Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Off Topic
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 11 years ago,

User Stats

170
Posts
23
Votes
Ryan Watson
  • New to Real Estate
  • Indianapolis, IN
23
Votes |
170
Posts

Debate of Subdivision Morals

Ryan Watson
  • New to Real Estate
  • Indianapolis, IN
Posted

I'd like to talk about this topic with everybody because I feel its a legitimate problem. WIth a recession upon us we know the housing boom was part of it. Including the fact that some entire housing developments were made just for people who couldnt afford them.

Do you ever look at airial photography and plot viewers and think to yourself "man, that guy subdivides like a jack###"? Some maps tell house density, ranging from 1 to 4 or 5 dwellings per acre of land.

When will developers draw the line between putting people in danger and trying to make a profit? Now I know the idea is to get as many as you can, but when one house catches on fire and takes 2 more with it, there is a problem. It dont matter what the extent of the damage is, most of the time its bad, especially when houses are 20 - 30ft apart. This would be an example of roughly 3+/- houses per acre.

There was a development nearby years ago, i seen for myself. These houses that people were charged anywhere from 85,000 to 120,000 for sure did get the shaft IMO! When you look at all the prefab walls, not 1 2x4 was whole. Instead spliced and glued together in pieces no more than 18 inches long. Things like the storm sewers lacked proper bedding material for code that would wash out easy under asphalt. Oh yea, and the asphalt was ontop of dirt. No stone subgrade. So you get all these junk cracker boxes that aint worth what people are paying for then they default on their loans? No wonder the bailouts had to happen! I mean duh, come on!

I would not buy a house in these types of neighborhoods. The only way i would buy in a neighborhood like that is if i could get 5 houses together for no more than 50,000. Keep one house, demolish the house on both sides of me, and 2 behind me while im at it. Afterwords it would be questionable if i would go ahead and do the house i'd want to keep, infact i would if it was on a concrete slab, becasue you cant get to the utilities without digging inside of your house.(common sense went out the window again didnt it?). I wouldnt care about the hastle with permits and utility disconnects, it would bring me joy to go in and have 5 houses down and cleared out in less than 2 to 3 days.

So with all this said, we got these hands off landlords that try to make money by marking up what somebody else put there further inflating the price on the junk house, in the process of all this, a house may sit for years. Lets say it develops a gas leak because nobody checks on the property? The gas company has to come out a few times, luckly the house doesnt blow up and kill the neighbors or somebodies kids playing in the street..

I say they should make a federal mandate that you cant develop more than 1.5 to 1.75 an acre for starters. Houses with 40 to 50ft between them would be better, plus you would have value in extra land and would benefit the consumer. This would be a appealing for the sale.

If you are a developer to be reading this, I hope you take this into consideration. You dont have to loose the shirt off your back but you dont need be greedy either. You might miss out on some money in the short term but the good you pay forward will always come back to you. After all, isnt that what this forum is about? Sharing information helps alot of people unlock potential they didnt know they had once they learn to see through smoke and mirrors.

Good day to all.

Loading replies...