Author Topic: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent  (Read 4814 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« on: January 27, 2011, 03:02:59 AM »
Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent



If you're a qualified buyer and thinking of renting in Jacksonville, you may want to reevaluate.  According to Truila.com, a San Francisco-based real estate website, Jacksonville is one of the top cities in the country to consider buying over renting.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jan-jacksonville-a-top-city-to-buy-instead-of-rent

peestandingup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2011, 07:05:34 AM »
Unless of course you bought your home in 2006/2007 (like we did). Then, the joke's on you. Wocka wocka wocka!

Hurricane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2011, 08:00:45 AM »
Yep.  I bought in 2007 for $230 and it is now worth $88.  I'll be stuck there until I get the loan paid off in 27 years...  I only wish I was smart enough to wait until now to buy.  My condo was originally $270, so I thought I was buying at the right time.  What an idiot I turned out to be. 

If you were to buy a 2/2 condo for $88, the monthly cost with HOA dues would only be about $800 per month ($400 per month per bedroom).  Buying would make a lot of sense. 

Cricket

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Erotic Wood ...
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2011, 08:47:54 AM »
Unless of course you bought your home in 2006/2007 (like we did). Then, the joke's on you. Wocka wocka wocka!

Not necessarily. If you sold a home at the height of the market in, say the Northeast, for top dollar and you bought in Jacksonville in the same period, you are still ahead of the game. It's all relative. Of course not so with first time buyers.
"If we bring not the good courage of minds covetous of truth, and truth only, prepared to hear all things, and decide upon all things, according to evidence, we should do more wisely to sit down contented in ignorance, than to bestir ourselves only to reap disappointment."

Bativac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2011, 09:49:37 AM »
I'm a first time buyer... we bought in 2009. But the seller came down like $75k! And it was appraised for $40k more than we paid for it!

I hope I didn't do something stupid. At the time, we thought the market was low. Plus our mortgage is the same as we were paying in rent (well, it was, til some kind of tax increase resulted in my monthly escrow payment going way up).

If I had it to do again, I'd reconsider. But such is life!

peestandingup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2011, 10:05:03 AM »
Well, I sorta had my arm twisted (by the wifey). But I've personally never liked the idea of homeownership unless you're absolutely sure you'll be living in the thing for most of your life. And really, who even knows that they're going to do that these days.

Its too much of volatile market to ever really screw around with as far as I'm concerned.

Bativac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2011, 10:11:21 AM »
Well, I sorta had my arm twisted (by the wifey). But I've personally never liked the idea of homeownership unless you're absolutely sure you'll be living in the thing for most of your life. And really, who even knows that they're going to do that these days.

Its too much of volatile market to ever really screw around with as far as I'm concerned.

I kind of agree. I know we won't be living in this house most of our lives (heck, maybe another 5 years).

I think I just got tired of lining my landlord's pockets while being unable to change the house to suit my tastes. At least now I can paint, pull up flooring, build fences, install crown molding, etc etc...

I won't lose sleep over it or anything but sometimes I worry that I paid too much.

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11434
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2011, 10:53:43 AM »
Unless of course you bought your home in 2006/2007 (like we did). Then, the joke's on you. Wocka wocka wocka!

Not necessarily. If you sold a home at the height of the market in, say the Northeast, for top dollar and you bought in Jacksonville in the same period, you are still ahead of the game. It's all relative. Of course not so with first time buyers.

exactly...I made a 130% profit on my first home in Tampa (owned from 2001 to 2005)....and then made another 42% on my second home in Tampa that I owned for about a year...so, while I'm down about $70,000 on my home here (purchased in 2006), I'm still way ahead.

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2011, 11:33:42 AM »
House prices will keep falling in the areas where prices are still dangerously high compared to incomes and rents. Banks say a safe mortgage is a maximum of 3 times the buyer's annual income with 20% downpayment. Landlords say a safe price is a maximum of 15 times the house's annual rent. Yet in affluent areas, both those safety rules are still being violated and there is still a huge housing bubble. Buyers are still borrowing 6 times their income and putting only 3% down, and sellers are still asking 30 times annual rent, even after recent price declines. Renting is a cash business that proves what people can really pay based on their salary, not how much they can borrow. Salaries and rents prove that those high prices will keep falling for a long time. Anyone who bought a "bargain" in those areas last year is already sitting on a very painful loss.

On the other hand, prices in some poor neighborhoods have now fallen well below the cost of renting. In those housing markets, gross rents exceed 10% of the price of a house. Housing prices could still fall more if unemployment rises or interest rates go up, but on a month-to-month basis, the buyer of a very cheap house wins. So the housing market is split.

It's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same size and quality house, in the same school district. On rich neighborhoods, annual rents are 2.5% of purchase price while mortgage rates are 5%, so it costs twice as much to borrow the money as it does to borrow the house. Renters win and owners lose! Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance come to about 9% of purchase price, which is more than three times the cost of renting and wipes out any income tax benefit.

The only true sign of a bottom is a price low enough so that you could rent out the house and make a profit. Then you'll know it's safe to buy for yourself because then rent could cover the mortgage and all expenses if necessary, eliminating most of your risk.


Bativac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2011, 11:45:22 AM »
House prices will keep falling in the areas where prices are still dangerously high compared to incomes and rents. Banks say a safe mortgage is a maximum of 3 times the buyer's annual income with 20% downpayment. Landlords say a safe price is a maximum of 15 times the house's annual rent. Yet in affluent areas, both those safety rules are still being violated and there is still a huge housing bubble. Buyers are still borrowing 6 times their income and putting only 3% down, and sellers are still asking 30 times annual rent, even after recent price declines. Renting is a cash business that proves what people can really pay based on their salary, not how much they can borrow. Salaries and rents prove that those high prices will keep falling for a long time. Anyone who bought a "bargain" in those areas last year is already sitting on a very painful loss.

