Economy Cutting five words from this law could make houses cheaper

[SoSo]

You can get a mortgage but prefab homes don't qualify for FHA loans IIRC, at least not the typical ones middle class Americans use to finance sure built homes. There are lots of smaller housing subsidies that may or may not help with buying a prefab home.

You can get a FHA loan on a manufactured home. Has to be built after '76, must have the HUD tag(s) and the Data Plate visible (although , I'm pretty sure I got the Data Plate info from the manufacturer (wasn't hiding in the usual places in the trailer) on a FHA appraisal and it went through fine.

Must be considered "real property" by the authority having jurisdiction (placed on a foundation), greater than 500 or 600 sqft in size, pass a head and shoulders inspection from an appraiser (look above the ceiling and into the crawl for basic issues), has to pass essentially a "safety inspection" - are there handrails for any stairs and are they in in good condition, things like that. All the regular FHA stipulations.

I can't remember if there were additional "condition" requirements (state of the home) above and beyond what is required for a normal Fannie/Freddie loan on a Manufactured home. Ok, I just checked. For a FHA the home needs to be a C4 or better. Fannie will take C5s, Freddie won't. FHA C4 or better.

Definition of C4: A C4 home is an adequately maintained property. The property improvements show slight deferred maintenance and minor physical decline from regular wear and tear. The home has been fairly well-kept and needs only cosmetic or minor repairs. All of the major systems and building components are in decent condition and still function adequately, needing only minimal repairs. Some of the appliances, floor coverings, etc. are near the end of their life expectancy but still function properly.

There are other requirements for comps used, but that is typical for all FHA loans, not specific for FHA Manufactured loans. Appraisal form 1004C.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Man, as I get closer to retirement I hate property taxes more and more.

It’s number one bullshit. I support a cap for 65+ so people don’t get priced out of their homes. But, boomers already have literally the entire world at their fingertips so I could see the argument against that

 

[Islam Imamate]

The issue is that I’m firmly middle class despite my income and net worth. Life is too expensive.

You definitely don't come off that way baaed on how you talk about your wealth and the lower middle class.

My main issue with your takes is you have no experience with how the suburbs work and come up with fantastical ideas as to forcing the square peg into a round hole

I live in a suburb and so do most of my friends so its not like they're remote tribes, not that hard to grasp. And I think it's odd to say that deregulation of a decades old, proven technology that is obviously hampered by arbitrary red tape is a fantastical idea. Quite the opposite its a simple, practical one, you just don't like the idea that lower middle class folks might start moving into your neighborhood.

Not taking tax revenue into consideration, yes, they should be allowed more easily in certain parts of a city like the outskirts.

Like others have mentioned, the loss of tax revenue would be substantial.

What makes you think it would lead to a loss in tax revenue?

I’m less concerned about that as not only is all tax theft, but property tax especially

How is property tax in particular theft? If anything property taxes are one of the better taxes though ad you know I think a land tax is better.

 

[Cyrano200]

How is property tax in particular theft? If anything property taxes are one of the better taxes though ad you know I think a land tax is better.

I am not a fan of the sheer amount of tax we pay in general, but the property tax seems particularly egregious to me.
The scenario that comes to my mind is the retiree, or even worse the widow of a retiree. The family worked hard and earned an average wage, paying taxes on every cent. They scrimp and safe up to afford a home in the suburbs, paying tax when they make the purchase. They aren't rich, and live within their means, maybe even paying off the mortgage early. Each year the local government re-assess the value of your home, raising it's value over the years (I live in a suburban area and my home has quadrupled in value since I initially bought over 20 years ago). I was young when I bought my house and my earnings have also increased. When I retire, that probably stops. My income becomes fixed but my taxes don't.
So it becomes possible that even though a house has been paid for and owned outright for decades, with taxes paid both initially and for decades after, could be foreclosed on and taken away from a family by a local government when the tax burden, which is controlled entirely by that government, outpaces the fixed income of the rightful owners. Even the idea that I must continuously, forever, pay taxes on a thing I've already paid taxes on, paid governmental fees to take possession of, with money they've taxed when I earned it, and into my retirement with money they still tax, is infuriating.

 

[nhbbear]

Cheap housing is always good so long as NIMBY. Seriously, keep the prefab homes away from better neighborhoods because they are usually ugly, drop housing values, and eventually end up inhabited by crappy people once they deteriorate enough that no one else will rent/buy them.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

"Housing is too damn expensive!"

