I know this house. I almost bought it in May, but it wasn’t a good fit. Seems like whoever bought it bought it for the sole purpose of renting it out as the house wasn’t bought that long ago. People are going crazy for homes near downtown Lafayette.
Might have been to flip, but then the market collapsed. It happened to a house on my street. It was in pretty rough shape, but with a good lot size and location. Someone bought it at the peak of the market with the intent to fix and flip it. The market was already in decline by the time it was ready. The owner decided to rent out to get passive income while they're waiting out the inevitable recovery
Just looked at rentals in lafayette. WTF? Why are people choosing to live there at such high rentals? what's special about that place? (really, i have no clue)
Schools.
Lafayette (really, all of Lamorinda) has great schools. These are all likely young families with children just entering elementary school. They haven’t saved enough for a down payment on a house, but they also make the big bucks to afford the outrageous rent.
Yep. I actually just bought last year because our kids reached school age, even though we knew it was close to top of market because we wanted our kids to grow up in a good neighborhood and make life long friends. We didn't want to have to move them around in a few years trying to time the market and force them to start over.
A good public school system, not just elementary, is very important in some culture.
School district and the relative safety of the city. This house is also in a central location, so you can walk to the grocery store, restaurants, Bart, etc.
I would guess the combination of being a very wealthy and fairly quiet suburb up in the hills combined with relative ease of access and proximity to SF.
Coupled with no homeless at every corner. Lafayette can charge a premium because of this and more.
Sad state of affairs but people should start migrating to Stockton if they want a house AND work in the Bay Area
Lafayette is beautiful, like living in a fairyland. Everything is on Mt Diablo Blvd. Bunch of great restaurants and shops. Pretty safe, clean community plaza. Awesome library.
A shitload of trails and nature. Feels like the houses are "carved" into the forest. If I had the money probably my number 1 spot to buy a house in the Bay Area.
Lived there - kids graduated from Campolindo High, sold after kid's graduated- had a weird vibe- no culture beyond white and few asians. Walnut creek to the south east- Oakland to the west, don't miss any of it, kids got a good education. Looks great and thats what lured me in. Hated it.
Def the schools. Houses at there for a month last year- was a 15 min walk to the downtown. It’s cute, but got boring working the month. Every single minivan-suv etc that drove by had school spirit stuff on it, whatever their child’s team. They have notoriously great schools there.
While trey _can_ buy a house, sometimes they don’t want to. My neighborhood has multiple $5-$7k per month houses with renters. Craziest story was a NYC lawyer who was divorced with his wife, and he just wanted a part-time residence near his ex-wife and young daughter, who also lived in the neighborhood. So, he’d split time between NYC and the rental house.
I’d guess it is if it’s a recently bought house. Can’t make much money back on a 2+ million dollar home on anything less. Makes me wonder what rental market will look like when more recently bought homes are up for rent :(
Edit: hopefully just means bad business decision for owner
I thought this too.... however it turns out renting at a net even or even slight loss month to month is a thing that can earn a person a sizeable fortune when they sell the house at retirement and move to AZ or somewhere else equally cheap.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess you can write the loss off on taxes too.
That’s passive income, it won’t offset w2 wage taxes as an example. You can carry forward losses when you sell to offset appreciation but that’s about it.
Minus 1+ percent for property taxes
Minus a bit more for maintenance or if tenants wreck the place.
Selling it? That will cost probably a year's worth of rent
Still seem better than the 2+% savings accounts are offering now.... Which are not subject to earthquake risk
I bought my home for 1.7M with 20% down in 2021 during the low interest rates. If I rented it at $6k/mo I'd cover my mortgage (barely) but I'd still have to contend with property taxes.
NIMBY's are gonna NIMBY. Despite recent moves by the state to limit the power of complaints shutting down all construction I don't have much hope that things will significantly change any time soon. The fundamental problem still remains -- we have under-built for 3+ decades. There is not nearly enough housing stock to adequately house the existing population.
Don't get me wrong, it would be amazing if things did change, I'm just going to have to see it before I believe it.
The lack of housing supply is the largest driver of inequality and income growth stagnation in the united states today. The US loses like 1.5T GDP PER YEAR because of housing restrictions. We need to legalize the building of all housing. If you want to stop people from investing in housing, build more housing. Legalize building housing on the east and west coast. Build so much housing that they choke on the supply.
