FranLab is getting evicted

[Fraser]

Fran’s situation reminded me of the attached saying……

[Stray Electron]

[...]
  My wife and I fight about this constantly, I still live in the same house that I bought 39 years ago and I drive a 13 year old truck . My wife has been badgering me for YEARS to buy buy a newer house in fancy subdivision and a newer vehicle and to take one of the expensive European cruises but I simply refuse to.

I'm not saying you should blow all your money but it's nice to have some lifestyle progression throughout the years.  You're career probably progressed over those 39 years, why can't your lifestyle?

   IMO it did progress.  I bought much newer and nicer cars than what I had previously and I had money for my (too many) hobbies including buying some expensive TE. And I had bought a house that I was happy to continue living in and not some POS starter home in zero foot setback subdivision. And I was putting money into savings and retirement accounts. So I had absolutely no reason to want to go spend for a fancier looking house.

[Stray Electron]

That's why I never got legally married in the first place. It's a huge financial risk, for very little reward. It serves very little purpose in modern society.

I thought Fran being single is part of the problem? That the banks aren't willing to lend to an older single woman?

  Fran might claim that that is the problem or part of the problem but the truth is that you can't barrow you're way out an income shortfall! 

   "That the banks aren't willing to lend to an older single woman?"

     I seriously doubt that that is the truth. The Feds would call that sexual discrimination and age discrimination and quickly sue any such bank out of business.   The more likely case is that Fran is simply a bad loan risk from the bank's prospective.  My father, then in his 70s and single, got a 30 year mortgage loan so it certainly is possible.  Provided that you have the credit, a steady income, etc.  In fact, at least three single women in my family have all gotten large home loans from the banks in the last 20 or so years. One of them was nearly 70 and borrowed about $300,000 just over 2 years ago.

 

[nctnico]

High rises are good planning around transit zones, like near railway stations.  We can't continue to build car dependent suburbia endlessly.  (It's called transport-oriented development, by the way.)

You mean ghetto

I have never seen anywhere around a busy metro station that could be remotely called a ghetto.  Usually these locations are popular places to live and consequentially the housing costs shoot up, eventually leading to gentrification of the area.  That is its own problem for some, but I would argue it is the natural improvement of an area and shouldn't be stopped, we can't live in the past because some people can't afford to live in the future.

It still is a ghetto. I come across such places every now and then (including in Amsterdam) and these are horrible places to live. It is like a prison where you basically travel between work, the train station, local super market and your home. As there are inaccessible by car, you can't get out and nobody can visit you.

[tom66]

I seriously doubt that that is the truth. The Feds would call that sexual discrimination and age discrimination and quickly sue any such bank out of business.   The more likely case is that Fran is simply a bad loan risk from the bank's prospective.  My father, then in his 70s and single, got a 30 year mortgage loan so it certainly is possible.  Provided that you have the credit, a steady income, etc.  In fact, at least three single women in my family have all gotten large home loans from the banks in the last 20 or so years. One of them was nearly 70 and borrowed about $300,000 just over 2 years ago.

Your father got a mortgage that would run until he was 100 years old?  What bank issues a mortgage well past the expected lifespan of someone?  In the UK, mortgages are pretty much capped up to retirement.  The only exception is a lifetime mortgage where the bank can take your house when you go into a carehome or die, but you cannot buy a whole house with that, just get some cash released to do up the kitchen or something.

[tom66]

It still is a ghetto. I come across such places every now and then (including in Amsterdam) and these are horrible places to live. It is like a prison where you basically travel between work, the train station, local super market and your home. As there are inaccessible by car, you can't get out and nobody can visit you.

I'd be interested in a street view of an Amsterdam ghetto. 

[sokoloff]

Lenders are prohibited from age discrimination based on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and there is no maximum age requirement. That means a 90-year-old borrower can take out a 30-year mortgage if they prove they meet the minimum mortgage requirements for the loan they're applying for.