Ok, here are some cheap, possibly subsidized homes

"Low-income housing will bring in the undesirables!"

 

[Mr Holmes]

"Housing is too damn expensive!"

Ok, here are some cheap, possibly subsidized homes

"Low-income housing will bring in the undesirables!"

Yes

 

[oldshadow]

Just had one installed down the road from me. It came in two sections and they put it together. They installed a foundation and it looks like about any other home.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I am not a fan of the sheer amount of tax we pay in general, but the property tax seems particularly egregious to me.
The scenario that comes to my mind is the retiree, or even worse the widow of a retiree. The family worked hard and earned an average wage, paying taxes on every cent. They scrimp and safe up to afford a home in the suburbs, paying tax when they make the purchase. They aren't rich, and live within their means, maybe even paying off the mortgage early. Each year the local government re-assess the value of your home, raising it's value over the years (I live in a suburban area and my home has quadrupled in value since I initially bought over 20 years ago). I was young when I bought my house and my earnings have also increased. When I retire, that probably stops. My income becomes fixed but my taxes don't.
So it becomes possible that even though a house has been paid for and owned outright for decades, with taxes paid both initially and for decades after, could be foreclosed on and taken away from a family by a local government when the tax burden, which is controlled entirely by that government, outpaces the fixed income of the rightful owners. Even the idea that I must continuously, forever, pay taxes on a thing I've already paid taxes on, paid governmental fees to take possession of, with money they've taxed when I earned it, and into my retirement with money they still tax, is infuriating.

I understand why you subjectively feel that way but property taxes make perfect sense. Private property only exists with the intervention of the state in the form of courts and policing that establish, adjudicate, and enforce property claims but it also only has value with state investments into infrastructure like roads and sewage. You wouldn't buy a piece of property in the middle of nowhere with no roads, electricity, sewage, or running water as your primary residence on the honor system without formal documentation right?

Therefore to sustain the system of property the state needs tax revenue hence property taxes. When land becomes more valuable its because it's in higher demand which usually means the local area is in higher demand and more people are moving into the surrounding area.

That means local infrastructure needs more money to fund expansion and maintenance to meet the growing population. That's why your property taxes go up. Land is scarce so it wouldn't make sense for the state to subsidize your property ownership at no expense to the property owner. In fact current property taxes are probably too low which means the tax burden to maintain and expand the necessary infrastructure to sustain the system of property gets moved onto others like through development fees for developers or other local taxes. To me that is unfair.

The best argument I've heard against property tax is that a land tax would be better where only the value of the land and not the improvements are taxed. That way if your property value goes up because you built a pool your taxes wouldn't go up but if they went up because the underlying value of the land went up then yes you would pay more.

Cheap housing is always good so long as NIMBY. Seriously, keep the prefab homes away from better neighborhoods because they are usually ugly, drop housing values, and eventually end up inhabited by crappy people once they deteriorate enough that no one else will rent/buy them.

This is exactly the NIMBY attitude that had led to the housing crisis. Besides I think it's plain wrong. Modern prefab homes are fairly high quality and even if you install them in nicer neighborhoods the value of the property will still mostly be in the land itself which is to say they'll be relatively more affordable compared to the site built homes adjacent to them but not necessarily "affordable" or "low income" housing.

"Housing is too damn expensive!"

Ok, here are some cheap, possibly subsidized homes

"Low-income housing will bring in the undesirables!"

I don't blame people who don't want Section 8 housing in their neighborhood but if it's market rate housing it should be allowed. Personally I only care about expanding market rate housing which means adding relatively affordable units like prefab houses and multiplexes but not subsidizing them so that they're "low income housing"

Which means more likely than not the people buying/renting them will be roughly in the same class as the others in their neighborhood even if they make a little less because otherwise the land values would price them out.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Manufactured homes....

 

[The XL]

The government and the global corporations they're in bed with don't want you to own homes. You'll own nothing and be happy.

The people who rule you absolutely hate your guts and want you to suffer. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The government and the global corporations they're in bed with don't want you to own homes. You'll own nothing and be happy.

The people who rule you absolutely hate your guts and want you to suffer. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

I don't understand what you're trying to say in the context of this thread, are you for or against deregulation of prefab homes?