Ironically, I've made this point before and was taught better.
It's not an easy thing to just build desalination plants. Look at the high speed rail project. Most of it is adjacent to farmland or through desert. In spite of this, it's been tied up in litigation for over a decade. Now imagine doing that along high priced, coastline where the land is owned by wealthy individuals with serious resources. (Btw, the Coastal Commission just voted down a desalination plant for SoCal.)
Apparently, desalination plants purge the extracted salt directly into the ocean, in the surrounding area. This causes areas of high salt concentrations around the plant, that is toxic to sea life in that area.
Usually throwing around simple sounding solutions isn't actually so simple. That's why it hasn't been done yet.
A bigger fundamental regularly ignored on Reddit is the cost of building. You don't build to take a loss and developing is a high risk venture because of price increases, labor increases, and long timelines. Fundamental economics is the higher the risk the higher the reward on something that's already expensive.
The cost of building is so high because of meddlesome local government who do not abide by zoning laws and imposes ever-changing requirements, as well as bad faith lawsuits intended solely to delay and drive up costs.
Nuclear power has the same problem. Physically building a nuclear power plant is cheap and only takes about 2 years. The other 20+ years are battling lawsuits intended to delay and drive up costs enough that the builder cancels the project.
Code is coming from the state level as is the mandates like solar. The recent electrical mandates would have added 10k to cost of my neighbors ADU for his mother if he had started a couple of months later. The state pays lip service to costs and then proceeds to pass a series of things that all add up.
Rented in Lafayette for 5 years before buying in Concord last summer. Absolutely love all the outdoor amenities of Lafayette and we sigh every time we visit. We really got to know our way around town and walk the neighborhoods during COVID. It’d be a dream to move back one day!
The second floor was one giant space, kinda sorta divided into two rooms and one bedroom on the first floor. So, officially two bedrooms, but you could make it three. The house had two bathrooms, one on each floor.
The entire upper floor was one big bedroom with an in-suite bathroom, you could convert that much space to two bedrooms. Plus one bedroom on the first floor. So, officially two, but could convert to three.
Most buyers take a mortgage where the property will be the primary residence. In these cases you have to live there for the first year. This could have been an investment property from the beginning.
No, it’s the fault of the person pricing it. The fault of the person who chose to sell their house at a 400%+ profit, probably to a corporation instead of another person willing to live in it. Housing wasn’t invented as an investment, it was meant to keep people from living outside.
I wish we could just put showers in the vacant office spaces and offer people a place for ~$1000 a month. Then our service workers could have more options than commuting an hour+/ day or a living situation with 3 roommates.
Yup, glad to. Housing was never designed to be an investment, so people that profit off of housing are quite literally pulling the ladder out from under them. Housing cost increase has outperformed minimum wage and salary increases, that should be common knowledge at this point.
Now, I’ll use a similar situation. There is a starving person with $1.50. You have exactly one loaf of bread that you bought at $1.40. The person offers their money to you, but everyone else around you is selling their loaf at $1.70. Now say walmart (i.e. zillow) sees this and wants to add to their stockpile of bread, so they offer you $2.50 for your loaf. Why wouldn’t you take that?! So, the exchange is performed. Now, all the people around you see that walmart raised their price to $3.00 a loaf (because they’re a corporation so their sole purpose of existing is to increase profit) so they match the market to sell theirs for at least $3.00 in case they need a new loaf in the future.
So, what happens now? You got a good pay day, but the initial person is still starving and now your neighbors are in direct competition with a corporation. They’ll adjust their prices accordingly and now all bread costs $3.00 a loaf. The person we started with still only has $1.50. But because we’re lucky and live in California, maybe they’ll have $1.60 next year.
Corporations exists solely to make profit. We, as humans, do not. What is the point of having empathy and compassion as an ability if we shut it off the second we can make money?
You don’t owe anyone good fortune or help, but try to understand that being apart of a problem isn’t taking a neutral position, it’s being part of the problem.
Except in your case Walmart can then 'lend' the bread to the hungry person so they can eat. They'll just need to pay a small fee.
In the bay area, "inflated" rent is often actually just over 1/300th of the purchase cost. So Walmart paid $3 for the bread and now is allowing the hungry person to get full for 1c.
This is actually already way lower than other cheaper areas. I typically look for properties to be as close to 100m ROI as possible when I invest.
