Mathieu
http://www.cocoonbarcelona.com/

Poorly understood, I think, is the deterioration in building practices in this country over the past thirty years or so. The Atlantic Monthly–parts of which have still not been destroyed by Megan McArdle–ran an illuminating piece on this back in 2008:

“Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors…break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch ive/2008/03/the-next-slum/6653/3/

Call it the Wal-Martization of American housing: we went for size at the expense of quality. Modern housing is not, in fact, much of a capital investment. Only the land is likely to still be there in another fifty years. A season of neglect, and these things fall apart. They’re not worth fixing. The story of housing will be a slow but relentless destruction of wealth for probably the next 20 years. –At which time, perhaps, I will still be living in my 1927 bungalow. Conceivably, people will want to learn to _build_ again by then.

Enlisted who live off base get a housing allowance that is included in their pay check. Their landlord has to be approved.

At a large base their will be a “housing officer” who is relatively junior in charge of a civil service employee who is relatively senior and they will vet all the rental contracts.

Frankly, it is a science.

The reason that it can’t be fixed on a “macro” scale is not that people borrowed so much it is that “investors” lent too much. It is these investors that want homeowners bailed out.

Bases expand and contract all the time. The government should look there for experience in handling real estate.

Most apartments, I think by nature of the product, are in big cities – of which covers what % of the overall housing market (I don’t know, I’m asking)?

Then, if *most* of the housing market is outside ‘big cities’, then it would seem logical that there is a relatively significant market for rental homes.

I’ve lived mostly in smaller metro areas (as a kid, college and adult) and apartments are not as common as the rental housing market since the demand is so low for them. That might be an answer to the question of ‘who is going to be renting those houses’ – i.e. anyone that cannot buy and does not live in a ‘big city’.

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/08/defi cit-crisis-shock-for-big-4-as.html

What’s your evidence of that? Most of those houses were sold to second-home buyers and people emigrating from other states. Unless the definition of “subprime borrower” is “Yuppie picking up vacation spot”–and it maybe should be–the buildouts in Ashesville and Lost Wages weren’t for Subprime.

For example, housing in Boulder CO is ~60% rental – and very little of it is traditional apartment complexes. Lots of condo’s, small (4-8 units) complexes and single family homes. There are property mgmt companies (notoriously exploitative to tenants) that own dozens of houses around town.

Another common scenario is someone buys an entry level house – then turns it into a rental when they trade up in houses. There’s a significant number that own 5-10 houses that they rent out. And there are people that specialize in buying condo’s to rent out. Rents are high, damage deposits are huge.

My understanding is this is also true in places like Ann Arbor as well.

Obviously this can’t apply in every market. And the more spread out the market geographically the harder the logistics.

My real concern in a big market like Phoenix – if there is a huge flood of rental units into the market then isn’t that going to pressure rents down? You’ll only make money if you can cover costs – including financing if you didn’t have enough cash to buy outright. And what happens to those large apartment complexes if people can move into a house for the same rent? (not that all would want to). They may not be as profitable in these kinds of locations.

Just a guess: the owners.

That would be the feds, now, wouldn’t it, in the form of Fannie and Freddie?