Sympathy for the landlord

This is what happened in 1990 or so as well, of course. Pretty standard path for the market as condo owners decide "I'll rent till the market comes back". I have several friends who are doing so.

With all this news about a flooded rental market, and renters having more leverage with rental prices, you would think that it would be a no-brainer to rent instead of buying in this still overpriced RE market. It amazes me why anyone without kids or for some extreme reason would buy in these times.

Scott, what are trying to do to landlords? It's the lease signing season and you're basically telling renters they should demand lower rent. Thanks pal.

(Renters with no sense of humor restrain yourselves, I'm just kidding.)

There are currently 140 rentals in the Back Bay listed in the MLS. Of these, only 19 are listed as being lead-free or deleaded. So my advice to landlords is to delead your units, so people with children, or women who are pregnant or may get pregnant, can rent without worrying.

which in turn knocks down the cap. wait a minute, i'm starting to see a pattern here.

It's a renter's market!

Couldn't help but see "Sympathy for the Landlord" as an allusion to "Sympathy for the Devil," at least in the Boston area. Sorry, but after spending the entire month of July responding every decent rental listing available within our parameters, with only a tiny, tiny fraction of the listers ever responding, and of those most had a haughty "I've got 7 people lined up today to see it with some already saying they'll take it," or "it's not deleaded, so I wouldn't advise even looking at it if you have kids or planning to have kids", and then the few ones we actually did get to arrange to see were comparable to slum pits, I have absolutely no sympathy for landlords around here. We ended up staying where we were and paying the annual rent increase on top of our already high monthly rent under a new lease. We went through the same obstacle course of unreturned calls, unreturned e-mails, schlocky brokers, and touring of poor rental conditions this time last year with the same results. Boston landlords need to learn the Golden Rule, "Rent to others a livable environment that you would live in yourself; and treat others with a business etiquette that you would like to be treated with yourself."

As a landlord who watches my neighborhood's rental market, I've been rather surprised that the number of vacancies doesn't seem to have pushed the rents down much, if at all. I've seen the same ads for units I personally know exist (vs. scam units) in my neighborhood, for more than a year without any reduction in the rents asked. I can't imagine how that makes economic sense.

Renting a unit that isn't de-leaded is illegal under state law (if you're renting to someone with kids under 6 years of age). And because you can't discriminate, most of all units should be de-leaded. There are a couple exceptions, one being that if you're an owner occupied 2 family you can pretty much discriminate against anyone.

That being said, does anyone here know how often not renting to tenants because of lead issues is actually reported? The scummy thing to do would be to jack up the rent or something of that nature. Just curious since I'm new to the landlording game....

What's a schlocky broker?

I'm a real estate salesperson who doesn't play games with anyone. I'm on time, I'm professional, honest and I always show what the customer asks for..in other words, if you're looking for $1400, I don't show $1600 and up. There are many brokes out there that need to find another career; I'll agree with that.

If you're new to the landlord business, I highly recommend the Greater Boston Real Estate Board's Landlord Survival Guide. Well worth the price. (You can get it from their website.)

So Joe, I have a question for you. If I can buy house and pay mortgage, PPT and insurance for only $200 or $300 a month more than I would pay for rent, in the same neighborhood, why would I NOT buy?

Fishmonger -- I had a couple such lead paint/no children run-ins but never reported. Way back then, I did not understand my options. So when the prospective landlord told me "I won't rent to families unless you pay to de-lead the place yourself," I looked for another place. I think a fair number of renters don't realize that in the vast majority of circumstances, landlords cannot refuse to rent to people because they have kids; and that the landlord has to de-lead, not the tenant. And some who do know decide they'd feel bad burdening the landlord with the expense, so they don't pursue a leaded place.

Rent is difficult, though -- the prices haven't really come down. And lead is a problem. And slummy conditions are a problem. So very many landlords just don't maintain their units well, and/or refuse to recognize that economic conditions affect people's ability to pay the sky-high rents around here. My current landlord was smart and allowed people in its building to negotiate a *lower* monthly rent when leases expired -- the company would rather have buildings full of known, reliable tenants than have us leave when the place gets too expensive.

"So Joe, I have a question for you. If I can buy house and pay mortgage, PPT and insurance for only $200 or $300 a month more than I would pay for rent, in the same neighborhood, why would I NOT buy?"

Uh.... maybe to save $2-300/ month (i.e. $2400-$3600/yr) _and_ have the flexibility that comes with not being tied to a mortgage for years. What I would give to turn the clock back to March 2008 and decide to rent rather than take that "incredible deal" that I got in a condo auction!