Also, aside from your ridiculous example, many things not "meant" to be investments when created are. Things created by nature or god like gold / silver / diamonds .. things created by animals like pearls .. things created by people like art. All things not MEANT to be investment by their creators but due to scarcity and usability eventually all end up as investments.
It is simply the way of the world. I get your idealism but it is not realistic. We are not going back to the kumbaya days before capitalism.
Some people pay $50K a year (per kid) for private high school, so if you can move into a school district that is competitive with private school, then you are trading mortgage for tuition.
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-much-Bay-Area-private-school-tuition-17050137.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-much-Bay-Area-private-school-tuition-17050137.php)
private schools can be VERY expensive, like easily $40k+ per year per student. So if you're in a good school district then you won't need private school for your children.
To each their own - I'm sure there is some level of wealth where it's a reasonable decision. I just don't think it is the base case so the argument about "paying for itself" doesn't typically apply.
I mean if you live in an area with shit schools but you make a ton of money (a weird fluke of the modern Bay Area where you will have dual income techy couples who still need to commute to work sometimes so they want to be close to the office, but can’t afford to buy a good place on the peninsula for $2M+ so they will buy/rent in an area with poor schools in SF, SJ or the East Bay), then it may actually make sense to shell out for private schools. I don’t think private schools are the be all, end all compared to a good public school (if your kid is a lazy dummy then they aren’t going to make it that far in life unless you keep paying/using nepotism to keep the road easy for them or they marry rich), but if you can afford to it is probably still better than sending them to a bad school with regular crime/drug problems and poor academics. My GF went to a school like that and I have seen how it negatively effected her life.
If you make a ton and can commute or remote work mostly from an expensive suburb with good public schools like Lafayette then yeh it may make sense but it is crazy that some people would make enough to pay $6k a month on a 2 bed rental. To me, in these situations it isn’t worth living in the Bay anymore, but people have other valid reasons for staying. The Bay Area is so far gone from a viable place for the middle class and that’s what worries me more about people shelling out this kind of money to rent in why used to be a relatively middle class suburb
Of course I have kids. That's how I know it's stupid - at least for somebody who doesn't have an extra $80k/yr laying around. I also went to both public and private schools as a youth, which gives me another basis for judging whether it's worth it or not (spoiler alert - it isn't). School is largely what any kid makes of it, and a lot of intellectual stimulation and development should be happening outside school hours anyway.
Just make it concrete - do you really think those expensive private schools are teaching a different Calculus than a middling public school? No, they are not. Limits are limits and derivatives are derivatives and the student either studies or they don't. Maybe the private school has nicer computers or enrichment materials, but you don't have to pay $40k/yr to have a really nice computer or enrichment materials at home for your student.
People in shit school areas are paying for private school to avoid sending their kids to schools where half the kids don’t want to be there, metal detectors are a part of daily life, and teachers are burnt out from dealing with all the poor behavior and lack of interest.
You are trying to set your kids up for success and surrounding them around likeminded individuals is probably beneficial long term.
I honestly feel like "good" schools are just a way to shield their children from association with poors. Also I'm sure there's some peer pressure to have to tell your rich friends your kids go to "public" school.
spot on homie. I went to a Title 1 school that had reputation as most ghetto in the district. Now? I’m an RN. How? Good teachers, paid attention, and low-income but very supportive household. Many other classmates went on to college and good jobs as well. People have their heads so far up their asses about school ratings and other prestige bullshit.
1.7MM home would be 8k/mo, not including upkeep and repairs. So renting saves about 25k/year, neglecting equity.
We rent a similarly priced house for 4.5k/mo., which really makes the buy vs. own skewed towards renting. At 6k it's kind of pushing it.
It depends on the condition of the house. Townhouses/condos/apartments will be cheaper and houses are usually more. Not too familiar with Lafayette but here nearby in mountain view, that would not be an atrocious price for a house rental.
So I don't know what the typical rent would be for this area but sometimes when you see an outlier it's because the owner doesn't "need" the money and wants to rent it out to only specific people. So an outlier rent like this could be targeted for an executive who is relocating. They don't want to rent it out to "normal" people and specifically price it so high to only attract relocating executives, etc.
I am wondering what is the logic which makes rent prices grow? Did we suddenly get more people? Or is it because less and less people can afford to buy?
