« James Holmes really was a genius | Main | Darwin award, Afghanistan style »

August 26, 2012

Comments

@HS: "What’s the catch?"

Boise, ID.

Always remember the three most important factors in real estate.

@HS: "Maybe the catch is that it’s sort of a townhome"

It's a condo. Did you even click on the link before posting it?

@HS: "you might get stuck with a prole neighbor who blasts heavy metal music, owns a pitbull, and generally makes your life miserable."

Of worse, you could have SWPL neighbors running the HOA, so you get to pay for the privilege of their making your life miserable.

HS,

Even if the neighbors were quiet and good people, the houses there would be very cheap.

The value of real estate is mostly based on what's called "location" value, or "site" value, or land value. The cost of the actual house, the building, is a minor component. You could apply mass manufacturing to building houses and bring down the cost of the building, including mansions, very low. But the price of housing would still vary and could be very high based on location/site/land value.

The location/site/land value depends on various factors like population, population density, access to amenities, access to transportation (from simply good roads to trains, airports, etc.), luxuries, entertainment, commerce, etc.

Maybe the "catch" is that it's in Boise, ID.

Nice map...the property is crime-adjacent.

Boise got a lot more Mexicans than we did in Montana. The housing bubble was really building up fast for awhile so they were probably doing the usual drywall/yardwork thing they do in Socal.

There are no jobs and nothing to do.

Land is a big component of housing prices. I would imagine that land in Boise is relatively inexpensive, as there is ample room for expansion to the west and south. Labor is certainly cheaper, probably nonunion for the most part.

"Of worse, you could have SWPL neighbors running the HOA, so you get to pay for the privilege of their making your life miserable." - John


I lived in an area with a weak HOA and an area with a strong HOA and I prefer the latter. The dues and aggressive bylaws scare off the riffraff. Plus our private security forces are armed and due a much better job at keeping us safe than the worthless police. I live in a racially diverse area so HOAs makes a big difference. Otherwise you need to live in a very pricey place to avoid trash neighbors and their junk cars from ruining your quality of life.

There aren't many jobs in Boise. A LOT of Californians sold their homes, moved to Boise and then started looking for jobs ... they got a killing off selling their homes in Cali. When they get to Boise, they buy a "cheap" house - not necessarily quality cheap, just inexpensive - then they find there are no jobs in Boise, so they start their own company.

There are so many nice, new homes in Boise b/c all the farmers are selling their land and retiring rich. But the jobs sector hasn't quite caught up to the housing market.

I grew up around Boise ... I wouldn't buy the house in the link. You'd be living next to white trash or Mexicans.

summary answer: cheap labor, lots of land.

What kind of listing has only one exterior photo?


According to the listing, the neighborhood is good. That's good enough. I don't think it could get worse than any of the SWPL encroachment NAM neighborhoods that you find in the left leaning cities.

Only 1% NAM - which is also good. White trash shouldn't be a concern, when the ratings of safety and schools is 3 out of 4 stars. NYC SWPL neighborhoods would be the equivalent, except it would cost an arm and a leg to live there. Besides, I would assume the people in Boise are lot more down to earth than those in the big cities. Dealing with arrogance can spice up your life, but overall, it's bad for your health. Cities with great nightlife are only for those who want toxicity like booze that comes with it.


Conquistador, an HOA spread among 100+ houses is one thing. A condo association with 2-10 members really increases the liability on a single homeowner. I agree in a housing development that an HOA is helpful, but some of these smaller condo-townhouse devs are something else entirely.

Sounds like I was right about Mexican-adjacent.

83% white, 9% Hispanic, and only 1% black? Sounds pretty good.......

"ccording to the NY Times Census map, this house is in a Census tract that is 83% white, 9% Hispanic, and only 1% black."

That shows how much this country is going downhill.

It's only 83% white in Boise, Id?