HolyWhat,
If you can show me a decent home, in a decent nieghborhood within or around Boston for $300-$350K that doesn't require significant work such as a new roof, heating system, or signicant repair that is only $200-300 more per month to own than to rent than I would really like to see this house. Prices need to come down at least another 15% across the board until we reach a point where renting is no longer the better financial option.

I would go even further and say that based on the type of home (modest SF in good condition with 3 bedrooms) I would like to buy, and in the areas I would like to live, I'm actually saving $800-900/month renting based on PITI and maintenance costs I would be paying. If I were saving only 200-300/month that HolyWhat claims I wouldn't be renting.

Sympathy for the single parent who is competing against two or three college students or new grads for a two bedroom.

High rents create high tenant turnover (and temporary vacancies).
High purchase prices cause turnover by foreclosure.

In Boston we have both.

Tell me where you want to live. Everyone says, if you show me a good house, near Boston, blah blah for 300K-350K. There are TONS that don't need major work like a new roof or heating or electrical. If you want to live in Weston or in the Back Bay then you won't find anything. But there are a lot of homes in the 128 belt for that much.

Hey Joe, "decent home" and "decent neighborhood" are in the eye of the beholder, but I could show you my place. A two-bedroom condo with an office in a three-unit house, 1100 sft, in Union Square, Somerville. New roof in 2007, new water heater this year, and the electrical, plumbing, and appliances all work well. It may need a new boiler in the next couple of years.

I've been getting $1800 in rent, as have the owners in an almost identical unit below, for several years. I'd put it on the market tomorrow for $290,000, slightly more than what I paid in 2003. That's 13.5x annual rent. Taxes for city residents are $1500, condo fee is $217. If a buyer puts 10% down, that math works.

I just bought in Feb. 2009 and things are going well. My mortgage, PMI, taxes (without residential exemption so they'll drop in 2010), condo fees, and parking rent are THE SAME as renting a comparable 3 bed/2 bath unit in Chestnut Hill, Brookline. But I bought and got a lower price than what's selling this summer--the seller was desperate. No major repair needs either, roof is almost new, and what needed to be done I had the seller pay for out of pocket. I think buying "off season" seemed to be a much better experience even if there is less choices. But you only need one right place!

I also decided to get my license in May because I figured I'd learned a lot by reading this blog and other websites and house hunting for a 1.5 years that I might as well do rentals on the side of my full time higher ed job. Its been interesting.

My biggest advice to landlords would be definitely to delead. Most renters I find don't want to burden landlords with the expense, and so they tell me upfront they need deleaded. So I try to find them deleaded. And they usually want Newton or Brookline because they have school aged kids. And its really hard to find them what they want! Makes me glad I own and its nice knowing that as long as I delead eventually I can probably rent my place out really quick if I needed/wanted to.

Its an investment in your property landlords! Sometimes you have to put some money back in, you know?

I used to be a renter myself in Allston (less than a year ago in fact) and I now have a GREAT DEAL more sympathy for rental agents having worked as one for a few months. I used to be so mad when I would get notice that we'd have visitors, and then no one would show after I had run around straightening up the place and securing valuables, or I'd get no notice at all and would be in the shower when the bell rang and would have to shoo a bunch of college students off and an agent off.

But now, I make tons of phone calls, track down keys often having to drive to other offices to get them, leaving my license there, call tenants to give notice, and then you know what---the renter flakes out, or cancels at the last minute, or is a no show.

So, "Staying Put"...courtesy is a two way street...as I was driving home to return the keys I had to retrieve across town for a showing that didn't happen, and then made plans to retrieve my boss' license and return another set of keys for the same people to a completely other agency after my boss had taken time out of her day to get those for me since I could not. Then there's the wasted hours e-mailing back and forth, checking listings, phone calls, and gas. Needless to say, I am going to be choosier here on out who I take on as a client. If you are e-mailing 20-30 different agents and expecting all of them to run circles for you, that is the wrong way to go about it. You know, there are very few exclusive rental listings in this city. Anyone can pretty much show you anything. Find an agent with a personality you like and work with them. If you decide you don't like their personality or way of doing things then, switch. I work much harder for a client (even working with very complicated questions and checks and paperwork across the world) when I know there's some loyalty there. Because I'm part-time, like a lot of agents, I have to be selective and quickly determine who is a time-sink and who isn't. After all, I'd rather do nothing and make nothing (spend my little free time with my husband and dog enjoying what's left of the summer) then dealing with people who don't seem to know what they want, don't answer my questions, and aren't honest with me.