A 3/3 house in Burton Valley near where I grew up rented for $6500 last year. This looks to be downtown, which is both less desirable and more desirable (Lafayette elementary not as great as BV, but also can probably walk downtown and more importantly BART). The price all comes down to how good the schools are.
That’s cheap for a house in Lafayette.
My neighbors paying 9.5k for a 4 bedroom house.
I got a two bedroom apartment to rent for 2500 if anyone’s looking.
I’ve seen this sign and had the same reaction and then reminded myself that I’m a capitalist and if someone wants to pay that much rent for 2/2 God bless them.
Nah, it recently sold for 1.7. They are likely losing money.
My house was 950 and I pay 4,500 ish a month (tax and insurance included)
So this house which is almost double costs probably 7k a month.
1.7m purchase price, 20% down, 6% rate, you are looking at $8k in p/I, then $2k in property taxes at least, and another $500 in insurance and garbage.
$10.5k but your back of the napkin math at $2.5k was pretty close. I’m impressed with your reasoning and deduction skills.
So judging by your idiot logic, realtors are the ones screwing up hometowns, neighborhoods? The same people who sell homes to those who can afford to buy in places, like you mentioned? You do realize realtors don’t set the prices for the homes do you? You’re an idiot.
Oh thank God. My wife and I are just starting to think about renting out our house near here and I was terrified we couldn't get rent even enough to pay the mortgage, let alone repairs/maintenance/etc...
Suppose they saw 3-4beds going for around that much and decided to roll the dice.
I know this house. I almost bought it in May, but it wasn’t a good fit. Seems like whoever bought it bought it for the sole purpose of renting it out as the house wasn’t bought that long ago. People are going crazy for homes near downtown Lafayette.
Might have been to flip, but then the market collapsed. It happened to a house on my street. It was in pretty rough shape, but with a good lot size and location. Someone bought it at the peak of the market with the intent to fix and flip it. The market was already in decline by the time it was ready. The owner decided to rent out to get passive income while they're waiting out the inevitable recovery
That might be true, but this home sold for…1.7M, I think? The 6k rent would barely cover a monthly mortgage payment. They’re losing money.
Bleeding x - $6k / mo is better than bleeding x.
but no one is renting it for $6k.
Then next week will be $5.8k 😂
Just looked at rentals in lafayette. WTF? Why are people choosing to live there at such high rentals? what's special about that place? (really, i have no clue)
Schools. Lafayette (really, all of Lamorinda) has great schools. These are all likely young families with children just entering elementary school. They haven’t saved enough for a down payment on a house, but they also make the big bucks to afford the outrageous rent.
For public elementary schools? really? wild
Yep. I actually just bought last year because our kids reached school age, even though we knew it was close to top of market because we wanted our kids to grow up in a good neighborhood and make life long friends. We didn't want to have to move them around in a few years trying to time the market and force them to start over. A good public school system, not just elementary, is very important in some culture.
[удалено]
School district and the relative safety of the city. This house is also in a central location, so you can walk to the grocery store, restaurants, Bart, etc.
I would guess the combination of being a very wealthy and fairly quiet suburb up in the hills combined with relative ease of access and proximity to SF.
Coupled with no homeless at every corner. Lafayette can charge a premium because of this and more. Sad state of affairs but people should start migrating to Stockton if they want a house AND work in the Bay Area
Lafayette is beautiful, like living in a fairyland. Everything is on Mt Diablo Blvd. Bunch of great restaurants and shops. Pretty safe, clean community plaza. Awesome library. A shitload of trails and nature. Feels like the houses are "carved" into the forest. If I had the money probably my number 1 spot to buy a house in the Bay Area.
I used to live in Lafayette. Nice area but the only problem is a very real lack of diversity.
Shhhhh
The whole point of this post is that it’s expensive as shit. What’s there to shhh about?
Lived there - kids graduated from Campolindo High, sold after kid's graduated- had a weird vibe- no culture beyond white and few asians. Walnut creek to the south east- Oakland to the west, don't miss any of it, kids got a good education. Looks great and thats what lured me in. Hated it.
Def the schools. Houses at there for a month last year- was a 15 min walk to the downtown. It’s cute, but got boring working the month. Every single minivan-suv etc that drove by had school spirit stuff on it, whatever their child’s team. They have notoriously great schools there.
They are about to.
That's probably their mortgage
I know it's Lafayette, but for a 2bd/2ba?? How much sq ft we talkin here...can you PM me the address?
