#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/17/2020 4:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:38:45 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 1/16/2020 11:17 AM, Duane wrote: snip Do you have hipsters in PDX?Â* They're all over the mountain here.Â* Doing wheelies down the mountain on fixies while texting their buddies and grooving to their ear buds.Â* I started handing out cards telling them the cheap wine is free in Ohio. Not going to work. Trader Joe's lowered the price of "Two Buck Chuck" back to $2. Free is better than $2, and Ohio has other inducements. They're basically giving houses away. Go to Redfin and look at Youngstown. https://www.redfin.com/OH/Youngstown.../home/71983689 Ay chihuahua! A hipster could buy a house there and fill it with wine. We once had a young couple in our bike club, tandem riders, smart and pleasant people. He was an architect employed by a large local corporation. They bought one of the mansions on what was once nicknamed Millionaire's Row, probably built by a steel company executive back in the area's most prosperous days. The architect believed there was no other place in the country where a person could buy such an amazing house for such a low price. And we have other friends - the guy's a former cyclist, used to tour the Alps - who recently moved out of our village into another big old house inside the city. They're optimistic about the city's future, and are betting on gentrification. We also have very good cycling friends (the most dedicated touring and utility cyclists I know) who live very nearby their place, and have for at least 45 years. But of course, there's risk in buying any inner-city house. Houses and neighborhoods very nearby are in bad shape and declining. I've led club rides right past the house in Jay's link, specifically to gaze at some of the architecture in that neighborhood. Some of the houses there are sort of second tier mansions, not quite as luxurious as some other areas of town; but many are still quite impressive. (There's also a mix of more normal homes.) There is a non-profit organization in town that works very hard to preserve inner city neighborhoods like that. They do good work, buying and rehabilitating houses worth saving. Tom should move here! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:38:45 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 1/16/2020 11:17 AM, Duane wrote: snip Do you have hipsters in PDX?Â* They're all over the mountain here.Â* Doing wheelies down the mountain on fixies while texting their buddies and grooving to their ear buds.Â* I started handing out cards telling them the cheap wine is free in Ohio. Not going to work. Trader Joe's lowered the price of "Two Buck Chuck" back to $2. Free is better than $2, and Ohio has other inducements. They're basically giving houses away. Go to Redfin and look at Youngstown. https://www.redfin.com/OH/Youngstown.../home/71983689 Ay chihuahua! A hipster could buy a house there and fill it with wine. -- Jay Beattie. As long as it gets them out of my path I’m all for it! Virginia is for lovers but Ohio is for Hipsters! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:54:14 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's a photograph of the helmet which saved me from stitches, concussion, blood poisoning, or worse, in the incident reported below. http://www.coolmainpress.com/miscimage/ andre_jute_hlmet_after_crash_883pxh.jpg The dent is visible as is the cow dung the helmet picked up from the farm road. So it was a well lubricated crash. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:58:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
And we have other friends - the guy's a former cyclist, used to tour the Alps - who recently moved out of our village into another big old house inside the city. They're optimistic about the city's future, and are betting on gentrification. Most people forget that when you buy a "house', they are actualy buying house and land. In urban areas, the land can be worth more than the building siting upon it. The real fools are the ones who then spend money "improving" that house over the combined value. As very few tend to stay for a long term, they'll probably never recover their money. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/17/2020 1:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2020 at 7:38:45 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 1/16/2020 11:17 AM, Duane wrote: snip Do you have hipsters in PDX?Â* They're all over the mountain here.Â* Doing wheelies down the mountain on fixies while texting their buddies and grooving to their ear buds.Â* I started handing out cards telling them the cheap wine is free in Ohio. Not going to work. Trader Joe's lowered the price of "Two Buck Chuck" back to $2. Free is better than $2, and Ohio has other inducements. They're basically giving houses away. Go to Redfin and look at Youngstown. https://www.redfin.com/OH/Youngstown.../home/71983689 Ay chihuahua! A hipster could buy a house there and fill it with wine. -- Jay Beattie. Wow, look at those prices! I agree with my congressperson that we should encourage tech companies to expand in areas like that. Tech workers want to buy single family homes with yards to raise their families and that is extremely difficult in the Bay Area. The free wine would be a nice extra if it is good wine. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/17/2020 3:20 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:58:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: And we have other friends - the guy's a former cyclist, used to tour the Alps - who recently moved out of our village into another big old house inside the city. They're optimistic about the city's future, and are betting on gentrification. Most people forget that when you buy a "house', they are actualy buying house and land. In urban areas, the land can be worth more than the building siting upon it. The real fools are the ones who then spend money "improving" that house over the combined value. As very few tend to stay for a long term, they'll probably never recover their money. If their goal is to recover the money on improvements when they sell then indeed they are fools. But if they make improvements because they want to enjoy living in a house with those improvements, then they are not fools. In California, most people do stay for the long term because of way the property tax system works. It's actually a big problem because of the extremely low turnover of the limited supply of single family homes. There was an attempt in 2018 to address this issue and it failed big time. Anti-affordable housing forces and real estate developers were able to defeat this bill. A big part of the problem was that it was the California Association of Realtors that put it on the ballot because it would cause a huge increase in the sale of existing homes and hence increases in income for real estate brokers and agents. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:23:54 -0800, sms wrote:
