hot plate with the gov. I know others that agree, that are not in construction work at all. These developments i have in mind didnt have anything to do with union workers. Most of them were fly by night contractors and illegals. That statement speaks for the majority of the countries development work. Since we're on the subject if a union guy gets to drive 45 minutes to a construction site and he shows up, and gets rained out, never gets out of his truck. He gets paid 2 hours. If that guy was non union, he just wasted time and gas for that day so I wouldnt bash unions too hard.

    J Scott - my example is hyperthetical. If you want a place to start go read up on the floods in tipton county, indiana from last month. As wide spread as the damage was up in the millions FEMA said they didnt qualify. Read for yourself. Theres some homeowners thats going to have to eat that. if you got a big plot thats pretty much all the value you can get out of it if the structures are crumbling from being water logged. The example can go for anything thats not covered by insurance.

    Sounds like to me developers like to do alot of bitching too. They bring people to areas where there isnt normally that many or type of people (trashy getto folk). So now their schools that was borderline crowded are now overcrowded. With use it or loose it budgets that are borderline sufficient/insufficient, something has to give. They can barely afford their teachers, let alone new facilities. Then they want to complain about getting the shaft in threads just like this. LOL

    @Bryan Hancock
    I'll have my day, and risk my money. This fuels my ideas to start new trends. This thread has been good, and what better place than to bring it to the people do it on a regular basis. I'll pass on talking to those people. If they've moved in then its obviously what they wanted, or what the husband settled for to avoid divorce. Better luck on the next time around with a new development. If my opinions change, ill be the first to point it out. I tend to be pretty honest and stay open minded for it. Meanwhile ill just turn my head and laugh.

  • Civil Engineer · Orange County, CA · Member since 2012 · 189 posts · 45 votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    Since we're on the subject if a union guy gets to drive 45 minutes to a construction site and he shows up, and gets rained out, never gets out of his truck. He gets paid 2 hours. If that guy was non union, he just wasted time and gas for that day so I wouldnt bash unions too hard.

    Care to comment on the recent Hostess example? I believe there is a place for voluntary unions in the private sector and no need for public unions but the tide has swung heavily in their favor.

    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    J Scott - my example is hyperthetical. If you want a place to start go read up on the floods in tipton county, indiana from last month. As wide spread as the damage was up in the millions FEMA said they didnt qualify. Read for yourself. Theres some homeowners thats going to have to eat that. if you got a big plot thats pretty much all the value you can get out of it if the structures are crumbling from being water logged. The example can go for anything thats not covered by insurance.

    Are you taking about FEMA aide or actual flood insurance that they did not qualify for? FEMA requires certain high risk areas to have flood insurance (supposed to help reduce demand for those areas but it doesn't work) I you are not in those area then it is up to you if you want insurance.

    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    Sounds like to me developers like to do alot of bitching too. They bring people to areas where there isnt normally that many or type of people (trashy getto folk).

    Developers don't really use the strategy "if you build it they will come". They are trying to predict where the demand for housing is then meet that demand. I would have to disagree that they bring people anywhere but that people are looking to move to an area and then the developers build there to meet that demand.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    13y
    Originally posted by Ryan Watson:

    J Scott - my example is hyperthetical. If you want a place to start go read up on the floods in tipton county, indiana from last month. As wide spread as the damage was up in the millions FEMA said they didnt qualify. Read for yourself. Theres some homeowners thats going to have to eat that. if you got a big plot thats pretty much all the value you can get out of it if the structures are crumbling from being water logged. The example can go for anything thats not covered by insurance.

    So, your reasoning is -- force homeowners to have large lots because in the case of disaster, they may have to rely on the value of those lots to offset some of their losses?

    Why not take it a step further and require every homeowner to have flood insurance. And earthquake insurance. And terror insurance. And insurance for every other little thing that might happen. That way you're forcing them to be covered in the case of a major loss.

    Or even a step past that -- require that all homeowners prove that they can handle a big financial loss before allowing them to buy a house. Perhaps only let people with a certain net worth buy houses? That way we can be sure they aren't financially devastated in the case of a disaster.

    Wait, how about one step further -- we can disallow citizens from owning private property so that they never experience any financial loss in the case of disaster. The government can own all the land and all the housing!

    Yeah, good idea.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.