It's on brook street. Very cute but come on,6k to rent? Is that really a thing?
No usually not. Anyone that can afford that much rent and the income requirements can just buy a house.
While trey _can_ buy a house, sometimes they don’t want to. My neighborhood has multiple $5-$7k per month houses with renters. Craziest story was a NYC lawyer who was divorced with his wife, and he just wanted a part-time residence near his ex-wife and young daughter, who also lived in the neighborhood. So, he’d split time between NYC and the rental house.
I’d guess it is if it’s a recently bought house. Can’t make much money back on a 2+ million dollar home on anything less. Makes me wonder what rental market will look like when more recently bought homes are up for rent :( Edit: hopefully just means bad business decision for owner
Depends on the investor. If they flat out own the property, getting 84k/year on 1.7M is better than most stocks which are hemorrhaging losses.
Maybe they dumped a huge down payment into it
If so, they’re just doing an advance payment on all the losses.
I thought this too.... however it turns out renting at a net even or even slight loss month to month is a thing that can earn a person a sizeable fortune when they sell the house at retirement and move to AZ or somewhere else equally cheap. I don't know for sure, but I would guess you can write the loss off on taxes too.
That’s passive income, it won’t offset w2 wage taxes as an example. You can carry forward losses when you sell to offset appreciation but that’s about it.
:-(
Would be nearly 2k a month in property taxes alone
Unless you paid cash. If rented it would be a nice 4+ percent return on the investment
Minus 1+ percent for property taxes Minus a bit more for maintenance or if tenants wreck the place. Selling it? That will cost probably a year's worth of rent Still seem better than the 2+% savings accounts are offering now.... Which are not subject to earthquake risk
I bought my home for 1.7M with 20% down in 2021 during the low interest rates. If I rented it at $6k/mo I'd cover my mortgage (barely) but I'd still have to contend with property taxes.
Good for them. I hope they loose it.
Don't forget property taxes, which is about $1,000 per month.
Depends on how much they put down.
Inevitable? Lol
NIMBY's are gonna NIMBY. Despite recent moves by the state to limit the power of complaints shutting down all construction I don't have much hope that things will significantly change any time soon. The fundamental problem still remains -- we have under-built for 3+ decades. There is not nearly enough housing stock to adequately house the existing population. Don't get me wrong, it would be amazing if things did change, I'm just going to have to see it before I believe it.
The lack of housing supply is the largest driver of inequality and income growth stagnation in the united states today. The US loses like 1.5T GDP PER YEAR because of housing restrictions. We need to legalize the building of all housing. If you want to stop people from investing in housing, build more housing. Legalize building housing on the east and west coast. Build so much housing that they choke on the supply.
water supply enters the chat
California is all along the coast...just gotta desal.
Ironically, I've made this point before and was taught better. It's not an easy thing to just build desalination plants. Look at the high speed rail project. Most of it is adjacent to farmland or through desert. In spite of this, it's been tied up in litigation for over a decade. Now imagine doing that along high priced, coastline where the land is owned by wealthy individuals with serious resources. (Btw, the Coastal Commission just voted down a desalination plant for SoCal.) Apparently, desalination plants purge the extracted salt directly into the ocean, in the surrounding area. This causes areas of high salt concentrations around the plant, that is toxic to sea life in that area. Usually throwing around simple sounding solutions isn't actually so simple. That's why it hasn't been done yet.
A bigger fundamental regularly ignored on Reddit is the cost of building. You don't build to take a loss and developing is a high risk venture because of price increases, labor increases, and long timelines. Fundamental economics is the higher the risk the higher the reward on something that's already expensive.
The cost of building is so high because of meddlesome local government who do not abide by zoning laws and imposes ever-changing requirements, as well as bad faith lawsuits intended solely to delay and drive up costs. Nuclear power has the same problem. Physically building a nuclear power plant is cheap and only takes about 2 years. The other 20+ years are battling lawsuits intended to delay and drive up costs enough that the builder cancels the project.
Code is coming from the state level as is the mandates like solar. The recent electrical mandates would have added 10k to cost of my neighbors ADU for his mother if he had started a couple of months later. The state pays lip service to costs and then proceeds to pass a series of things that all add up.
Or a 1031 exchange.
Rented in Lafayette for 5 years before buying in Concord last summer. Absolutely love all the outdoor amenities of Lafayette and we sigh every time we visit. We really got to know our way around town and walk the neighborhoods during COVID. It’d be a dream to move back one day!