The suburb I grew up in near Chicago was 99.9% white in the 70's and early 80's. That's 1 in 1000 and some of those were Asian and now Boise is only 83% white.

Boise was pickked by Outside Magazine in the early 90's as one of the best places to live in America.

Not very many people want to live there, and there is a lot of space. Simple as that.

High school rating is good, but the elementary is rated a 2 out of 10. It's likely full of kids from NAM and/or prole families. 50% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. ISAT standardized test scores for all subjects are lower than state and district average. 17% of students are Hispanic.

http://www.schooldigger.com/go/ID/schools/0210000374/school.aspx

http://www.trulia.com/schools/ID-Boise/Ustick_Elementary_School/

http://www.localschooldirectory.com/public-school/23954/ID

[HS: Wow, that schooldigger site is a great place for finding SWPL neighborhoods.]

83% White, 9% Hispanic, 1%Black

What's the other 7%? Tribal Amerindians? Asians?


a. Thats about what you'd pay in upstate New York. I didnt see the taxes for this one, and that is where New York State soaks people. With modern building techniques and project planning everything is much faster than 20 years ago. And faster = less expensive.

b. I really m soured on the idea of a complex with a "mix of affordable housing". If anything they should charge a a premium for townhomes. There is a development near me that has its own golf course, TPC, million dollar home section, a section in the 400's and 500's, but they made the mistake of putting in condos too. The problem is that you get a striver type that buys the place and they are fie people. But they have relatives that are shadier who come to stay, maybe because they want the kid in a better school. And those people who have friends who are worse. All of a sudden the trim, clean neighborhood plaza has urban teens shuffling around.

Its like the Trayvon thing. The kid didn't live in that neighborhood. The mother didnt live there. The father didnt live there. But when the kid starts getting into trouble the family wants to send him somewhere away from the bad element- not caring that he is the bad element.

Doesn't look like a big bargain to me. It's a low end condo (no garage and it appears parking could be tight) in a not so great location (two payday loan outfits nearby) and the google maps image shows the pool is the sickly green you get when no one is maintaining it.

[HS: Even in Boise, I guess a decent place to live costs six figures. Although the cheapo condo in Boise is probably better than living in the Bronx.]

Because the only restraint on supply is mostly how quickly builders can convert farmland into housing. It costs almost nothing to build a house, most of the price is land/zoning restrictions.

Half too often you seem like the embodiment of this illustration:
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/steinberg-newyorker.jpg
There's a whole world beyond 12th av, you may want to visit sometime.

[HS: You know that I lived for nearly a decade in flyover country, right? (that is if Arizona counts as flyover country) ]

The other commentators got it. The catch is that there are no jobs. You have lower cost of living, but if you are taking in no income its a losing proposition. That is why you see ridiculously low housing costs in parts of the country.

I would actually love to move somewhere out in the sticks and live off my savings at this point, but since I am in my early forties, my savings would run out long before I died.

"There's a whole world beyond 12th av, you may want to visit sometime".

NYC doesn't have much value when it comes quality of life issues, unless you are multi-millionaire or richer. We all know this. Cost of living here is expensive, everyone is packed together with all the noise, pollution and high level stress.

Then we have the NAM issue and I don't see this problem going away anytime soon. The mass influx of SWPLs into the city only fuels more resentment and segregation from native NAMs who were always the have nots.

I was wondering if we can be pioneers again, even in flyover country and start afresh, leaving the left leaning cities altogether, that have seem to stagnated like a dead stream.

The address on the picture is 103. The listing address is vacant land it appears. I imagine that the picture of the town home is one that can be built on the vacant lot. In other words, the house in question does not exist yet. Perhaps I've missed it though.

"...so you might get stuck with a prole neighbor who blasts heavy metal music, owns a pitbull..."
It's not the breed of dog that matters, it's how the owner raises and treats the dog.

[HS: Yea, and race doesn't matter either, it's how you educate the child.]

The comments to this entry are closed.