How will housing crash?

[Le Poisson]

I skimmed this thread and have a few thoughts...

Construction timeline:
If you own a property and it came with permits, etc. you may be able to go from greenfield to built in a year. But as soon as zoning, conservation, tricky drainage, etc. comes up, expect delays to push past that timeline, but yeah, from hole in the ground to house can be pretty quick, especially with a canned plan.

For a development, the process from Farmland, rezoned to R1 residential, through plan of subdivision to siteplan approval, to development charge bylaw, to engineering review, conservation review, environmental review, council approval, grading approval, and finally development will take about 5 years in my municipality. And the developer is competing with 20 other guys for the attention of about 5 reviewing staff in my department, so yeah, there's bottlenecks along the way. If there is a historical/anthropological element to this, double that timeline at least. Some developments I worked on 18 years ago are finally being built now.

Regulatory costs:
Single family homes are sucking cities dry. While the review/approval process takes forever and is fraught with delays costing developers big time, the construction of new single family developments is having the same effect on the tax base where new development is taking place. The linear and social networks that connect our neighbourhoods - including roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, communications, parks, schools, community centres, etc. along with the ongoing maintenance of those networks is not borne by the development, but by communities as a whole.

We try to transfer the lion's share of those costs to a developer in the form of development charges and land dedications, but ultimately the development costs are never fully borne by the developments. Currently development charges in our municipality are in the order of $150,000 per SFU (shared by the town and County). These charges are passed on to the buyer by the developer. we have no other mechanism to pass along the costs to the new homeowner. Consider that a single sidewalk plow costs us $120,000, plus a new hire to drive it, shop time to maintain it, etc. ... now add on garbage, grass cutting, etc. and it all adds up.

The next progression is that the existing residents will invariably demand that they not be strapped with the costs of a new development and that the "new people" pay their own way and you get politically motivated skyrocketing DCs and simultaneous tax freezes resulting in a high entry cost to the community and existing services being funded below inflation - at a net loss when you consider the purchasing power of each tax dollar. And sometimes the residents want centerlines (inside joke there).

Value of a dollar
On a more personal side, I try to remind myself that a dollar spent today is $1.05 tomorrow, or $1.25 in 2 years, etc. The buying power of your down payment is decreasing each year you stay out of the housing market. Personally, the $400K that was an absolutely ridiculous amount to spend when we moved into our suburban home 10 years ago now buys a run-down Semi an hour and a half out of town. Even the best years I've had in the ETF game have not kept pace with the rising cost/value of real estate. Now I know there are dozens of hidden costs with maintenance and depreciation and utilities and selling fees and capital gains taxes, but I don't think the stock market is keeping pace with our real estate buys. And that is just because of the time-value of money. Inflation will always make the cost of a house a year ago the best deal you can buy.

If the market does correct/crash/burst/flatten, the simple mechanic of inflation will pull real estate values out of the dip and bring them back to reality. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for working wages which is what will bring on the crash if it happens. Today the RE market is ballooning above what rents can support speculators and what buyers can afford in a mortgage. The correction needs to take place both on the income side and the cost side before we even start talking about mortgage rates and interest.

Anyway, this is already too many words so I'll tap out, but this is a fun subject to speculate on, and yeah, development and real estate is full of tough questions and tougher answers right now.

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

[Le Poisson]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

I'm in the Toronto area. our development fees are in line with construction costs, it is the operations costs and impacts beyond the boundary of the draft plan of subdivision where we get caught. In our town, we are seeing a massive expansion of the urban area - with about a 50% population increase over a 5 year development window. The added demand on town services will tax our ability to keep up.

[windytrail]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

In all areas of the US, suburban development is subsidized by state and federal funds. The developer may pay to pave roads/sidewalks within the development initially, but the City is on the hook for maintenance and, eventually, replacement costs of the infrastructure. But the suburban homeowners for whom the road is paved cannot cover the cost of replacement infrastructure unless you raise their property taxes by an exorbitant amount. (Don't expect the developer to cover this -- they're long gone.). The highways that lead to the suburbs are paved with state and federal funds.