Scott, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the Boston City Council proposing Docket #0968 which would make all real estate agents, brokers, and landlords responsible for enforcing zoning restrictions for undergraduate students. The ordinance was discussed yesterday. Violations of the law would incurr a $300 fine for the landlord, broker, and agent. I wonder how this can be right since student status is only something I know from a client themselves (and a 22 year old graduate student/professional looks a lot like a 22 year old college senior). If this law gets passed, landlords and other real estate professionals will really have something to feel sorry about...they will have to be zoning officials in addition to everything else and possibly risk accusations of age-based discrimination against large groups of prospective tenants. Or privacy violations. Or both...

Sorry HolyWhat but I'm not talking about purchasing a home in the Back Bay or Weston. I don't expect that a 4 bedroom 8000sqft home with a two car garage and half acre of land should go for $300K in or 15 minutes from Boston, but sellers are still asking to much for a modest homes that do not need a lot of repair or updating.

accidental landlord,
I agree with you about what is considered decent being in the eyes of the beholder but believe me; I don't have any illusions of what a decent modest home in a decent neighborhood should be, and for what price. I'm not looking for a McMansion because I know that it's just not going to happen in the price range I'm looking for, but homes in various neighborhoods for what I consider "decent" are still being listed for too much money. These homes are being listed in the $425-475K range where I believe that they should realistically be in the $375-400K range. Again, I'm referring to home that do not need significant work.

Thanks for the offer with the condo but I think I'll pass. First of all, I wouldn't be going anywhere near the purchase of a condo with the RE trend and stats concerning condo sales. Second I've always considered condos nothing more than glorified apartments.

Joe - You still have not told me where you are looking and what you consider a 'decent' neighborhood. You also just changed the range of house pirces from $300K-350k to $375k-400k. That is a very big difference and if you want to increase 'affordable' to 375k, there are even more houses to look for. But hey, if you think prices are going to fall another 15% then wait. 10, 20, 30 years from now you will probably still be renting, which is fine if you like it. at a higher rental cost. Those who are buying will have their mortgage payments stay the same and will have something of vaue. Short term housing may go down, may not. But I'm guessing 10, 20 and 30 years from now the house I bought today will sell for at the very least what I paid today.

HolyWhat: The answers to your question are: 1) you can save a minimum of $200-300 bucks per month by renting, 2) you will be able to purchase the same amount of house for much less money within a couple years, 3) renting ties up less capital (no down payment) and leaves you in a much better position to relocate if the need arises, and 4) there is no chance you will find yourself held hostage by an underwater mortgage.

Another thing... I suspect your $200-300 difference ignores many of the hidden costs of ownership. Did you consider maintenance? Did you consider transaction costs? How about factoring in the amount of money you will almost certainly lose in the near term through capital depreciation as prices fall? This last number is hard to pin down, but let's say you're buy a $300k house, and prices fall another 30% ($90,000) over the next 5 years (60 months). Do the math and you've just lost another $1,500 per month. Ouch!

When you add everything up, the difference in cost could easily be $2,000 per month or more. As I've said many times before, now is a terrible time to buy.

HolyWhat: I'm interested in homes within 15 minutes of Boston or within Boston itself (not including areas I would need a bullet-proof vest every time I step out of the house). I hope that answers your question.

The original range of $300-350K was based off of figures from an earlier post that would fit a very conservative range if one were to only pay several hundred dollars more with owning a home rather than renting. That range only represents the arguement that you will not find any decent SF home in that range that does not need significant work. The range I speak of in my last post is one that fits my finances not everyone else.

Funny how you brought up the "you'll still be renting in 10, 20, 30 years" argument if I continue to wait because that's what a lot of real estate bulls were claiming a few years ago when they continually claimed that prices would only drop several percent locally. Maybe prices won't go down much further or maybe they will, but I refuse to buy anything right now at prices which are still not economically rational.

Ok, Look in Malden, Stoneham, Woburn, Burlington, Waltham...you'll find something.