This is, IMO, proper and a very good thing. Let the loan be settled as part of the estate, but do not restrict the ability of seniors to buy housing on an equal footing as everyone else.

[tom66]

Lenders are prohibited from age discrimination based on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and there is no maximum age requirement. That means a 90-year-old borrower can take out a 30-year mortgage if they prove they meet the minimum mortgage requirements for the loan they're applying for.

This is, IMO, proper and a very good thing. Let the loan be settled as part of the estate, but do not restrict the ability of seniors to buy housing on an equal footing as everyone else.

Does the borrower have to demonstrate some non-working income, like a large passive investment source or pension that can cover the mortgage?  Otherwise it's hard to see how a 90 year old could qualify for any mortgage.  AFAIK in the UK it's possible to get a mortgage on pensionable income, but it would have to be a small mortgage, or a very generous pension.

It's not uncommon for mortgages to be settled on death (even healthy 30 year olds can have heart attacks), but the problem is they're usually issued on the basis of employment and hence they stop when you get into retirement as (most) pensions don't give income comparable to a job.  The 'game' is that you aim to have your mortgage gone before your pension kicks in, so you don't have to worry about having such a huge pension.

[nctnico]

It still is a ghetto. I come across such places every now and then (including in Amsterdam) and these are horrible places to live. It is like a prison where you basically travel between work, the train station, local super market and your home. As there are inaccessible by car, you can't get out and nobody can visit you.

I'd be interested in a street view of an Amsterdam ghetto.

Located in the middle of an urban jungle. Especially during the morning or evening you can't get in or out.

[tom66]

That just looks like a modern residential living complex, what am I missing?  OK, I wouldn't want to raise a huge family there but for young professionals, childless couples etc. it's fine...  We have these types of complexes in the UK too, nothing wrong with them.   Usually you don't own a car if you live there because parking is too expensive, you either use public transport only, or you rent a car (ZipCar or similar service) when you need one.  Or, since you'd probably be Dutch if you lived there, you'd cycle.

[james_s]

High rises are good planning around transit zones, like near railway stations.  We can't continue to build car dependent suburbia endlessly.  (It's called transport-oriented development, by the way.)

Well I can't live in one of those areas, it's either car dependent suburbia or rural, for me, urban is absolutely intolerable. The solution is fewer people, the population continues to grow exponentially, we should be focused on reducing the population before nature does it for us, not building more houses.

[tom66]

Well I can't live in one of those areas, it's either car dependent suburbia or rural, for me, urban is absolutely intolerable. The solution is fewer people, the population continues to grow exponentially, we should be focused on reducing the population before nature does it for us, not building more houses.

Since I'll make the reasonable assumption you're not a genocidal maniac    there is no reduction of the world's population that is foreseeable.  It is, with high certainty, going to hit 10 billion around 2070.  So we will need to accommodate another 25% more people.   It may reduce from around 2100, but at that point  most people on this forum will not be too bothered by that.

I don't like living in high rises, for what it's worth, but whatever we do, we need to avoid building places that are hyper car dependent.  The car needs to be a last resort, not a primary mode of transport.  That doesn't mean you don't own a car but you don't use it for every journey.  Especially given the statistic is the average car journey is like 3 miles long, which is something that could be done by bike or by good public transport (if it existed in many areas!)

[james_s]

Your father got a mortgage that would run until he was 100 years old?  What bank issues a mortgage well past the expected lifespan of someone?  In the UK, mortgages are pretty much capped up to retirement.  The only exception is a lifetime mortgage where the bank can take your house when you go into a carehome or die, but you cannot buy a whole house with that, just get some cash released to do up the kitchen or something.

Mine did too. I don't know how it works in the UK but here age discrimination is illegal, a person that is 80 can take out a 30 year loan, the bank can't use their age as a reason to deny them. If they die as my dad did, the loan becomes the responsibility of the estate.