 

[nhbbear]

I understand why you subjectively feel that way but property taxes make perfect sense. Private property only exists with the intervention of the state in the form of courts and policing that establish, adjudicate, and enforce property claims but it also only has value with state investments into infrastructure like roads and sewage. You wouldn't buy a piece of property in the middle of nowhere with no roads, electricity, sewage, or running water as your primary residence on the honor system without formal documentation right?

Therefore to sustain the system of property the state needs tax revenue hence property taxes. When land becomes more valuable its because it's in higher demand which usually means the local area is in higher demand and more people are moving into the surrounding area.

That means local infrastructure needs more money to fund expansion and maintenance to meet the growing population. That's why your property taxes go up. Land is scarce so it wouldn't make sense for the state to subsidize your property ownership at no expense to the property owner and in fact current property taxes are probably too low which means the tax burden to maintain and expand the necessary infrastructure to sustain the system of property gets moved onto others like through development fees for developers or other local taxes. To me that is unfair.

The best argument I've heard against property tax is that a land tax would be better where only the value of the land and not the improvements are taxed. That way if your property value goes up because you built a pool your taxes wouldn't go up but if they went up because the underlying value of the land went up then yes you would pay more.

This is exactly the NIMBY attitude that had led to the housing crisis. Besides I think it's plain wrong. Modern prefab homes are fairly high quality and even if you install them in nicer neighborhoods the value of the property will still mostly be in the land itself which is to say they'll be relatively more affordable compared to the site built homes adjacent to them but not necessarily "affordable" or "low income" housing.

I don't blame people who don't want Section 8 housing in their neighborhood but if it's market rate housing it should be allowed. Personally I only care about expanding market rate housing which means adding relatively affordable units like prefab houses and multiplexes but not subsidizing them so that they're "low income housing"

Which means more likely than not the people buying/renting them will be roughly in the same class as the others in their neighborhood even if they make a little less because otherwise the land values would price them out.

I fully admit in this instance I am NIMBY because I don’t want to see prefab homes that will eventually become section 8 in my neighborhood or on my street. I spent an entire career with most of my time spent responding to calls at section 8 houses and apartments. They are generally not up kept and even if you try to screen for shitbags renting, it’s usually some young woman that has a cadre of shithead boyfriends and friends that wreak havoc. I just don’t trust private companies or government to police this issue when my home is concerned.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I fully admit in this instance I am NIMBY because I don’t want to see prefab homes that will eventually become section 8 in my neighborhood or on my street. I spent an entire career with most of my time spent responding to calls at section 8 houses and apartments. They are generally not up kept and even if you try to screen for shitbags renting, it’s usually some young woman that has a cadre of shithead boyfriends and friends that wreak havoc. I just don’t trust private companies or government to police this issue when my home is concerned.

I never said they would be Section 8 housing and in fact I specifically said in that post that I'm against Section 8 housing(off topic but I think Section 8 should be completely defunded in favor of cash transfers like the child tax credit).

I'm for market rate housing. If your neighbor wants to add a prefab home to their property for an elderly parent, adult child, or for an extra revenue stream so long as it's not Section 8 why should you be able to stop them?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I don't blame people who don't want Section 8 housing in their neighborhood but if it's market rate housing it should be allowed. Personally I only care about expanding market rate housing which means adding relatively affordable units like prefab houses and multiplexes but not subsidizing them so that they're "low income housing"

Which means more likely than not the people buying/renting them will be roughly in the same class as the others in their neighborhood even if they make a little less because otherwise the land values would price them out.

Yeah, whether it's actually subsidized or just expanding the market, the end result is lower priced houses which will inevitably attract people from a lower income bracket than would otherwise be there.

But classism (and its first cousin, racism) creeps in. People want homes cheap enough that THEY can buy in, but not so affordable that the others can buy in... and bring their dreadlocks, reggaeton, and Chrysler 300s.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, whether it's actually subsidized or just expanding the market, the end result is lower priced houses which will inevitably attract people from a lower income bracket than would otherwise be there.

But classism (and its first cousin, racism) creeps in. People want homes cheap enough that THEY can buy in, but not so affordable that the others can buy in... and bring their dreadlocks, reggaeton, and Chrysler 300s.

True but to be clear I am against subsidized, low income housing full stop. If a lower middle class family wants to accept a trade off by settling for a smaller prefab home on a smaller plot of land so that it's affordable that should be allowed but rent control and subsidized low income housing creates bad incentives and should be avoided.