Lance, your whole argument is exactly what I'm talking about. You are assuming that prices will go down. What if they don't? No one knows where they are going to go in the near future. So to say that you can buy a house for 30% less in a few years, and to refute your second point, is completely unfounded. You can't just throw numbers out there without backing them up. The only good point you make is the maintenance cost. You don't have to deal with that. To your first point, you can save $200-300 a month now. What about in 5 years when renting is now the same cost. Your rent goes up, my mortgage payment does not and never will in the next 30 years. Renting might tie up less capital, but at least the down payment is going towards something tangible...like a house, that you own. And to your fourth point, the only people who are 'held hostage by their under water mortgage' are people who could not afford them in the first place. Those are the people that are stuck. The whole point of buying a house is to 'settle down'. I'm not worried about a need to move. I have no need to be able to relocate quickly.

Now a 30% reduction in 5 years...you are dreaming. But even if it does, I don't care. There is something called realized and unrealized gains and losses. If my house 'losses 30% of its value' in the next 5 years...so what. It doesn't hurt me one bit unless I sell it. If I don't sell it, I lose NOTHING. Now let me play the what if game. What if in 15 years, after losing 30%, it is now worth only 10% more than what I paid for it? Now I just made $30k on your same house, plus all my mortgage payments go towards equity, where your rent goes towards someone elses equity.

Thanks for the offer with the condo but I think I'll pass. First of all, I wouldn't be going anywhere near the purchase of a condo with the RE trend and stats concerning condo sales. Second I've always considered condos nothing more than glorified apartments.

Yes well, my point was just that there are reasonable numbers on properties out there.

I didn't realize you were planning to sell again soon. That would be the only reason I can see why current condo sales numbers would matter.

True, many condos are the same as apartments in physical structure. But ownership makes all the difference. Eye of the beholder. Condos are for some people, not for others.

it's obvious. besides saving $$$ by not deleading it gives the landlord an excuse not to rent to people with kids. sure, it's illegal but, as already stated, most tenants don't know and who ever gets caught on it?

also, obviously, these landlords can afford to leave the space(s) empty rather than lower the price to where tenants can afford it. they don't care about the blight of vacant spaces to the community. they'd rather hold out for the high prices of the boom years.

accidental landlord said:
I'd put it on the market tomorrow for $290,000, slightly more than what I paid in 2003.
Were you talking hypothetically? You state: "I would"; or did you mean to say: "I will be".
I ask, as there's nothing NEW matching that description on MLS.

In Massachusetts the real discrimination is against the Landlord. You can't refuse section 8, you can't rent an apartment without paying an extra several thousand to de-lead even if you disclose it, and you can't discriminate against renting to families with children, and on and on...

That said its real simple, you simply deny them for another reason, and there is always something you can find and its almost impossible to prove otherwise... Its a Shame its that way, I doubt our forefathers had this in mind when they protected the rights of property owners

HolyWhat - Burlington and Stoneham are most definitely not within 15 minutes of Boston. Not even close.
Joe - I too was in your range and bought a move-in single family in West Roxbury last year. I had never even been there before, but a friend suggested that or Roslindale. Both appear very stable (just had my house re-appraised to refinance and my value went up 23K), residential, and very, very few foreclosures.It's about 15 minutes from downtown and you get the Boston residential exemption. Schools suck, but if that isn't important to you...Good luck.

Renting is a loser's game - that has not been sufficiently acknowledged on this blog. Say your rent is $1500 per month (conservative for the Boston market) - $18k per year (no roommates). You stay in one place for 5 years . That is $90K in your landlord's pocket while you have no equity or anything other than cancelled checks to show for that time. Unless you are a college student or a very, very young professional (under 23), now is the time to buy - home prices are retreating to an appropriate level and the tax environment has never been better. Youngsters, even long-time renters, start building your equity now for YOUR future instead of literally enriching someone else and building someone else's future.

#30 Michael, I was speaking hypothetically. I have tenants with a new baby signing a new lease. I may end up regretting not selling this year despite the terrible market, but it's too late.

I'm in this weird space. Part of me wishes I'd tried to rid myself of the place during the little spring bump. The other part says, "You can landlord for another few years. Wait until 2014 or 2015 and you'll do ok."

Check back next spring, I'll be mumbling similar things to myself, I'm sure.

Jen, the reason that's not acknowledged on this blog is because it simply isn't true. If you understood what we wrote, you'd see that we respond to it and show that that theory is complete nonsense. If you don't want to do the math, talk to somebody who bought in 2005 and ask how their losses compare to how much they would have "lost" in the rental market.

Holywhat - you posit a false dichotomy. Say prices continue to drop for a few years, as predicted by all real analysts, inside govt and on wall street (google it). Wouldn't it be better to buy at the bottom, rather than now when prices are still dropping?