[james_s]

Since I'll make the reasonable assumption you're not a genocidal maniac    there is no reduction of the world's population that is foreseeable.  It is, with high certainty, going to hit 10 billion around 2070.  So we will need to accommodate another 25% more people.   It may reduce from around 2100, but at that point  most people on this forum will not be too bothered by that.

I don't like living in high rises, for what it's worth, but whatever we do, we need to avoid building places that are hyper car dependent.  The car needs to be a last resort, not a primary mode of transport.  That doesn't mean you don't own a car but you don't use it for every journey.  Especially given the statistic is the average car journey is like 3 miles long, which is something that could be done by bike or by good public transport (if it existed in many areas!)

Well if those billions of people want to live somewhere I hope it's not near me, and I will do anything I possibly can to block the construction of more housing in my vicinity, it is already crowded to the point of being nearly intolerable and I am practically counting the days until I can retire and move to a quiet rural area. 10 billion is not sustainable with the resources on this planet and to support that many we are borrowing from the future. I may not be a homicidal maniac but Mother Nature is. Right now the system we have encourages growth. People actually get tax credits for having children, I think taxing should be progressive, increasing sharply with the number of children one has in order to strongly encourage having only one or none at all.

[tom66]

Mine did too. I don't know how it works in the UK but here age discrimination is illegal, a person that is 80 can take out a 30 year loan, the bank can't use their age as a reason to deny them. If they die as my dad did, the loan becomes the responsibility of the estate.

If discrimination on age is prohibited is there no lower limit on age? Or are 12 year olds allowed to take out a mortgage too?  This just seems bizarre to me!

Well if those billions of people want to live somewhere I hope it's not near me, and I will do anything I possibly can to block the construction of more housing in my vicinity, it is already crowded to the point of being nearly intolerable and I am practically counting the days until I can retire and move to a quiet rural area. 10 billion is not sustainable with the resources on this planet and to support that many we are borrowing from the future. I may not be a homicidal maniac but Mother Nature is. Right now the system we have encourages growth. People actually get tax credits for having children, I think taxing should be progressive, increasing sharply with the number of children one has in order to strongly consider having only one.

Sorry, going to be a no from me.  The reason we're seeing a massive housing crisis in this country and across the western world is attitudes like this which are politically entrenched.  We do need to build more homes, even excluding immigration we've not kept up with the population leading to record house prices and shortages.  Now we have an aging population which needs care and post Covid effects mean the workforce is too small to maintain our standard of living, so we need immigration to some extent -- where do you expect people to live?   Also even if the west had basically no population growth (it's already below replacement rate for many countries) you have would still have economically developing countries which have growing populations, these are not stopping any time soon.

[sokoloff]

A country with a growing population that isn't mine doesn't make me think very hard about how the housing should be built. That country should decide for themselves and my opinion is blank and, even if it wasn't, should be ignored.

We have plenty of space in the US; not everyone needs to live close enough that they could safely hand a hammer to each other at all times. It turns out that some people like living in dense cities. That should be an option. It turns out that others like living in suburbs; that should also be an option. Still others like living in rural areas; that should also be an option. There is a natural limitation that not every can have 1000' of oceanfront, more people want to live there than can, and so oceanfront properties end up being naturally more expensive, but other than that, people can find the type of housing that best matches their preferences crossed with ability and willingness to pay.

I'm sure that will mean continued high-density development in cities; that's fantastic and I hope they continue to find lots of people who want to live in them; that makes those people happy AND makes happy the people who prefer to live in lower density areas (because more areas stay low-density).

[tom66]

To be clear, I've no issue in general with low density homes (some people do), I live in one, so I would be a hypocrite if I opposed them.  What I am opposed to is building acre after acre of suburbia with the only way out to drive a car.  That's objectively bad.  It's bad for air pollution, it's bad for people's health ("the exercise of life" - walking to the shops or to the metro-station is good for your health), and it's generally unsustainable because these areas cost too much to maintain for the property tax paid.  When I looked at the house to buy, I chose somewhere that was close to the town centre.  This morning, I walked back from dropping off my car to have it serviced.  It was a 15 minute walk.  I'd have had to get a cab, or wait around, if it was one of those American stroads covered back to back in Wal-Mart's and Quick-Tyre-Fitting-Co's.

