Comments on: Who rents out houses? A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: MathieuBCN Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:18:05 +0000 I would think we’re seeing a huge increase in the number of families who will be forced into renting houses in this economy. In rural and low income areas house rental as oppposed to ownership is usually at a higher percentage than in more affluent areas but in the current climate incomes are dropping nationwide. Couple this with the horrific housing market and the shambles that is the home loan sector and you can expect a huge uptick in families choosing to rent rather than buy.


By: drewbie Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:55:07 +0000 I don’t know who will be doing it, but I hope someone is. My wife and I will be looking for one in about a year and a half.

By: ckbryant Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:00:25 +0000 By and large, no one will rent them: they will be destroyed.

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.” 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.

By: bidrec Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:42:18 +0000 Around military bases active duty rent houses from retired military who settled in the area to be able to shop at the PX which they can do with their retired military ID.

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.

By: terrymj Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:10:13 +0000 I think this is a ‘big city’ prejudice.

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’.

By: nbywardslog Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:36:29 +0000 In the States as in the UK, from Reagan/Thatcher onwards, The Big Idea was the property-owning democracy. Simple theory: put people in their own home and they’ll become more right-wing.
In the same way that savings & loan and building societies should never have entered the shark-infested pool of global banking, so too huge swathes of the population should never have bought a home.
We’re coming to the end of a forty-year cycle in domestic property: this isn’t just ‘another bust’, it’s a radical price realignment in the context of our nations getting poorer.
I really believe you can only sell so many houses at auction – and very few when the climate is this bad. Renting will become far more normal over the next decade; and yes, it will be a good time to be a landlord – IF you can find a tenant with references. cit-crisis-shock-for-big-4-as.html

By: STORYBURNthere Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:44:42 +0000 People who walk away from their mortgages often find bigger homes to rent at 1/3 their previous monthly nut

By: klhoughton Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:16:09 +0000 “in areas like Las Vegas and Phoenix which saw a massive number of houses built to satisfy demand from subprime borrowers.”

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.

By: stanrich Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:35:57 +0000 You are assuming 100% of the homes will be livable. I’d bet that a substantial number will be so trashed by the time the owner, be it Fannie/Freddie/Bank/investor or neighbor, starts the rental process, that it will be cheaper to bulldoze them than it will to repair them to livable standards.

By: CDN_finance Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:06:13 +0000 Ha, wouldn’t that be a sight if Frannie became the premier housing rental corp in America! THAT would help generate some tax dollars no? Better that trying to push these houses to market at 40c on the dollar…