Skip to content
×
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
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
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

All Forum Posts by: Ryan Watson

Ryan Watson has started 23 posts and replied 166 times.

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

Ryan WatsonPosted
  • New to Real Estate
  • Indianapolis, IN
  • Posts 170
  • Votes 23
Originally posted by Jon Holdman:

No, I see nothing wrong with that picture. Perhaps not where I would choose to live, but I see nothing at all wrong with that sort of density. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

Funny that you rail against "Bunch of left wing extremists" yet at the same time rail against builder's "outragous markup". IMHO, anyone who would try to dictate limits on the profits from someone else' business would be pretty far on the left end of the scale.

Thats the best way to describe cali in my opinion. Things you can get away with in other parts of the country is against the law there.

I aint trying to dictate anything, anybody with half a brain can look and see they mark up a house to 100,000 when it only cost 20 to build it. They replicate and cram as many as possible on a street. These people have no yard, and their value is for the house and not the land. I cant believe people fall for these kinds of houses.

Theres some things in life you just dont do, and building crackerboxes should be one of them.

When you compare the american dream of 1950 to the dream of 2013, its a major rip off!

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

Ryan WatsonPosted
  • New to Real Estate
  • Indianapolis, IN
  • Posts 170
  • Votes 23
Originally posted by Chad Ballard:
Ryan Watson, all real estate is local. You cannot compare California to a place like Indianapolis.

I wasnt, it was more like the fact i was being asked to apologize for an opinion that goes against a trend. Bunch of left wing extremists that think their sh** dont stink. I dont want to get started on california real estate. Especially looking at hollywood. I'm not going to go there. Haha

Grant P.

That is a very interesting statistic you have there for people 25 to 35. It really shows how narrow minded people are starting to become. Thats exactly the mentality, they dont want to take responsiblity for themselves let alone houses and land. They want to just go play all the time care free. smh

I am 25 years old and I care about having land. To me land is wealth and i have no problem working to take care of the property.

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

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

Chad Ballard I understand nobody is forced to do it but all im saying is hopefully some developers will break this trend. Why fallow when you can lead?

I have a feeling some people have misunderstood my pay it forward statement. Developers should make money, after all its why they are in buisness, but it wouldnt hurt to build a few less houses on a street. Especially if it prevents other neighbors from being effected in the event of a fire.

Plus the homeowners would have a little extra value in their home with the extra land space.

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

Ryan WatsonPosted
  • New to Real Estate
  • Indianapolis, IN
  • Posts 170
  • Votes 23
Originally posted by Matt Devincenzo:
I Ryan Watson think you might want to re-evaluate your comments here. If you don't like the higher densities you do realize there are already processes in place right now.

There are city council meetings, zoning commissions and meetings, variance hearings ect ect so you and everyone that complains about density has every right to prevent these things, but I have a feeling you and others are too lazy to do so. I know because I've been to some of these meetings when they effected me and I didn't want the higher density in the area I lived and there usually weren't a lot of people there even though it is an open public meeting.

There is also another simple option. Look at google earth and if you'll notice there are HUGE areas of green all through the "heartland" with the densities you want often just an hour outside of a major city, so MOVE THERE and let people that like the density move to town.

P.S. I believe you probably owe Karen Margrave and any other developers an apology because what you said in your post definitely was a slap in the face to her and every other developer on this forum. I have seen nothing but high ethical standards out of her and the others here, and they would probably all fit your criteria of bad Mr. Developer to a "T".

I dont owe anybody an apology. I see the world in black and white and morals are going down the drain every day. Im not apologizing for being real, i speak my mind and if you dont like it then sorry about ya. Acknowlaging there is a problem is the first step to solving it. If anybody gets mad then thats their problem. I see your from california, that explains where your post is coming from quite well. Most of you in that state aint in touch with reality anyway.

The fact that people actually buy into these dense communities shows their lack of ability to think outside of the box. They think just because someone puts it there its ok. Reguardless of how well built the community is its still dangerous to the residents if one house catches on fire and takes 2 more with it.

I'm perfectly ok standing alone on this issue. its ridiculous.

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

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

Karen Margrave Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I certainly do.

I work in excavating for a living and i can tell you about anything you want to know when it comes to the ground work for a neighborhood. I may not know much about the paperwork but i can tell if somebody is getting screwed or not.

As for the other folks, Im not getting density and cutting corners mixed up. Just so happens they both played into the example.

Apartments and town homes have their place. When they build them they need to make sure they build fire walls between units that go all the way to the roof. Fire does spread via the attic.

So here is something like im talking about. Less density. Is it really too much to ask to build like they did back in the 50's where people actually have a yard? A nice ranch style home around 1700sq ft and roughly a half acre lot. I dont see why you cant sell a home for less than 150,000 and have some decency.

If builders could keep outragous markup down it would be feasable.

Post: Debate of Subdivision Morals

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

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.

Post: Real estate developers on Lizard Lick

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

I cant help but post this. Which one of yall got thrown down in the mud by bobby off Lizard Lick towing? That was hilarious!

Post: Putting rentals in LLC

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

Does commercial insurance sting the bank account pretty bad when you are in an LLC?

Post: Have you ever baught out a trust?

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

i just wanted to know if it was possible. Ive been eyeballing alot of properties on my local parcel viewer. It seems like trusts make up for 1 out of every 5 properties roughly.

Post: Have you ever baught out a trust?

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

Surely somebody has a story of making a trust go away on a property?