We should be building more transport-oriented development.  It was like my example from some time ago, comparing an older 1930's Toronto suburb to modern Colorado.  Take a good inner city suburb that's located near amenities and a metro station, build detached, semi-detached terraced homes and flats there, with the flats generally being built closer to the metro.  The properties will be naturally a little closer together, but would still be pretty decent in terms of internal space; it might be more common to build a two-storey property instead of a one-storey to maximise land usage though.   But ultimately, that should be the goal.  Unfortunately, in many areas, it's literally illegal to build this type of mixed-use area, because commercial properties (of any kind) can't be zoned in the same area as residential, even if those commercial properties are servicing the residents.  And it's illegal to mix single family homes with higher density flats, despite the two being absolutely compatible.    It's absolutely bonkers city planning.

[tautech]

To be clear, I've no issue in general with low density homes (some people do), I live in one, so I would be a hypocrite if I opposed them.  What I am opposed to is building acre after acre of suburbia with the only way out to drive a car.  That's objectively bad.  It's bad for air pollution, it's bad for people's health ("the exercise of life" - walking to the shops or to the metro-station is good for your health), and it's generally unsustainable because these areas cost too much to maintain for the property tax paid.  When I looked at the house to buy, I chose somewhere that was close to the town centre.  This morning, I walked back from dropping off my car to have it serviced.  It was a 15 minute walk.  I'd have had to get a cab, or wait around, if it was one of those American stroads covered back to back in Wal-Mart's and Quick-Tyre-Fitting-Co's.

We should be building more transport-oriented development.  It was like my example from some time ago, comparing an older 1930's Toronto suburb to modern Colorado.  Take a good inner city suburb that's located near amenities and a metro station, build detached, semi-detached terraced homes and flats there, with the flats generally being built closer to the metro.  The properties will be naturally a little closer together, but would still be pretty decent in terms of internal space; it might be more common to build a two-storey property instead of a one-storey to maximise land usage though.   But ultimately, that should be the goal.  Unfortunately, in many areas, it's literally illegal to build this type of mixed-use area, because commercial properties (of any kind) can't be zoned in the same area as residential, even if those commercial properties are servicing the residents.  And it's illegal to mix single family homes with higher density flats, despite the two being absolutely compatible.    It's absolutely bonkers city planning.

As you so well display Planners couldn't plan a piss up in a brewery ! 

50yrs back a lot less ppl had cars and most walked to nearby employment. One wonders why such lifestyle opportunities have been resigned to previous centuries ? 

[Alex Eisenhut]

Since I'll make the reasonable assumption you're not a genocidal maniac    there is no reduction of the world's population that is foreseeable.  It is, with high certainty, going to hit 10 billion around 2070.  So we will need to accommodate another 25% more people.   It may reduce from around 2100, but at that point  most people on this forum will not be too bothered by that.

I don't like living in high rises, for what it's worth, but whatever we do, we need to avoid building places that are hyper car dependent.  The car needs to be a last resort, not a primary mode of transport.  That doesn't mean you don't own a car but you don't use it for every journey.  Especially given the statistic is the average car journey is like 3 miles long, which is something that could be done by bike or by good public transport (if it existed in many areas!)

Well if those billions of people want to live somewhere I hope it's not near me, and I will do anything I possibly can to block the construction of more housing in my vicinity, it is already crowded to the point of being nearly intolerable and I am practically counting the days until I can retire and move to a quiet rural area. 10 billion is not sustainable with the resources on this planet and to support that many we are borrowing from the future. I may not be a homicidal maniac but Mother Nature is. Right now the system we have encourages growth. People actually get tax credits for having children, I think taxing should be progressive, increasing sharply with the number of children one has in order to strongly consider having only one.