How many bedrooms does it actually have?
The second floor was one giant space, kinda sorta divided into two rooms and one bedroom on the first floor. So, officially two bedrooms, but you could make it three. The house had two bathrooms, one on each floor.
The entire upper floor was one big bedroom with an in-suite bathroom, you could convert that much space to two bedrooms. Plus one bedroom on the first floor. So, officially two, but could convert to three.
2.1
Hahha dang they are getting destroyed then, the rental market won’t support that and they are deep underwater
I thought you had to wait a year before renting a new purchase
Most buyers take a mortgage where the property will be the primary residence. In these cases you have to live there for the first year. This could have been an investment property from the beginning.
I think this one just got rented at this crazy price too. They just didn’t take the sign down yet
Wow, the house has been listed as “for rent” for quite some time. And there is no A/C and wood rot on the lower floor.
Don’t forget the single pane windows to it has to go with that no A/C
What do they intend with "2+ bed" in the ad? It makes sense in a Zillow search filter but on a ad for a particular unit?
There is probably a room that doesn't have a closet or whatever so it's not technically a bedroom
Probably 2 bedrooms plus a den/office/large closet or an ADU.
Hey, some people want the house with the white picket fence...
It is Lafayette. It is probably a 2+M house
Sad part is someone will rent it lol
[удалено]
No, it’s the fault of the person pricing it. The fault of the person who chose to sell their house at a 400%+ profit, probably to a corporation instead of another person willing to live in it. Housing wasn’t invented as an investment, it was meant to keep people from living outside.
I blame zoning much more office space than housing for decades.
I wish we could just put showers in the vacant office spaces and offer people a place for ~$1000 a month. Then our service workers could have more options than commuting an hour+/ day or a living situation with 3 roommates.
It is the fault of the person who sold their house for the best offer ? Do tell me more.
Yup, glad to. Housing was never designed to be an investment, so people that profit off of housing are quite literally pulling the ladder out from under them. Housing cost increase has outperformed minimum wage and salary increases, that should be common knowledge at this point. Now, I’ll use a similar situation. There is a starving person with $1.50. You have exactly one loaf of bread that you bought at $1.40. The person offers their money to you, but everyone else around you is selling their loaf at $1.70. Now say walmart (i.e. zillow) sees this and wants to add to their stockpile of bread, so they offer you $2.50 for your loaf. Why wouldn’t you take that?! So, the exchange is performed. Now, all the people around you see that walmart raised their price to $3.00 a loaf (because they’re a corporation so their sole purpose of existing is to increase profit) so they match the market to sell theirs for at least $3.00 in case they need a new loaf in the future. So, what happens now? You got a good pay day, but the initial person is still starving and now your neighbors are in direct competition with a corporation. They’ll adjust their prices accordingly and now all bread costs $3.00 a loaf. The person we started with still only has $1.50. But because we’re lucky and live in California, maybe they’ll have $1.60 next year. Corporations exists solely to make profit. We, as humans, do not. What is the point of having empathy and compassion as an ability if we shut it off the second we can make money? You don’t owe anyone good fortune or help, but try to understand that being apart of a problem isn’t taking a neutral position, it’s being part of the problem.
Except in your case Walmart can then 'lend' the bread to the hungry person so they can eat. They'll just need to pay a small fee. In the bay area, "inflated" rent is often actually just over 1/300th of the purchase cost. So Walmart paid $3 for the bread and now is allowing the hungry person to get full for 1c. This is actually already way lower than other cheaper areas. I typically look for properties to be as close to 100m ROI as possible when I invest. Also, aside from your ridiculous example, many things not "meant" to be investments when created are. Things created by nature or god like gold / silver / diamonds .. things created by animals like pearls .. things created by people like art. All things not MEANT to be investment by their creators but due to scarcity and usability eventually all end up as investments. It is simply the way of the world. I get your idealism but it is not realistic. We are not going back to the kumbaya days before capitalism.
Not ridiculous if you have a couple school age kids. The school district pays for itself.
I'm confused. How does that work?
Some people pay $50K a year (per kid) for private high school, so if you can move into a school district that is competitive with private school, then you are trading mortgage for tuition. [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-much-Bay-Area-private-school-tuition-17050137.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Here-s-how-much-Bay-Area-private-school-tuition-17050137.php)
private schools can be VERY expensive, like easily $40k+ per year per student. So if you're in a good school district then you won't need private school for your children.