 

[WhiteMousse]

I think most people just want to have an affordable house and not have to worry about getting robbed. Of course there are people within who fit the description of racists and classists but I don't think that represents the majority of people.

The reason people would like to keep people with lower income away is because the less money people have, the more likely it is that they will engage in criminal activity. Individuals should regard other people on an individual basis and not as a statistic, but it is a real statistic. Is that classism? It could be. But I'd say for most people whether they're right or wrong, it's rooted in a desire to just be able to live and not have to worry about having their property stolen or otherwise ruined. I don't think I'd look down my nose at someone like that or immediately think they're racist.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

True but to be clear I am against subsidized, low income housing full stop. If a lower middle class family wants to accept a trade off by settling for a smaller prefab home on a smaller plot of land so that it's affordable that should be allowed but rent control and subsidized low income housing creates bad incentives and should be avoided.

Ok, expanding market-rate housing takes care of lower-middle class and above but what about the working and lower classes? Should they just be condemned to shitty apartments?

I think there's room and a need for both. Don't know enough to give details but it just seems to me like expanding available housing supply will only do so much. I think we've discussed this before but even if supply increases this very minute, prices aren't going to come down very much. At the very most, they'll stay steady.

Well, if the average home right now is currently $400k, it'll take a decade or two before wages catch up and make that $400k affordable.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ok, expanding market-rate housing takes care of lower-middle class and above but what about the working and lower classes? Should they just be condemned to shitty apartments?

They'll probably disproportionately rent as they do now anyway except they'd have access to lower rents or they'll buy smaller homes on smaller lots in areas with lower land values.

I think there's room and a need for both. Don't know enough to give details but it just seems to me like expanding available housing supply will only do so much. I think we've discussed this before but even if supply increases this very minute, prices aren't going to come down very much. At the very most, they'll stay steady.

Well, if the average home right now is currently $400k, it'll take a decade or two before wages catch up and make that $400k affordable.

Poor people should be supported through conditional cash transfers like the expanded child tax credit and if they want to spend some of that on housing they'd be allowed to but I don't agree with subsidized housing because of the bad incentives it generates.

My support for conditional cash transfers is what separates me from others who are dedicated to market solutions, at least in America.

 

[Natural Order]

I am not a fan of the sheer amount of tax we pay in general, but the property tax seems particularly egregious to me.
The scenario that comes to my mind is the retiree, or even worse the widow of a retiree. The family worked hard and earned an average wage, paying taxes on every cent. They scrimp and safe up to afford a home in the suburbs, paying tax when they make the purchase. They aren't rich, and live within their means, maybe even paying off the mortgage early. Each year the local government re-assess the value of your home, raising it's value over the years (I live in a suburban area and my home has quadrupled in value since I initially bought over 20 years ago). I was young when I bought my house and my earnings have also increased. When I retire, that probably stops. My income becomes fixed but my taxes don't.
So it becomes possible that even though a house has been paid for and owned outright for decades, with taxes paid both initially and for decades after, could be foreclosed on and taken away from a family by a local government when the tax burden, which is controlled entirely by that government, outpaces the fixed income of the rightful owners. Even the idea that I must continuously, forever, pay taxes on a thing I've already paid taxes on, paid governmental fees to take possession of, with money they've taxed when I earned it, and into my retirement with money they still tax, is infuriating.

Property taxes can only go up, to satiate the financial burden of growing government. Property assessment and increased taxation is biggest racket in the west right now. Right in your face, absurd, vile, illogical. Nothing you can generally do about it either.

Even worse is when you start looking around and seeing no maintenance, upgrades or improvements taking place in your community. On the contrary, these things are simultaneously diminishing in most jurisdictions. Your property taxes are being used to fund the pensions of wasteful bureaucrats and politicians.

Get this....here in Nova Scotia, Canada....a province of roughly 1 million people......30% of all jobs are in the public servant sector. ROFL! 30%! It's no wonder this place is, and always has been, the armpit of Canada. Nothing but a financial burden that requires transfer payments from opposite systems halfway across the country to even fucking exist. Pathetic.

The expansion of, and costs to pay for government residue and bureaucracy are destroying the west and most people are too stupid to see it or stop it. Grab a beer and shake your head in disgust.