Yup, concur. The house I grew up in had a decent view of the sky until this year when an American company bought up a mall's parking lot to build a ~20 story residential building, now all we see from my parent's place is a crane and a high rise going up. If it was only 5 high it would be OK but that isn't dense enough to bring in the revenue for the new millennium's landlords.

[james_s]

Mine did too. I don't know how it works in the UK but here age discrimination is illegal, a person that is 80 can take out a 30 year loan, the bank can't use their age as a reason to deny them. If they die as my dad did, the loan becomes the responsibility of the estate.

If discrimination on age is prohibited is there no lower limit on age? Or are 12 year olds allowed to take out a mortgage too?  This just seems bizarre to me!

Well if those billions of people want to live somewhere I hope it's not near me, and I will do anything I possibly can to block the construction of more housing in my vicinity, it is already crowded to the point of being nearly intolerable and I am practically counting the days until I can retire and move to a quiet rural area. 10 billion is not sustainable with the resources on this planet and to support that many we are borrowing from the future. I may not be a homicidal maniac but Mother Nature is. Right now the system we have encourages growth. People actually get tax credits for having children, I think taxing should be progressive, increasing sharply with the number of children one has in order to strongly consider having only one.

Sorry, going to be a no from me.  The reason we're seeing a massive housing crisis in this country and across the western world is attitudes like this which are politically entrenched.  We do need to build more homes, even excluding immigration we've not kept up with the population leading to record house prices and shortages.  Now we have an aging population which needs care and post Covid effects mean the workforce is too small to maintain our standard of living, so we need immigration to some extent -- where do you expect people to live?   Also even if the west had basically no population growth (it's already below replacement rate for many countries) you have would still have economically developing countries which have growing populations, these are not stopping any time soon.

As far as I know you have to be an adult to take out a mortgage, so 18 years old in the US, under that age you cannot consent to a legally binding contract.

I don't know what my views on population have to do with politics. It is mathematically provable that a system supplied by finite resources in a finite space cannot sustain infinite growth. I don't care whether someone is trying to come here from Mexico or Sweden or Texas, I hold nothing personal against anyone from any particular region, there's simply no more room here! At some point somebody will have to leave  if somebody else wants a place. Even right now we rely heavily on fossil fuels to produce enough food to feed the existing population, scientific consensus according to what I can find is that the practical sustainable human population on earth is somewhere between 2 billion and 6 billion people. We are well beyond that already and it is a train wreck waiting to happen. Nature is going to make a correction if we don't, Covid was just a warning shot.

[nctnico]

We should be building more transport-oriented development.  It was like my example from some time ago, comparing an older 1930's Toronto suburb to modern Colorado.

It is not going to work. Public transport density has been slashed massively. Netherlands as an example: Between the early 1900's to 1950's there where lots of tram lines and every village had a railway station (*). Nowadays a lot of places don't even have a bus stop. You can choose to live next to a transport 'hub' but there is nowhere to go from there nowadays.

Or check this map from the UK that shows old and existing lines. Note how many lines and stations have been closed:
https://www.trackmaps.co.uk/historic-railway-tracks-of-uk/historic-map-of-uk-railways/

* I recall that my parents took my sister and I to look at a home to move to which was an old railway station at the border of the (small) city where I used to live. It even has a Wikipedia page: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halte_Gouwsluis

[james_s]

A country with a growing population that isn't mine doesn't make me think very hard about how the housing should be built. That country should decide for themselves and my opinion is blank and, even if it wasn't, should be ignored.