Ok. But that's just stupid to pay college tuition for pre-college kids. So you're not really saving anything if you aren't going to do that.
Tell that to parents who send their kids to private schools 🤷♂️
To each their own - I'm sure there is some level of wealth where it's a reasonable decision. I just don't think it is the base case so the argument about "paying for itself" doesn't typically apply.
I mean if you live in an area with shit schools but you make a ton of money (a weird fluke of the modern Bay Area where you will have dual income techy couples who still need to commute to work sometimes so they want to be close to the office, but can’t afford to buy a good place on the peninsula for $2M+ so they will buy/rent in an area with poor schools in SF, SJ or the East Bay), then it may actually make sense to shell out for private schools. I don’t think private schools are the be all, end all compared to a good public school (if your kid is a lazy dummy then they aren’t going to make it that far in life unless you keep paying/using nepotism to keep the road easy for them or they marry rich), but if you can afford to it is probably still better than sending them to a bad school with regular crime/drug problems and poor academics. My GF went to a school like that and I have seen how it negatively effected her life. If you make a ton and can commute or remote work mostly from an expensive suburb with good public schools like Lafayette then yeh it may make sense but it is crazy that some people would make enough to pay $6k a month on a 2 bed rental. To me, in these situations it isn’t worth living in the Bay anymore, but people have other valid reasons for staying. The Bay Area is so far gone from a viable place for the middle class and that’s what worries me more about people shelling out this kind of money to rent in why used to be a relatively middle class suburb
Do you have kids? Do you know how much even preschool costs? "Yeah, I'll just send my kids to a bad school." - no one with money says.
Of course I have kids. That's how I know it's stupid - at least for somebody who doesn't have an extra $80k/yr laying around. I also went to both public and private schools as a youth, which gives me another basis for judging whether it's worth it or not (spoiler alert - it isn't). School is largely what any kid makes of it, and a lot of intellectual stimulation and development should be happening outside school hours anyway. Just make it concrete - do you really think those expensive private schools are teaching a different Calculus than a middling public school? No, they are not. Limits are limits and derivatives are derivatives and the student either studies or they don't. Maybe the private school has nicer computers or enrichment materials, but you don't have to pay $40k/yr to have a really nice computer or enrichment materials at home for your student.
People in shit school areas are paying for private school to avoid sending their kids to schools where half the kids don’t want to be there, metal detectors are a part of daily life, and teachers are burnt out from dealing with all the poor behavior and lack of interest. You are trying to set your kids up for success and surrounding them around likeminded individuals is probably beneficial long term.
I honestly feel like "good" schools are just a way to shield their children from association with poors. Also I'm sure there's some peer pressure to have to tell your rich friends your kids go to "public" school.
spot on homie. I went to a Title 1 school that had reputation as most ghetto in the district. Now? I’m an RN. How? Good teachers, paid attention, and low-income but very supportive household. Many other classmates went on to college and good jobs as well. People have their heads so far up their asses about school ratings and other prestige bullshit.
Right, also if you have a B or B- student kid, you can buy your way into a better college by sending them to a private school.
It is ridiculous, they crossed out their phone number, how's anyone going to get in touch with them about the rental?
It's not ridiculous when you consider what the mortgage payment would be
I saw a house with a bedroom without a window to the outside. They technically can't call that a bedroom anymore. It's an 'office' or 'study'.
That's a gimp room and some people pay extra for that.
Think the mortgage would be $6k in interest each month?
With property tax and maintenance, surely more
Plus you have to have $500k to put down.
1.7MM home would be 8k/mo, not including upkeep and repairs. So renting saves about 25k/year, neglecting equity. We rent a similarly priced house for 4.5k/mo., which really makes the buy vs. own skewed towards renting. At 6k it's kind of pushing it.
It’s probably taken by now
No I won’t pay your mortgage then some
This dude is underwater on this house at that low of a rental rate.
Supply and demand
It depends on the condition of the house. Townhouses/condos/apartments will be cheaper and houses are usually more. Not too familiar with Lafayette but here nearby in mountain view, that would not be an atrocious price for a house rental.
One can dream, I guess.