Here is an example of an urban planner who found that suburban development in his town was not financially sustainable: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs. In short, the replacement cost of the road, sidewalks, and curb on this typical cu-de-sac road was too much to be funded by small amount of single family homeowners on that road. Cities fund the maintenance costs of suburban development with new suburban development, which is, in effect, a ponzi scheme. (https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme).

[Le Poisson]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

In all areas of the US, suburban development is subsidized by state and federal funds. The developer may pay to pave roads/sidewalks within the development initially, but the City is on the hook for maintenance and, eventually, replacement costs of the infrastructure. But the suburban homeowners for whom the road is paved cannot cover the cost of replacement infrastructure unless you raise their property taxes by an exorbitant amount. (Don't expect the developer to cover this -- they're long gone.). The highways that lead to the suburbs are paved with state and federal funds.

Here is an example of an urban planner who found that suburban development in his town was not financially sustainable: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs. In short, the replacement cost of the road, sidewalks, and curb on this typical cu-de-sac road was too much to be funded by small amount of single family homeowners on that road. Cities fund the maintenance costs of suburban development with new suburban development, which is, in effect, a ponzi scheme. (https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme).

There is a lot of literature out there on this Windy. First hand experience suggests that the deficit is made up by cutting elements that make a Town into a place worth living. You see cuts to things like library budgets and town events, fewer seniors programs, and increased user fees. All the things that build community are the easiest to cut since the groups using them are isolated and not too noisy politically - as long as it's "those people" the electorate won't speak up. Cancelled events are missed in year one, then mostly forgotten, so council has an easy time de-funding them. Events run by charity and supported by staff (ie. Rib Fest) are easy to bill charities for - and these event permits increase in cost regularly as cost recovery becomes more and more difficult.

If you try to raise the mill rate, the whole town screams though, so that is holy - always tax increases below inflation, if possible, 0%. And of course deficits are evil. Our operating reserve was in regular challenge before COVID hit (thank god we were able to protect it and reduce impacts). If the tax increase is below inflation though, you are effectively de-funding existing programming and operations. If your municipality has grown and it still sees below inflation tax increases, you are doubling down on future deficits.

But about real estate... yeah, growth is a pain for urban management... but we need growth to get past this housing crunch, and families are still in love with suburbia, so we continue to build sprawl.

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

I'm in the Toronto area. our development fees are in line with construction costs, it is the operations costs and impacts beyond the boundary of the draft plan of subdivision where we get caught. In our town, we are seeing a massive expansion of the urban area - with about a 50% population increase over a 5 year development window. The added demand on town services will tax our ability to keep up.

I'm trying to do the math in my head, and what I'm coming up with is this:  the additional costs incurred from the new residents (for road maintenance, police/fire, etc) are greater than the additional tax revenue those residents bring.  E.g. the town's population grows by 5% and gets 5% more tax revenue, but finds itself with 6% more costs.  Am I understanding that right?  If yes, then what is it about the new residents (or their homes) that incurs a greater cost than the existing population and homes?

[bacchi]

I'm curious--@Le Poisson, where do you live?  In our area, the developer pays for the roads, water mains, storm drains, runoff ponds, and the power lines, the builders put in the sidewalks as the homes are built, and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.  In addition, developers pay impact fees to the various government bodies (schools, municipal gov't, etc).  Homeowners are responsible for yard maintenance, the HOA pays for maintenance of the common areas, and homeowners pay taxes for the schools, police, fire, garbage, etc.  It possible that the impact fees don't match the actual impact, but everything else is basically in line with reality.

I'm in the Toronto area. our development fees are in line with construction costs, it is the operations costs and impacts beyond the boundary of the draft plan of subdivision where we get caught. In our town, we are seeing a massive expansion of the urban area - with about a 50% population increase over a 5 year development window. The added demand on town services will tax our ability to keep up.

I'm trying to do the math in my head, and what I'm coming up with is this:  the additional costs incurred from the new residents (for road maintenance, police/fire, etc) are greater than the additional tax revenue those residents bring.  E.g. the town's population grows by 5% and gets 5% more tax revenue, but finds itself with 6% more costs.  Am I understanding that right?  If yes, then what is it about the new residents (or their homes) that incurs a greater cost than the existing population and homes?