On the other hand, prices in some poor neighborhoods have now fallen well below the cost of renting. In those housing markets, gross rents exceed 10% of the price of a house. Housing prices could still fall more if unemployment rises or interest rates go up, but on a month-to-month basis, the buyer of a very cheap house wins. So the housing market is split.

It's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same size and quality house, in the same school district. On rich neighborhoods, annual rents are 2.5% of purchase price while mortgage rates are 5%, so it costs twice as much to borrow the money as it does to borrow the house. Renters win and owners lose! Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance come to about 9% of purchase price, which is more than three times the cost of renting and wipes out any income tax benefit.

The only true sign of a bottom is a price low enough so that you could rent out the house and make a profit. Then you'll know it's safe to buy for yourself because then rent could cover the mortgage and all expenses if necessary, eliminating most of your risk.

I think all of this is true if you're looking at a house as nothing more than an investment. Sometimes there's more to it than that.

My wife and I wanted someplace that we could renovate if we desired and live in for 7 to 10 years. We bought it pretty cheap - less than 3 years of my salary alone, to say nothing of mine and my wife's. So we aren't too concerned about what we paid. Our goal in the end is to break even on the house. Basically, to be where we would be had we been renting the entire time. If we make more than that, then it's a bonus. But as long as we don't lose money, and I don't think we will, then we're fine with what we paid for what we got. We aren't really worried about it. We didn't think of it as an investment per se.

I know a handful of people who bought properties as "investments" and are now off licking their wounds...!

peestandingup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2011, 11:58:34 AM »
Maybe for basic necessities like housing, food & oil/gas, they should just cost whatever the materials & labor costs to produce them, instead of letting pure speculation determine their worth?? Seems like that's where we run into trouble.

Clem1029

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2011, 01:00:10 PM »
House prices will keep falling in the areas where prices are still dangerously high compared to incomes and rents. Banks say a safe mortgage is a maximum of 3 times the buyer's annual income with 20% downpayment. Landlords say a safe price is a maximum of 15 times the house's annual rent. Yet in affluent areas, both those safety rules are still being violated and there is still a huge housing bubble. Buyers are still borrowing 6 times their income and putting only 3% down, and sellers are still asking 30 times annual rent, even after recent price declines. Renting is a cash business that proves what people can really pay based on their salary, not how much they can borrow. Salaries and rents prove that those high prices will keep falling for a long time. Anyone who bought a "bargain" in those areas last year is already sitting on a very painful loss.

On the other hand, prices in some poor neighborhoods have now fallen well below the cost of renting. In those housing markets, gross rents exceed 10% of the price of a house. Housing prices could still fall more if unemployment rises or interest rates go up, but on a month-to-month basis, the buyer of a very cheap house wins. So the housing market is split.

It's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same size and quality house, in the same school district. On rich neighborhoods, annual rents are 2.5% of purchase price while mortgage rates are 5%, so it costs twice as much to borrow the money as it does to borrow the house. Renters win and owners lose! Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance come to about 9% of purchase price, which is more than three times the cost of renting and wipes out any income tax benefit.

The only true sign of a bottom is a price low enough so that you could rent out the house and make a profit. Then you'll know it's safe to buy for yourself because then rent could cover the mortgage and all expenses if necessary, eliminating most of your risk.
Some of this assumes a logical market movements without major distortions though, doesn't it? Because from my recent experiences, the residential rental market around town is so completely distorted that I completely buy Trulia's rankings.

The biggest problem with the rental market are people who are "forced" landlords - i.e., they're stuck with an underwater place and figure putting it up for rent is better than foreclosure since it helps pay the mortgage. A straight check of Craigslist bears this out - landlords are charging rent based on what they owe rather than the fair market value of the house. In two different parts of town that I've looked into (Mandarin and Fleming Island), rents were something like 10-15% actual market value. I'm sure this varies by neighborhood, but holy hell, I would have LOVED to find a nice neighborhood where annual rents were 2.5% of the purchase price. And this isn't in "poor" neighborhoods - this is everywhere. So even if total costs of ownership ended up at 9% of the purchase price, if rents are at 10-15%, then at least it's a wash from a financial standpoint.

From there, there's a ton of other variables - being tied down vs. being able to move easy, how much one puts down, how long someone plans on staying there, having a place to yourself to customize, etc. But for someone in the right spot that wants/is able to buy now, to me it made a little more sense to buy than rent from a pure financial position (which is what I did last fall). As always, YMMV.

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2011, 01:11:40 PM »
As always, YMMV.

Of course that, along with "Past Performance Does Not Predict Future Returns" should be everyone's perspective.

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4306
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2011, 01:49:32 PM »
Quote
I think I just got tired of lining my landlord's pockets while being unable to change the house to suit my tastes. At least now I can paint, pull up flooring, build fences, install crown molding, etc etc...

This is my main reason for wanting to buy.  I don't require much, but I have very specific tastes.  being able to cater my living environment to my needs, lifestyle, and preferences is huge in my book.  You can hang pictures, change lighting fixtures (sometimes) and paint walls in an apartment, but you've got to undo it all when you leave or pay the fee.  A lot of the time, the changes you made added value to the space you were renting as well.

Lucasjj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
Re: Jacksonville a Top City to Buy instead of Rent
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2011, 01:54:42 PM »
My fiance and I bought last March, and our total payment is only $75 more a month than what we were paying in rent. Both the rental and our home are in Riverside. So once you thrown in the tax effects, we are easliy paying less than we were. Of course upkeep and putting your own touches costs some bucks, but as others have stated, thats one of the pluses.