When is bottom? We've been trying to explain the metrics for understanding that on this blog for years. But a simple way to do it is when prices start rising for a few months. Best place to buy is generally when things start going up, not looking for the precise bottom, which is pretty hard to call.

And when prices rise, they are not going up fast. To repeat, recent history was a bubble. NOT normal. Normally, prices only rise barely above the rate of inflation.

Charles -
Respectfully, I think you are wrong. You and others keep pointing to the height of the market in 2005, but plenty of us bought at other times - some way before that already have significant equity. And as I mentioned, depending on where you buy, prices have dropped only by 10% or not at all. If we look at what Jen is pointing too...that's a loss of 90K! While there is no guarantee, I would rather 90K invested in me than in my landlord. Stop the dramatic prose on the market falling. Yes, it will continue to slide, but no, that doesn't mean everyone should run for the hills. Let's keep both feet firmly planted on solid ground, Charles. Carol

Carol, respectfully, try doing the math. Assume 1998 prices as the baseline, though things will probably overshoot.

Bare in mind that a large portion of most people's mortgage payments, unless they have been in the house 15 years or so, goes to interest. It no more stays in the owners pocket than rent stays in the tenants pocket. There is an interest rate deduction, of course, but if you back out the standard deduction and apply the blended rate, you'll find most of a mortgage payment is "rent" paid to a bank, not a landlord.

This might be fine in an appreciating market, but in a declining market, add in that 10% and now you are paying more than rent. And I haven't even gotten into insurance and maintenance costs.

There are all sorts of resources on the web where you can educate yourself Carol - no need to rely on what I say, btw. Its not a matter of keeping feet on the ground, as I've been saying for years on this blog, its simply a matter of doing the math.

@Charles - let's assume I have a firm and lucid grasp on the economics of the housing market. For those of us who are not speculators and are interested in creating and keeping a home, renting is not a remotely satisfactory emotional or fiscal option for the reasons outlined in my initial post. The Boston market is an artificial one and distorted by the annual influx of students.
Two salient facts - as colleges/universities add to their housing stock, Boston landlords will be adversely impacted - more private units will become available and stay empty. We are just at the beginning of this transformation in the rental market here in Boston.
ii) As more people (non-transients, non-students, people with children under 6) do the math and think about their longterm housing needs (5+ years) and the shoddy rental housing stock on the Boston market exacerbated in part by landlords catering to a student/young professional transient clientele, the financial benefits of home ownership will become bracingly clear . Housing for many of us is not about speculation and turning a profit - it is about finding a safe, welcoming space that is YOURS and where you (and your family) can thrive.

Jen - buying a house as a consumption expense for reasons other than economics makes perfect sense to me. I'm just opposed to people pretending its a good financial decision. Thats the thinking that got us into this mess.

Though I disagree with you on rentals and the benefits of home ownership. As I've posted here many times, I sold most of my real estate back in 2005. Since then, my quality of life has been superb, just as it was before. I'm thriving just fine in my apartment. Many people have grown up in rental apartments and gone on to have happy productive lives - I am completely unaware of any research that shows that who owns the house he or she grows up in determines the life path of a 6 year old. And your own rental theory would indicate that landlords will be sprucing up and/or lowering rents, all to the benefits of renters, as I'm sure is obvious to you from your lucid grasp of housing economics - its straight 3rd week of econ 101 or so.

Whereas there is a lot of research showing that financial stress causes lots of problems. And getting foreclosed on is quite stressful. Do you realize that 20% of "homeowners" with mortgages are in some phase of foreclosure (13%) or missed payments under 90 days (the rest). Do you think those people are happy?

Granted, renting for significantly less, as you can do in most of Boston vs. owning is a no brainer. But there are actually a few instances (not many, not tons) where the mortgage and additional housing expenses match up to a rent payment in some of the area's communities. To me, that's also pretty much a no brainer if you're staying put.

But actually, Charles, the Economist published an article which mentioned the non-financial benefits of home ownership in April. A lot of these facts are very well established in various studies throughout the years--including that children of home owners tend to perform better in school. Not saying that the children of renters are doomed but the correlation is noticeable.

As for me, I'm not a fan of private school education, so I would never buy in an area where my husband and I couldn't invest in the public education system. With not interested in car commutes, that narrows what we were willing to buy in considerably, and none of these places have cheap rentals. The real win-win is to find a free housesitting gig!