It's called "leapfrog" development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrog_development

What's the best way to maximize profit from a new subdivision? Cheap land. Roads and other infrastructure are then built to accommodate the new population. The new taxes don't cover the costs until perhaps decades later when infill happens.

"Leapfrogging, Urban Sprawl, and Growth Management: Phoenix, 1950–2000" at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1536-7150.00063

[zolotiyeruki]

Interesting!  I wonder how the City of Phoenix planned to pay for the expanded infrastructure prior to assessing the impact fees.

[Le Poisson]

Interesting!  I wonder how the City of Phoenix planned to pay for the expanded infrastructure prior to assessing the impact fees.

I don't know the answer to this, but a google search brought up this paper that suggests Phoenix amalgamated and annexed neighbouring municipalities in order to increase it's tax base and spread the hurt further afield... Apparently the process was fraught with litigation and electoral impacts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23694004_Border_Wars_Tax_Revenues_Annexation_and_Urban_Growth_in_Phoenix

Interestingly, we have recently heard similar pitches in Ontario for urban amalgamations in order to "reduce red tape..." and "speed up development approvals."

[roomtempmayo]

Another question for the group on the liabilities of this housing market: We've got trillions of dollars in mortgages now locked in for the long haul at 2-3%.  What happens within the financial system if we get sustained inflation much above those rates, say even 5-6% for several years?

Someone, somewhere would be taking a big loss, right? 

Would it be banks?  Investors?  Insurance companies?  Reinsurance companies?  The federal government?

Who would actually be left holding the bag for the difference between the interest rate and the rate of inflation?

[franklin4]

The federal government (Fannie, Freddie) holds most mortgage debt. So taxpayers will be the ones holding the bag if inflation sticks around.

Maybe that will be the excuse for ending 1031 exchanges and other real estate tax benefits.

[boarder42]

Another question for the group on the liabilities of this housing market: We've got trillions of dollars in mortgages now locked in for the long haul at 2-3%.  What happens within the financial system if we get sustained inflation much above those rates, say even 5-6% for several years?

Someone, somewhere would be taking a big loss, right? 

Would it be banks?  Investors?  Insurance companies?  Reinsurance companies?  The federal government?

Who would actually be left holding the bag for the difference between the interest rate and the rate of inflation?

Avg time people stay in a house is 7 years that's why the ten year yield is used to baseline mortgage rates. So it doesn't really matter long-term

[zolotiyeruki]

Interesting!  I wonder how the City of Phoenix planned to pay for the expanded infrastructure prior to assessing the impact fees.

I don't know the answer to this, but a google search brought up this paper that suggests Phoenix amalgamated and annexed neighbouring municipalities in order to increase it's tax base and spread the hurt further afield... Apparently the process was fraught with litigation and electoral impacts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23694004_Border_Wars_Tax_Revenues_Annexation_and_Urban_Growth_in_Phoenix

Interestingly, we have recently heard similar pitches in Ontario for urban amalgamations in order to "reduce red tape..." and "speed up development approvals."

Oh, goodness...the town where we used to live had been annexed several years earlier by MegaCity next door, at which point the quality of their public services plummeted.

"I'm from the government (or MegaCorp or MegaCity), and I'm here to help" indeed.

[roomtempmayo]

The federal government (Fannie, Freddie) holds most mortgage debt. So taxpayers will be the ones holding the bag if inflation sticks around.

Maybe that will be the excuse for ending 1031 exchanges and other real estate tax benefits.

I guess I have to admit that I don't fully understand how Fannie and Freddie work.

I was under the impression that they actually own very few mortgages, and that mostly they resell them as Mortgage Backed Securities.  Some portion of those Mortgage Backed Securities are sold on the private investment market as collateralized bonds, and the rest are bought by the Federal Reserve.  Is that about right?

[YttriumNitrate]

I guess I have to admit that I don't fully understand how Fannie and Freddie work.
I was under the impression that they actually own very few mortgages, and that mostly they resell them as Mortgage Backed Securities.  Some portion of those Mortgage Backed Securities are sold on the private investment market as collateralized bonds, and the rest are bought by the Federal Reserve.  Is that about right?

