Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Rob Pitingolo is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Rob Pitingolo and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Rob Pitingolo is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Rob Pitingolo and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
The Ideas issue of the Atlantic that is on newsstands now is pretty interesting. Some ideas are better than others, and I particularly like this one from Felix Salmon:
The housing mess is screaming out for a simple but effective solution... a decree that whenever a bank forecloses on a home, the current occupant has the right to remain in the property indefinitely, simply by paying the fair-market rent. Banks are killing each other by racing to sell their foreclosed houses as quickly as possible, before they fall further in value; this policy would force a cease-fire that would help all of them. It would also put an end to the equally destructive syndrome of soon-to-be-foreclosed-upon homeowners trashing their houses before they’re kicked out. This plan might not single-handedly end the recession. But it would certainly help.
Another step (or perhaps the first step) in accomplishing this idea is to eliminate the renter's stigma.
I was recently talking to a friend about the prospect of living in New York City. The conversation went something like this: "I think it would be great to live in New York City, but the cost of living is so expensive. I would probably have to rent for the rest of my life." It almost seemed like renting a home indefinitely was accepting defeat. I know there are many who feel this way.
I understand why people want to own homes. I also think there are good reasons to question those assumptions. We are subsidizing homeownership, both economically and emotionally. That should probably stop.
To take away the economic incentives of home ownership would be unwise at this point in time. Even though the polices regarding home ownership have been questioned for a long time, now is probably not the time to do it. I think the eventuality of it is that home owners and renters, each contributing to the economy, will either be given similar incentives/breaks or none at all. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
My husband and I rented--before we were dating, and after we were married--for many years. There are definite advantages to renting, and they matched my lifestyle for a long time.
Then our priorities changed, and we bought a house.
Renting gives you flexibility. It provides you with easier mobility, and it allows you to delegate maintenance tasks.
And that's great, if you have a responsive landlord. Usually I did. In our last apartment, we absolutely did not.
Beyond the fact that our mortgage payment won't increase the way our rent did each year (yes, we do now pay taxes that we didn't before, owning our home gives us vastly increased control over our environment. We only have to ask each other if we want to repaint the walls. We decide which repairs are immediate and which can wait. We choose how "green" our home is (answer: greener than we found it, but less green that it will be a year from now). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Should there be financial incentives for renters? Probably some, but I definitely think that renters should have more control over what they do with their apartments. I can understand prohibiting structural changes, but why do so many leases require permission to paint? Why not just require that the tenant put a coat of primer on the walls before moving out?
I grew up in suburbia. So, for me, renting has less to do with getting equity, and more to do with living where I want.
In my location, if you want to rent, you are limited to apartments. Or you can rent a house, but they may not be in an area you want.
I don't want an apartment. I want a house with a yard around it, where I don't share a wall with my neighbors.
Maybe we will all be renting houses in the future. But right now, renting means living in high-density housing, which most people don't want.
Rob, I agree about the renter's stigma - with careers and marriages losing their notion of "for life", it seems home ownership should as well. But perhaps there is some value there: is it healthy to live a life without stability in career, relationships, and housing? Personally I think having (the illusion of) stability in at least one of those areas is important. And for those who don't agree with the Change credo of Gen Y, home ownership is a necessary goal.
for people choosing whether to rent or buy, they would do well to understand that property works in cycles and base their decisions on that. there isn't a right answer - sometimes it's better to rent but you want to try and pick a good time to buy and you can do that if you follow the cycles and understand them.
Email
Print
.thumbnail.jpg "Blake Sunshine")
