13% of all U.S. homes are vacant

[Yarn]

Apemen81:

No one who purchased a spec home is worried about renegotiating. The drop is value makes ownership undesirable. Better to walk away. And they did.

Friends in CA with a first and second which they have not paid in nearly 2 years are still in their home. This is not uncommon. Foreclosure comes after much forbearance

The problem was in part that so many houses were put on the market in such a short time. So long as the banks controlled the selling, which perhaps they can't so long as mortages are still valid, they could've rationed the supply of houses that were being sold in order raise prices (much like OPEC does with oil), thereby eventually earning more money per house.

The bulk of the problem, as the story states, is not affecting primary residences.

Compare them with Connecticut, which has a vacancy rate of just 7.9%, the lowest of all the states. If you back out the vacation properties from the statistics, the states have very similar vacancy rates: 6.1% for Connecticut and 7% for Maine.

Some states have high vacancy rates even after backing out the second homes: Florida's is about 10%; Arizona's is 10.7%; and Nevada's 11.4%.

Besides Connecticut, the other states with lowest vacancy rates are California, Iowa, Illinois, Virginia and Washington, all at 9.2% or lower.

Housing market: 11.4% of all U.S. homes are vacant - Mar. 28, 2011

That is a substantial minority of what accounts for the overarching statistic, but it is still less than a quarter.

[Apeman81]

Apemen81:



The problem was in part that so many houses were put on the market in such a short time. So long as the banks controlled the selling, which perhaps they can't so long as mortages are still valid, they could've rationed the supply of houses that were being sold in order raise prices (much like OPEC does with oil), thereby eventually earning more money per house.




Housing market: 11.4% of all U.S. homes are vacant - Mar. 28, 2011

That is a substantial minority of what accounts for the overarching statistic, but it is still less than a quarter.

Houses were produced to match the demand created by those who saw rapid increases in housing prices as a way to make quick cash. An entire industry revolved around such transfers as spec buyers purchased intent upon rapid resale.

The original demand impetus that preceded the problem was the flood of new home buyers comprised of people heretofore unable to qualify for home loans. The federal government created a new demand for homes by forcing lenders to expand the pool of individuals to whom they gave loans. The federal pressure precluded rationing the supply of homes.

This upswing in the housing market lead to a rapid rise in the cost of existing homes, giving rise to speculative purchase. When this ability to make a quick buck was gone, so was the incentive to pay for the home. Owners walked away from the loans. Add to this loss of income those homes defaulted by high risk buyers, and you have banks facing a reduction in the value of their assets as well as a reduction of the the number of properties they can call assets.

[Yarn]

Apeman81:

The federal government created a new demand for homes by forcing lenders to expand the pool of individuals to whom they gave loans.

Forced them how exactly? And are you talking about all lenders or only certain lenders?

This upswing in the housing market lead to a rapid rise in the cost of existing homes, giving rise to speculative purchase. When this ability to make a quick buck was gone, so was the incentive to pay for the home. Owners walked away from the loans. Add to this loss of income those homes defaulted by high risk buyers, and you have banks facing a reduction in the value of their assets as well as a reduction of the the number of properties they can call assets.

There was nothing that could've been done to entirely defuse the situation, but rationing off the housing supply would've resulted in the market bottoming out higher and sooner by adjusting supply to intersect with demand at a higher price.

[rmnunez]

Its going to get worse and those 'robosign' foreclosure problems reduce the actual magnitude of the problem.

I still fail to see how people could have so little moral fiber as to gamble with people's homes. Everyone should have a right to shelter.

If its another entitlement the government must provide, who pays for it, "the wealthy"?

[Dan74]

If its another entitlement the government must provide, who pays for it, "the wealthy"?

In a perfect society, the wealthy would have the moral conscience to use their good standing to help others. In a morally-twisted Randian society like ours, the rich see no problem in letting people suffer and die.

It already exists, it's called a homeless shelter. The government should add more funding to it.

[Dodds]

What the government should do is provide low cost housing for the poorer in society.

There is a shortage of housing that is affordable.

As an epic man with an epic beard once said

"The rent is too damned high"

[rmnunez]

Nobody is advocating the government provide more "homeless shelters" what is demanded, with righteous indignity, is that everyone, without regard to age, gender, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or capacity, and especially without regard for income, be provided with adequate and decent housing comparable and not inferior to what people who pay mortgages have for homes. People of the sort who most recently trashed private property in London's Picadilly Circus would suggest the government, which owns the debt on at least those 13% vacant houses start with them and give those to the poor.

[Dodds]

People of the sort who most recently trashed private property in London's Picadilly Circus would suggest the government, which owns the debt on at least those 13% vacant houses start with them and give those to the poor.

Wrong location, and you just said Anarchists want government run housing.

What a joke.

[Maryjane]

This is not the London Riots thread.....Please stay on topic!

[do not respond]

[rmnunez]

Its a passing reference, anarchists famously advocate squatting.

[Thanatos]

Its a passing reference, anarchists famously advocate squatting.

I'm kind of an anarchist then. If something is just going to waste then why not use it yourself? Why foreclose on properties that are worthless? What insanity makes millions of people homeless while there are millions of homes without people? Couldn't we have done better than that?

You know what the problem is? You know why we couldn't do better? The culture, the vapid greed of everyone involved. Forcing companies not to be racist as Apeman alluded to had nothing to do with this. People who knew it was a bubble participated in the bubble and people gave out mortgages with teaser rates because all anybody dared care about was short-term profits. Capitalism shot itself in the foot. Again.

The idea that markets are good (or at least predictable) is based on the idea that people are rational. We're really quite chaotic - common sense and morality are intermittent phenomena and that's why we have homeless people and peopleless homes.

[rmnunez]

If only we had a centralized authority that could make sure everyone was adequately clothed, fed and sheltered, that they got enough rest and received the necessary medical attention, was properly informed, had access to the appropriate education, recreation and entertainment, then everything would be 'copacetic'.