Same, my house is cheaper per month than most 2 bedroom apartments anywhere in North Dallas, and I have a lot more than 2 bedrooms. The taxes are not great as pointed out but you're paying property taxes either way if you rent, you're just also subsidizing your landlord.Even without appreciation....
When you buy a house with a mortgage you're buying it in "today dollars", which then inflate, but your mortgage payment doesn't (unless you are an idiot and sign an ARM) outside insurance and tax increases. When I bought my house my mortgage payment wasn't that far off from what many friends were paying for rent for their places.. Now 20 years in and almost paid off I'm spending on a 2800 sq ft house less than an average 1 bedroom apartment will run you in the same area of town.
I'm in pretty much the same boat. Around $55k left on the house, been here for 20 years (also did a refi, but for me it was a 3% lock-in). House is already worth 3x what I paid, will probably be 4x before I sell it. Plan on buying land outside town and building there, then move there and rent this house until I am ready to liquidate it.Same, my house is cheaper per month than most 2 bedroom apartments anywhere in North Dallas, and I have a lot more than 2 bedrooms. The taxes are not great as pointed out but you're paying property taxes either way if you rent, you're just also subsidizing your landlord.
The trick is you need to be stable in where you live, I've lived here almost 13 years now, and no plans to move. It'll be paid off in 10 more years (I refi'd once to a 15 year 2.2%... lol) and it has already more than doubled in value. Will likely double again before I move for a tidy 200% gain.
Buying this house was probably the best financial decision I ever made.
well hoa fees is basically land taxes, if you don't pay the fees, they can take your condo, it's just that the hoa voted sell, so youre fuckedThey do own their condos. Just not the building or the land it sits on.
And it's only one step away from the people who think they actually own their land, when if they don't pay taxes, well...see where that gets you.
ppl who believe they actually own thier condo, lulz
some1 make sense of these taxes
![]()
also lulz at the last pic
![]()
71 Bradford St, San Francisco, CA 94110 | Zillow
71 Bradford St, San Francisco CA, is a Single Family home that contains 1238 sq ft and was built in 1915.It contains 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom.This home last sold for $945,000 in September 2023. The Zestimate for this Single Family is $979,900, which has increased by $26,971 in the last 30...www.zillow.com
they own all that, and have a disgusting jungle
If I had to hazard a guess, and its probably pretty accurate - they have a country mile long list of requirements for a new build. Something akin to what Blazin was talking about with his property, where it cost a quarter million, if not more, just to have proper land drainage etc in that San Fran lot. Knowing San Fran, you probably have to donate a million dollars to some LGBT fund or something, too.*edit, on research, thats an empty lot, why the hell is there an empty lot in san fran?
![]()
666 Peralta Ave, San Francisco, CA 94110 | Zillow
666 Peralta Ave, San Francisco CA, is a Vacant Land home that was built in 1900. The Rent Zestimate for this Vacant Land is $3,768/mo, which has increased by $3,768/mo in the last 30 days.www.zillow.com
If that's in SF proper I would say chances are the home had been owned by someone in a family and under homestead style property tax exemption for some amount of time capping the maximum amount of taxes. The home then changed hands, and that triggered a "reset" of tax assessment on the property which then took in the current actual market value and no homestead exemption. Of course I don't know California, and SF property tax intricacies so I could be randomly babbling insanity right now.
then i def would have gotten a 6000 sq/ft home, hehAnd since we're on the subject, there needs to be a constitutional amendment that your primary living property cannot be taxed.
Run for President on the promise of signing an executive order stating primary living property is exempt from being taxed and over time wages can’t be taxed and you will in a landslide and preside in landfill.it's not even an exemption, it's the way property is taxed in CA. The property is assessed when it is sold/bought and that's the tax payment (plus I think a slight inflation bump per year) until it's sold/bought again.
One of the few things they do right and will likely be changed for the worse by the end of the decade.
And since we're on the subject, there needs to be a constitutional amendment that your primary living property cannot be taxed.
Run for President on the promise of signing an executive order stating primary living property is exempt from being taxed and over time wages can’t be taxed and you will in a landslide and preside in landfill.
My city gets a huge chunk of its revenue from property taxes, most of which are primary living properties. How would you want them to replace those funds?And since we're on the subject, there needs to be a constitutional amendment that your primary living property cannot be taxed.
Grand Canyon Univeristy did exactly that 10 years ago. Used shell companies to buy up majority interest in condos adjacent to their campus then forced the remaining owners to sell.Some super rich investor could come in and buy out the leading majority of the condominiums and then force a sale at a rock bottom price and it would be up to the remaining home owners to fight it in court, with limited funds.
Why start with the assumption that those funds need to be replaced?My city gets a huge chunk of its revenue from property taxes, most of which are primary living properties. How would you want them to replace those funds?