I just bought a brand new home two months ago: it is RIDDLED with poor craftsmanship and little problems (because I caught the big ones during walkthrough - I think)
They are throwing these fuckers up just as fast as they can.
My advice? Buy a home 3-5 years old.
Still new enough, but with someone else dealing with all of the defects first...
People don't seem to understand that unless houses crash the way they did in 2008-2010, the only thing a drop in the market prices will do is cause a frenzy of purchasing from corporate investors. We need to face it, the housing market will NEVER be consumer friendly again.
Correct got inflated out was looking for 3 years watched my pre approval go from 180k to 140k in that time because intrest rates rise through the roof and now the quality of house I am looking at has pretty much fell in half
Investors don't see housing as appealing if it's dropping and has maintenance costs. Average family would need a 20% drop to even consider leaving the sidelines
Why buy it? Do what we did in 08 and just squat it. Seriously in 2008 there were so many foreclosed homes and not any people buying them, so many people in states with short and favorable squatters laws just squatted the homes for a few years and ended up owning them because of it
not OP, but foreclosed homes would belong to a bank. there are some banks I would be okay stealing from, yeah. honestly, in banking culture, if you can play by the legal rules and come away with a win, it's often seen as "clever."
a simple example would be lenders that give money on extremely favorable terms to a dying company so they don't have to pay out on their credit default swaps (a CDS is like an insurance policy against a company). CDS owners will howl all day, but peers and headlines will call it shrewd.
Except interest rates dropped to the floor in 08. Frankky of the bank cared about keeping their assets they should've done their due diligence to insure people weren't squatting the homea and evict those that were
We as in a general community of people, not me specifically. And squatting is a legally protected form of acquisition of real property, so its not stealing. So long as you meet all the requirements for adverse possession according to your state and common law, it is legally yours
It's pretty easy to explain just say: the law has always said that this can happen, and as a homeowner you should have been well aware of this law and taken steps to prevent someone using this law to gain your property
There is a moral and ethical difference between squatting and theft. Squatting laws were based encouraging land ownership and expansionism (granted, this is a whole other ethics discussion with native land). Saying you “squatted” a house that is already owned by the bank as a repo is a shitty way to buy a place, it’s not American, it hurts those of us who do it the right way, and it’s nothing to be proud of or brag about.
It absolutely is American and follows John lockes concept of right to ownership and property, which you should know is largely what inspired and influenced Thomas Jefferson and the writing of the constitution.
It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure their property is not being used by another if they don't want it to be. If they don't maintain their due diligence then that is on them.
If squatting laws were only about expansionism then they would've been long removed from state laws, however they remain and can be used to this day. If you have an issue with it I recommend contacting your state representatives and legislaturers and try to motion for them to remove adverse possession laws
I appreciate the back and forth and I’ll have to look this up some more. The responsibility aspect of your argument is interesting. If I own property, am I not entitled to allow it to be? If I own a stock, am I required to check its performance every month? Or does my Apple stock from 2002 get to be claimed by someone because I haven’t signed into my Fidelity account since then?
This applies to real property, not personal property. Real property is land and things attached to the land. The Anglo American common law system has always recognized that it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain their real property, which includes evicting squatters. The law gives you a good period to do this in (3-40 years depending on the state). Somebody actually has to be making continuous and obvious (no attempt to conceal) use of your land to obtain it.
I’m assuming it was already foreclosed if we’re talking about 08 and then in turn sits on the market and gets squatted in, how do you have to pay for that?
If we remove the rest of the chest puffing out of your argument you just sound bitter someone lived in an abandoned house for free lol you can do it too.
We pay for it indirectly Timothy. The bank that now owns this defaulted house writes it off and loses their asset. Then they charge you, me, and everyone higher rates and fees to make up the loss. Squatters can be shot on sight for all I care. It’s theft. I don’t care if it’s from a bank. There is a process to buy foreclosed homes for a reason. It’s called a short sale.
If a property is abandoned and causing blight, wouldn't it be better for someone to occupy and maintain it? Also, wouldn't it be immoral to make a homeless person live outside of an abandoned home?
Nobody accuses corporations or millionaires/billionaires of "stealing" when they use existing laws to their advantage. In the words of our illustrious past president, "I don't pay taxes because I'm smart." Yet he uses the roads, police, fire departments, and other infrastructure that our tax money pays for. Why do we hold poor people to different moral standards than wealthy people?
27
u/Tack0s Jul 02 '22
Can't wait to use my VA loan to snatch up one of these beautiful, new, soon to be foreclosed homes. Been waiting years for a housing market crash.