From the Economist, April 2009:

"The main arguments for home ownership, though, are not primarily economic, but social. Home ownership, argue those who want to expand it, benefits society because it encourages stable, more law-abiding communities; it makes people more likely to vote in local elections and join clubs; and it benefits future generations because, it turns out, the children of homeowners do better at school and have fewer behavioural problems than children of renters.

On the face of it, the evidence for these claims is strong. In America homeowners are less likely to move than renters, so areas with a lot of homeowners are more stable. According to the 2007 American Housing Survey, homeowners stay where they are for about nine years whereas renters move every two.

More stable neighbourhoods are more law-abiding. According to a study of New York City, the home-ownership rate was second only to income as an explanation for different crime rates.

The link between ownership and political participation is stronger still. In America in the early 1990s, 69% of homeowners voted, compared with only 44% of renters. Homeowners are more likely to know who their representatives are; more likely to support local causes or parent-teacher associations and (this being America) more likely to go to church.

Perhaps the most surprising link is between ownership and children. One study in America found that, in 2000, the mathematics scores of the children of homeowners were 9% higher than those of renters’ children; reading levels were 7% higher. This had nothing to do with income: the research controlled for that. In another study homeowners’ children were 25% more likely to graduate from high school and more than twice as likely to go to university. Their teenage daughters were also less likely to become pregnant.

These studies, though, are not the last word. They find a link between children’s education and homeowning. But is this because, as some suggest, home ownership requires parents to possess managerial or financial skills that they pass on to their children? Or is it because the people with those skills help their children at school and also buy houses? No one knows.

Nor is it certain that owners always take better care of their neighbourhoods than renters do. Some studies claim that the effect in fact depends on a few public-spirited people willing to set an example. Renters can be public-spirited too. In America areas with lots of renters tend to be transient because the typical rental period is short. In Germany, though, people rent for years. Stable neighbourhoods and widespread home ownership can go together but do not need to. As Bill Rohe of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill puts it, “evidence regarding the societal benefits of home ownership is highly conjectural.”

Still, on balance, home ownership gives people a stake in the state of their surroundings. Thriving streets increase the value of properties, giving owners incentives to improve them further. Renters get no such benefit; they may even have to pay more if the neighbourhood improves."

ABG - I actually pretty much agree with all that, though in the case of education always remember that "Correlation is not Causation". On the face of it their is noticeable apparent selection bias.

Still, its interesting. I do doubt that it matters as much as many other variables though. Living in rental housing when I was young (it made financial sense, even though my family could afford to buy - my father was an Econ prof) did not stop either my brother or myself from going to one of the top ivies. And many people we knew there came from rental apartments (though not necessarily typical situations).

Certainly if I had to pick out a variable for success, not watching much TV was much more highly correlated than ownership structure of the primary residence - almost no one I knew watched TV. Its still pretty rare in my cohort - I won't own one myself.

Oh, certainly I agree with you about correlation vs. causation. And certainly faculty (I work with them at Harvard) can be very mobile. But I'm betting the average renter isn't a highly educated faculty member. People like that or educated government workers who relocate every few years are probably a major profile exception. Most renters are just working poor, and I'm sure that's colored the results significantly. They are not necessarily renters by choice, even if that's best for them (obviously given the meltdown).

I can say that as renters with masters degrees, we moved after 6 months (last rental) to staying in one place 2 years (at most). Certainly its true that most people don't rent for long periods, like in Europe, but move around a lot--after all, that's part of the appeal for many.

Home ownership may be something people do because they WANT to stay put or simply because even if they make a mistake they simply HAVE to, and they make the best of the situation and invest in either case. With the latter, investing might pay off in being able to sell their place. I admit, now that we are we are owners, we pay a lot more attention to the neighborhood than we ever did else where. We have skin in the game.

The good news is that if your ownership costs (all of them, including potential repairs, projects, taxes, etc.) match up with local rents, one can always rent the place out if you have to move and at least stay afloat, even if you prefer to sell but can't. I realize that's not a good "investment" from a landlording standpoint, but it is always one way to not go into default and move on other opportunities if they present themselves. We're already paying the non-resident taxes because we bought a vacant property, so no need to worry about cheating the authorities either. The big risk is a terrible tenant, so some serious vetting is required.

If the rental prices had been signficantly less, we'd know that we'd be getting a raw deal. Its still very much a raw deal, I think, when you can rent a place for $1,500 but would have to pay $350,000 for the same place and that is still way too common in the area. But if you really want to buy, there are places where renting costs and owning costs are about the same. It just requires some research and patience and not compromising on your standards. Otherwise, continue to rent.