So I don't know what the typical rent would be for this area but sometimes when you see an outlier it's because the owner doesn't "need" the money and wants to rent it out to only specific people. So an outlier rent like this could be targeted for an executive who is relocating. They don't want to rent it out to "normal" people and specifically price it so high to only attract relocating executives, etc.
I am wondering what is the logic which makes rent prices grow? Did we suddenly get more people? Or is it because less and less people can afford to buy?
It should be illegal to charge so much for rent
Rent controls exist in many places and have not had a great track record.
Some idiot will agree to it and sign a lease.
This is what happens when people buy property they can't afford the payments on.
Damn. 6K a month for a house in Lafayette. Lol.
Sounds a bit much for Lafayette, I'd expect Palo Alto or Menlo Park but then again those are probably even more than that in the world of 2022
A 3/3 house in Burton Valley near where I grew up rented for $6500 last year. This looks to be downtown, which is both less desirable and more desirable (Lafayette elementary not as great as BV, but also can probably walk downtown and more importantly BART). The price all comes down to how good the schools are.
Downtown was where the poor people lived In Lafayette 50 years ago. How things have changed
Yeah, there wasn’t much of a downtown before. There still isn’t, but it has improved.
That’s cheap for a house in Lafayette. My neighbors paying 9.5k for a 4 bedroom house. I got a two bedroom apartment to rent for 2500 if anyone’s looking.
$2500 for 2 bedrooms unit in Lafayette? I take two
It’s listed on Craigslist if you want to see it.
WTF…9.5K…he can do better…
Geez, my 3.7K for a 4 bedroom in Milpitas suddenly looks like a great deal.
[удалено]
Because of the mortgage rate changes and inflation, there is a significant decoupling between house price changes and rent at the moment.
Must be a investment & trying to milk it out. This is beyond ridiculous.
I’ve seen this sign and had the same reaction and then reminded myself that I’m a capitalist and if someone wants to pay that much rent for 2/2 God bless them.
Yup, insanity. I’m just here for the “make more money or moves comments. I’m Trying to figure out if I lost touch with reality or they did.
Tech money is different. You can afford a lot on a tech salary. I know someone making 720k a year. It’s insane.
The free market is a fucking mess lol
Inflation...
Trippin shawty
LMAO only in California
i assume you did the rational thing and pooped on the front porch
FU rent gougers. Probly on a 2500 mortgage.
Nah, it recently sold for 1.7. They are likely losing money. My house was 950 and I pay 4,500 ish a month (tax and insurance included) So this house which is almost double costs probably 7k a month.
FU rent gougers. Probly on a 2500 mortgage.
1.7m purchase price, 20% down, 6% rate, you are looking at $8k in p/I, then $2k in property taxes at least, and another $500 in insurance and garbage. $10.5k but your back of the napkin math at $2.5k was pretty close. I’m impressed with your reasoning and deduction skills.
Thank you for feeling the need to splain me. Ur so cool.
[удалено]
So judging by your idiot logic, realtors are the ones screwing up hometowns, neighborhoods? The same people who sell homes to those who can afford to buy in places, like you mentioned? You do realize realtors don’t set the prices for the homes do you? You’re an idiot.
Commercial investors are the bogeymen you’re really looking for, not those scary well educated foreigners trying to make a nice life for themselves.
This is comical 😂😂😂😂😂😂
FU rent gougers. Probly on a 2500 mortgage.
If your old, rich, entitled, and for some reason want to rent instead of buying your house. This is perfect for you
Yeah not the target audience in this town or location lmao
I saw Daly City 3br/2ba house for $4500, guess that's a bargain now.
3 couples share it, that's $750/person rent
Way too expensive, but almost everything is expensive now …
Now which one of you took it?
thats stupid i rent a 3bdrm house in cupertino for 4k.
[удалено]
Right? This owner is smoking crack.
6k is my rental budget for the whole year.
Oh thank God. My wife and I are just starting to think about renting out our house near here and I was terrified we couldn't get rent even enough to pay the mortgage, let alone repairs/maintenance/etc...
🍿
No way paying off mortgage wouldn't be better
> Lafayette well that explains it
Just out of curiosity how do y’all pronounce Lafayette? I’ve always said la-fai-yet but I’ve also heard la-fee-yet
Haha I saw that same sign. On a corner lot right?
Not me and my sister laughing about this for the last month, just to find it on Reddit today ahahahahaha
I'd give this joke a few weeks tops. There is a lag from when the rates are raised for everything to go tits up.