That's what I thought as well, but then things get complicated when Fannie and Freddie guarantee the mortgage backed securities they sell, and the guarantee is supposedly not backed up by the US government, but instead by their own corporate health ... which is implicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Government.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/mbs-guarantee.asp

After a few minutes of looking into this matter, I gave up before the confusion overwhelmed me. My guess is the US government is on the hook for the securities if at the time of default there is the political will for the US government to be on the hook.

[Chris Pascale]

I bought my house about 4 months ago, and it can supposedly sell for 15% more now.

I live in a planned, gated community where the homes are very similar, and here's what's strange: My home is 3 beds/2.5 baths with a basement that walks out ground level to a small lake.

A 2 bed/2 bath ranch with no basement and backs up to some trees just listed for what I bought my house for.

How the heck is that?

[Hash Brown]

and utility hookup fees are, ah, substantial.

I own a vacant lot where an 1800's row house stood until about 2000.  The water connection is still there, so I have to pay a $16-18/mo. water bill.  The bill fluctuates from month to month - I have no idea how it is calculated.  This plus the property tax = a roughly $40 per month cost to own the lot. 

Some people have been sitting on vacant lots in the area since the 1970s, waiting for it to rebound.  I trust that most of them don't have a water connection, but still, their tiny $200~ year property tax bill has now added up to a gigantic opportunity cost.       

[Paper Chaser]

It's a few months old now, but I just saw some relevant data from Freddie Mac related to this topic. They estimate the US is in need of nearly 4 million new housing units to meet demand:

http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20210507_housing_supply.page

They're not expecting that supply to arrive for a long time. With numbers like that, it doesn't seem like housing will "crash" without a catastrophic event of some sort that would cause customers to disappear suddenly.

[Dancin'Dog]

I haven't read every single post, but I haven't noticed anyone mention "Inflation" being a concern from the rise in real estate prices.  It seems to me that it was triggered by "cheap money" and will likely result in "expensive money".


Is my logic flawed?

[Chris Pascale]

I haven't read every single post, but I haven't noticed anyone mention "Inflation" being a concern from the rise in real estate prices.  It seems to me that it was triggered by "cheap money" and will likely result in "expensive money".


Is my logic flawed?

Inflation is certainly a factor, but it's not reflective of the ridiculous rise in prices I've seen near me.

I bought my home 5 months ago for $500k, and according to Redfin it's supposedly worth $577k, which might not be such a stretch since a larger nearby home sold for $620k, and a much smaller one sold for $500k.

My question: Where the hell are the incomes to support these purchases, particularly with regard to the monthly payments? My wife and I have 5 incomes (3 jobs and 2 pensions).

It's odd homes prices are rising so fast, and makes me think there's plenty to argue about in terms of a crash. But something has to disrupt the ability to buy. Without that, homes can keep selling at least for the same prices.

[Hash Brown]

My question: Where the hell are the incomes to support these purchases, particularly with regard to the monthly payments? My wife and I have 5 incomes (3 jobs and 2 pensions).

It's odd homes prices are rising so fast, and makes me think there's plenty to argue about in terms of a crash. But something has to disrupt the ability to buy. Without that, homes can keep selling at least for the same prices.

Lots and lots of trust-funders out there, plus people's trading/retirement accounts are exploding in value, plus Wall St.-backed REITs are buying up single-family homes as rentals, which is removing some product.  Eventually, some of those rentals will return to owner-occupant. 

[PDXTabs]

In the US, unless we have another plague that manages to wipe out a significant chunk of the Boomers, we have a housing crunch. Basically too many people want too few houses. I'm very glad I bought my house a few years ago, and I'm not budging.

If there's an economic crunch that causes a bunch of foreclosures or if interest rates rise then that might help cool things. Otherwise, we'll have to build out of the shortage. (Barring plague of course, but we just had one so doubt we'll have another so quickly)

I agree that there is a housing shortage (at least where people want to live). But all of the recent institutional interest in housing is yield chasing. Also, everyday folks look at their mortgage payment more than the total cost. So a large jump in interest rates could absolutely push down prices. However, in North America, I think that the powers at be will try really really hard to keep that from happening.