On 1/17/2020 3:20 PM, news18 wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:58:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: And we have other friends - the guy's a former cyclist, used to tour the Alps - who recently moved out of our village into another big old house inside the city. They're optimistic about the city's future, and are betting on gentrification. Most people forget that when you buy a "house', they are actualy buying house and land. In urban areas, the land can be worth more than the building siting upon it. The real fools are the ones who then spend money "improving" that house over the combined value. As very few tend to stay for a long term, they'll probably never recover their money. If their goal is to recover the money on improvements when they sell then indeed they are fools. But if they make improvements because they want to enjoy living in a house with those improvements, then they are not fools. How many of your original neighbours are still there? When a house in your street sells for 70+ times what you paid for it, the incentive is hight to sell up. Tempered only by the need to buy somewhere else. There are some "improvements" that just are not. When we purchased current place, we had to change real estate agents a number of times as they just would not take the instruction that we did NOT want a swimming pool, jackuzi, sauna, etc, etc. In California, most people do stay for the long term because of way the property tax system works. It's actually a big problem because of the extremely low turnover of the limited supply of single family homes. Similar problem here, in that they "improve" their starter home with extensions out and up, so the foot in the housing door is a multi storey, multi bathroom McMansion on a pocket hankchief of land. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/17/2020 7:14 PM, news18 wrote:
snip How many of your original neighbours are still there? A lot. And often adult children take over their parents' house. When a house in your street sells for 70+ times what you paid for it, the incentive is hight to sell up. Tempered only by the need to buy somewhere else. That is a huge amount of tempering. Unless you are willing to leave the area, there is no upside in selling because anything you buy will be just as costly. So most people stay. We have neighbors on our street who could sell their houses for 100x what they paid when the house was new. But they will stay in their house until the end, unless health concerns make that impossible. The fact that they'd be better off moving to a less expensive city, and having more money for their retirement, is immaterial to many of them. Often the houses deteriorate because they can't afford maintenance and non-profit organizations will come in to do basic maintenance. For seniors, it makes much more financial sense to rent out their home and move somewhere else than to sell. There are some "improvements" that just are not. When we purchased current place, we had to change real estate agents a number of times as they just would not take the instruction that we did NOT want a swimming pool, jackuzi, sauna, etc, etc. We really didn't want a pool. But a lot of houses in our city had had pools added at some point. Many people just removed them. Even though pool removal is costly, around $10,000 to $15,000, that is not a significant amount on a house in this area. We kept our pool. I wanted to take it out. My wife likes it. I maintain it. It is costly to maintain mainly because of the electricity cost for the pump, but with our solar panels our electricity usage from the grid is minimal (well other than the $18K to install all those solar panels). It doesn't require much water to offset evaporation, but doing an empty/refill every 5 to 6 years is very costly. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 09:50:19 -0800, sms wrote:
There are some "improvements" that just are not. When we purchased current place, we had to change real estate agents a number of times as they just would not take the instruction that we did NOT want a swimming pool, jackuzi, sauna, etc, etc. We really didn't want a pool. But a lot of houses in our city had had pools added at some point. Many people just removed them. Even though pool removal is costly, around $10,000 to $15,000, that is not a significant amount on a house in this area. We kept our pool. I wanted to take it out. My wife likes it. I maintain it. It is costly to maintain mainly because of the electricity cost for the pump, but with our solar panels our electricity usage from the grid is minimal (well other than the $18K to install all those solar panels). It doesn't require much water to offset evaporation, but doing an empty/refill every 5 to 6 years is very costly. These days I'd just say "aquaponics" and look at one of those floating vegetables above a big fish pond type of thing. We've moved past the compulsory fencing stage here, so we wouldn't have that cost. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Hitting your head
On 1/18/2020 11:26 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 09:50:19 -0800, sms wrote: There are some "improvements" that just are not. When we purchased current place, we had to change real estate agents a number of times as they just would not take the instruction that we did NOT want a swimming pool, jackuzi, sauna, etc, etc. We really didn't want a pool. But a lot of houses in our city had had pools added at some point. Many people just removed them. Even though pool removal is costly, around $10,000 to $15,000, that is not a significant amount on a house in this area. We kept our pool. I wanted to take it out. My wife likes it. I maintain it. It is costly to maintain mainly because of the electricity cost for the pump, but with our solar panels our electricity usage from the grid is minimal (well other than the $18K to install all those solar panels). It doesn't require much water to offset evaporation, but doing an empty/refill every 5 to 6 years is very costly. These days I'd just say "aquaponics" and look at one of those floating vegetables above a big fish pond type of thing. We've moved past the compulsory fencing stage here, so we wouldn't have that cost. "moved past the compulsory fencing stage"? Does that mean you no longer need fences around pools? If so, that amazes me. Safety Inflation is so dominant in westernized societies, it seems very rare for any "safety" regulation to be removed. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hitting Goals | Tom Kunich[_5_] | Techniques | 8 | November 26th 19 09:49 AM |
I need help hitting record again. | hungry4uni | Unicycling | 11 | July 25th 08 03:57 AM |
hitting bricks | TerryJ | UK | 3 | December 20th 07 08:29 PM |
UK - Muni head to head race - feeler | kington99 | Unicycling | 37 | March 20th 07 01:58 PM |
Shit hitting the fan. | crit PRO | Racing | 58 | April 6th 05 08:02 AM |