>>>There's little choice but to make these people into renters again. The least tumultuous and least costly path is to allow them to stay in the home<<<
I am a little confused about your meaning. When you say, "keep them in their homes," do you mean:
1) keep them in their homes as owners, or
2) keep them in what used to be their home but as renters?
I go with option #2. Keep them in situ but send ownership elsewhere. Also give them a big incentive to take care of the place. No doubt you would want to give them an option to repurchase the place.
Another twist you don't hear much about....When interest rates go negative (OK zero) there will hardly be any mortgage interest to deduct. Lets say that you literally have a zero percentage interest mortgage. All you are doing is making monthly principle payments. How does that crank into the price/rent arguments. It makes renting look a little more attractive. I would have to run a lot of numbers of course. Again if you crank in falling house values............ Ugly, ugly, ugly.
And the freaking homebuilders want to get $50 billion or so to go increase the supply!?!?!?!?!
How about Toll Brothers property management corporation. Hey!!! They built them, lets have them deal with renters, broken pipes, crack pipes, leaky roofs, late payments, etc, etc, etc. Makes sense, doesn't it??? I mea after all, they are next in line behind Detroit in laying off thousands. They know the houses..they built them after all.
Oh. How about Toll Brothers yard maintenance and landscaping. You know...a jobs program. Hey!!! Better than extended unemployment benefits....for the hundredth time. |