[PDXTabs]

The federal government (Fannie, Freddie) holds most mortgage debt. So taxpayers will be the ones holding the bag if inflation sticks around.

Is that true? They guarantee them from default, but don't they sell them off?

Fannie Mae’s And Freddie Mac’s Role In Mortgage Markets

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages from financial institutions that lend mortgages and then repackage those mortgages into their portfolios or mortgage-backed securities to sell to investors on the secondary mortgage market. By using mortgage-backed securities and guaranteeing on-time principal payments and interest on the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entice investors to invest in the secondary mortgage market. The attractiveness of the secondary market results in the expansion of housing funds available. - https://www.quickenloans.com/learn/freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae

Deflation would be a problem, inflation shouldn't hurt taxpayers.

[Chris Pascale]

My question: Where the hell are the incomes to support these purchases, particularly with regard to the monthly payments? My wife and I have 5 incomes (3 jobs and 2 pensions).

It's odd homes prices are rising so fast, and makes me think there's plenty to argue about in terms of a crash. But something has to disrupt the ability to buy. Without that, homes can keep selling at least for the same prices.

Lots and lots of trust-funders out there, plus people's trading/retirement accounts are exploding in value, plus Wall St.-backed REITs are buying up single-family homes as rentals, which is removing some product.  Eventually, some of those rentals will return to owner-occupant.

I can account for a couple of trust-funders. One was shocked when I bought back in 2014. I explained that with a VA Loan I could move in with no down payment. He couldn't believe how "lucky" I was and said so with no sense of irony, just a feeling that I got something he couldn't have. It was kind of amazing.

[Paper Chaser]

My question: Where the hell are the incomes to support these purchases, particularly with regard to the monthly payments? My wife and I have 5 incomes (3 jobs and 2 pensions).

It's odd homes prices are rising so fast, and makes me think there's plenty to argue about in terms of a crash. But something has to disrupt the ability to buy. Without that, homes can keep selling at least for the same prices.

Lots and lots of trust-funders out there, plus people's trading/retirement accounts are exploding in value, plus Wall St.-backed REITs are buying up single-family homes as rentals, which is removing some product.  Eventually, some of those rentals will return to owner-occupant.

I can account for a couple of trust-funders. One was shocked when I bought back in 2014. I explained that with a VA Loan I could move in with no down payment. He couldn't believe how "lucky" I was and said so with no sense of irony, just a feeling that I got something he couldn't have. It was kind of amazing.

It's also worth mentioning that a very large number of the individuals buying right now likely just sold a place at really high prices. Between normal equity gains from mortgage pay down and recent significant appreciation, they're likely to have a substantial amount of cash available for a downpayment. Even more so if they're moving from a HCOL to a LCOL.

[Hash Brown]

I can account for a couple of trust-funders. One was shocked when I bought back in 2014. I explained that with a VA Loan I could move in with no down payment. He couldn't believe how "lucky" I was and said so with no sense of irony, just a feeling that I got something he couldn't have. It was kind of amazing.

Yeah, I know a handful of these people, and they can be oddly envious of people who have come into much less money than they have. 

[zolotiyeruki]

I saw a headline yesterday that tappable equity has hit $9.1 trillion rising a whopping $1T just in Q2.  I mentioned this to my brother, who said "that seems really low."  But then we learned that that figure only includes those who have a mortgage (i.e. excludes paid-off homes), and is based on "how much money you could tap and still have 20% equity."  On top of that, if most people have 30 year mortgages and move once per decade, and start off each time with a 20% down payment, then it doesn't seem like it's all that low.

[Dicey]

I love the GS (formerly known as Granola Shotgun) blog. I read this article and thought of this thread. Lots of food for thought here.

Bit of background: The author is the badass who wanted to build an affordable tiny house in Hawaii, but ran afoul of zoning laws where he had purchased his dream property. So he drew up plans for a house and garage, then built the garage first. Then he just stopped, effectively giving himself the tiny house he wasn't allowed to build. BadassBadassBadass.

Anyway, here are his thoughts on one way (and why) housing might crash.

https://www.granolashotgun.com/granolashotguncom/the-anecdotal-buy-back-effect

[zolotiyeruki]

I love the GS (formerly known as Granola Shotgun) blog. I read this article and thought of this thread. Lots of food for thought here.