We have plenty of space in the US; not everyone needs to live close enough that they could safely hand a hammer to each other at all times. It turns out that some people like living in dense cities. That should be an option. It turns out that others like living in suburbs; that should also be an option. Still others like living in rural areas; that should also be an option. There is a natural limitation that not every can have 1000' of oceanfront, more people want to live there than can, and so oceanfront properties end up being naturally more expensive, but other than that, people can find the type of housing that best matches their preferences crossed with ability and willingness to pay.

I'm sure that will mean continued high-density development in cities; that's fantastic and I hope they continue to find lots of people who want to live in them; that makes those people happy AND makes happy the people who prefer to live in lower density areas (because more areas stay low-density).

I'm in full support of having dense cities, many people do actually like to live like that although I'm at a loss to understand why but good for them. The problem I have is when people try to turn all the suburbs and rural areas into cities instead of just making the already existing cities more dense. Throughout my life I've seen people flooding into the quiet little town I've grown up in and complaining that it's boring. Well if it's boring then why the #*&%# did you move here you dolt? There are already cities all over the country, if you like urban life go live in one of those cities, don't crowd me out of my home. Right now I'm fighting with the council that is trying to rezone residential neighborhoods for duplexes and triplexes, there's already a massive problem with traffic and homes with insufficient parking leading to cars crowding the sides of the street, packing more people into these neighborhoods just makes the whole thing worse. The developers put up these massive mixed used towers with hardly any parking in place of economical strip malls and they make millions then leave those of us living in the area holding the bag. The developers don't have to deal with the traffic congestion or other issues their projects create. Then whenever they build more housing it just draws more people to the area, there is an infinite supply of people that want to live in certain regions, housing is the only real limiting factor so the more housing you build the more people you get. Nothing is gained and the quality of life for everyone diminishes the more crowded it gets. There's a major city (Seattle) only about 10 miles from me, move there if you want to live in a city.

[james_s]

It is not going to work. Public transport density has been slashed massively. Netherlands as an example: Between the early 1900's to 1950's there where lots of tram lines and every village had a railway station. Nowadays a lot of places don't even have a bus stop. You can choose to live next to a transport 'hub' but there is nowhere to go from there nowadays.

Covid took a massive toll on the public transportation here. Suddenly getting onto a bus with packed with 80 random strangers didn't seem like such a good idea and ridership plummeted. That resulted in a lot of route cancellations which has made the bus much less practical and it has not recovered. I think it will take a decade or more for people to be as comfortable packing onto a bus or train as they used to be.

The upside of all this is I have not had a serious cold or flu in nearly 3 years.

[james_s]

Unfortunately, in many areas, it's literally illegal to build this type of mixed-use area, because commercial properties (of any kind) can't be zoned in the same area as residential, even if those commercial properties are servicing the residents.  And it's illegal to mix single family homes with higher density flats, despite the two being absolutely compatible.    It's absolutely bonkers city planning.

I fully 100% support this type of zoning, it isn't bonkers at all, it makes perfect sense. People that want to live in detached houses in the suburbs don't want to be packed in with big apartment complexes and tall buildings. Already here they keep tearing down strip malls and everything else and putting in this great huge condo/apartment towers with retail shops below. It is exactly Sodo Sopah from the show Southpark. Affordable shops are gone, replaced by trendy restaurants where you can get a $25 hamburger with a $18 glass of wine and you can live in the building if you can afford $4,000 a month rent. Zoning exists for a reason, it separates things so people who don't want to live in a city can live in relative peace. I want to live in a neighborhood that only allows single family detached houses, I bought a house in that kind of neighborhood because that's specifically the environment I wanted to live in, and I don't want it being changed into something else.

[Nominal Animal]

50yrs back a lot less ppl had cars and most walked to nearby employment. One wonders why such lifestyle opportunities have been resigned to previous centuries ? 

Ssshhh!  Zero assets Consumers Humans are the happiest, when they live in densely packed concrete cubes, rent everything so they are maximally available for exploitation dynamic and unburdened, and free to be exploited experience everything the world has to sell give.  If you disagree, there is medication available to fix you help with your misconceptions.