Bit of background: The author is the badass who wanted to build an affordable tiny house in Hawaii, but ran afoul of zoning laws where he had purchased his dream property. So he drew up plans for a house and garage, then built the garage first. Then he just stopped, effectively giving himself the tiny house he wasn't allowed to build. BadassBadassBadass.

Anyway, here are his thoughts on one way (and why) housing might crash.

https://www.granolashotgun.com/granolashotguncom/the-anecdotal-buy-back-effect

The story about building the garage house sounds fascinating.  Do you have a link?  The titles of the posts on the blog may be clever, but aren't helpful when looking for that story.

[Dicey]

I love the GS (formerly known as Granola Shotgun) blog. I read this article and thought of this thread. Lots of food for thought here.

Bit of background: The author is the badass who wanted to build an affordable tiny house in Hawaii, but ran afoul of zoning laws where he had purchased his dream property. So he drew up plans for a house and garage, then built the garage first. Then he just stopped, effectively giving himself the tiny house he wasn't allowed to build. BadassBadassBadass.

Anyway, here are his thoughts on one way (and why) housing might crash.

https://www.granolashotgun.com/granolashotguncom/the-anecdotal-buy-back-effect

The story about building the garage house sounds fascinating.  Do you have a link?  The titles of the posts on the blog may be clever, but aren't helpful when looking for that story.

The story happened long before the blog, and he's since sold the property, but that's how he first came to my attention. I'll dig around and see if I can find it. His story of converting his SF apartment building to condo for himself and his neighbors is also pretty inspiring, and that should still be on the blog. I don't agree with him completely, but he's always thought provoking. Hang on...

Well, that was easy. I prefer the YouTube link, but for those who can't view it, the second link is to a print article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxGr9uloL9k

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/johnny-sanphillippo-tiny-home_n_2782947

[PMJL34]

Thanks for the link to the blog/youtube Dicey. I'm interested and will check it out!

[clarkfan1979]

I'm trying to buy land in the Colorado mountains south of Breckenridge (Park County). If you get approved to build a detached garage/storage shed, you have to build the house first. Park County doesn't let you build the detached garage first, unless you are zoned for agricultural, which requires a minimum of 35 acres.

[boarder42]

I love the GS (formerly known as Granola Shotgun) blog. I read this article and thought of this thread. Lots of food for thought here.

Bit of background: The author is the badass who wanted to build an affordable tiny house in Hawaii, but ran afoul of zoning laws where he had purchased his dream property. So he drew up plans for a house and garage, then built the garage first. Then he just stopped, effectively giving himself the tiny house he wasn't allowed to build. BadassBadassBadass.

Anyway, here are his thoughts on one way (and why) housing might crash.

https://www.granolashotgun.com/granolashotguncom/the-anecdotal-buy-back-effect

The story about building the garage house sounds fascinating.  Do you have a link?  The titles of the posts on the blog may be clever, but aren't helpful when looking for that story.

The story happened long before the blog, and he's since sold the property, but that's how he first came to my attention. I'll dig around and see if I can find it. His story of converting his SF apartment building to condo for himself and his neighbors is also pretty inspiring, and that should still be on the blog. I don't agree with him completely, but he's always thought provoking. Hang on...

Well, that was easy. I prefer the YouTube link, but for those who can't view it, the second link is to a print article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxGr9uloL9k

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/johnny-sanphillippo-tiny-home_n_2782947

this is great stuff

[Dicey]

I'm trying to buy land in the Colorado mountains south of Breckenridge (Park County). If you get approved to build a detached garage/storage shed, you have to build the house first. Park County doesn't let you build the detached garage first, unless you are zoned for agricultural, which requires a minimum of 35 acres.

It's the mindset that's important. He learned the rules, found a loophole, then exploited the hell out of it. He did it on a very small income. He continues to do so in other (perhaps all) areas of his life. Though I find him a bit pessimistic, I can't say it's unwarranted. His blog is fascinating reading. Though he was doing his thing long before Pete came along, he's as mustachian as they come.