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
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
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: Account Closed

Account Closed has started 11 posts and replied 613 times.

Post: An Economic Upswing Has Transformed Washington D.C.

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Account Closed:

We live in a changed city.

Our specific demographic data will continue to shift every year. But the major change—D.C.’s transformation into a city of the wealthy—has already happened. Any further shifts will simply make this more and more true.

In this article, we’ll discuss this change, its many significant positive implications, and some of the challenges this change has created that we need to solve together.

Washington D.C.—Now the Richest Metro Region in the Country

A recent report by Inman summarizes our city’s recent change succinctly:

“While the rest of the country got hammered by the Great Recession of 2008 and struggled to recover eight years later, a remarkable inversion occurred in Washington, D.C. … As real estate markets receded elsewhere, the District of Columbia blossomed… By some measure, our nation’s capital has become the richest region in the country.”

The report goes on to explain how these changes have made Washington D.C. one of fastest-gentrifying cities in the country:

“In Washington, according to a study by Governing magazine, 52 percent of Census tracts that were poor in 2000 have since gentrified—more than any other city bar Portland, Oregon. Young, mostly white, well-educated millennials have crowded into a district once build for largely for families.”

Reports like this have caused a litany of op-eds about the effects of gentrification. Some of them have approached this change from a negative perspective. Most of these negative pieces rally around a single idea— gentrification reduces poverty by pushing out long-term low-income residents. They argue that D.C. has only become a wealthy city by “pushing out” poor residents.

But, as we’ll see looking at D.C.’s population data, that may not be the case. There might be a more positive explanation for this change in D.C.’s demographics change into a wealthy city.

The Surprising Cause of D.C.’s Change into a Wealthy City

Gentrification of D.C. is nothing new.

As Inman’s report notes, gentrification has been occurring throughout the district for decades. In the early 1990’s it occurred in Dupont Circle, and over the following decade it transformed Logan Circle, then U Street, Columbia Heights, and Bloomingdale.

What has changed is D.C.’s rate of gentrification. These changes have been accelerating in recent years. But this change had less to do with an accelerating number of long-term residents getting “pushed out”, and more to do with an accelerating number of new residents arriving.

In the ten years between 2000—2010, D.C.’s population added about 30,000 people.

In the only the five years between 2010—2015, we added 40,000 people.

As the Washington Post notes:

“What distinguishes gentrification is not who moves out; it’s who moves in. In a gentrifying neighborhood, new residents are more likely to be well-off . As a result, the neighborhood’s poverty makeup can shift, even if no one leaves.”

The author went on to note that “a neighborhood’s poverty rate can drop from 30 percent to 12 percent in a decade with minimal displacement.” Why? Because new wealthy residents—like those who have been flocking to D.C.—shift the demographic data by their presence, and, as the author notes, this gentrification “often leads to new construction or to investment in once-vacant properties.”

More Positive Implications of D.C.’s Change to a Wealthy City

We are not blind to the fact that rising housing costs can create a burden for low-income residents and, yes, cause some people to have to move.

We’re simply pointing out that D.C.’s change into a city of the wealthy may have to do with more wealthy residents moving in, than it has to do with low-income residents moving out.

This is an important distinction. It suggests that D.C.’s overall change into a wealthy city does not mean D.C. has to be a city without many low-income residents at the same time, or one in which low-income residents don’t reap the same benefits as wealthier residents.

In fact, D.C.’s change into a wealthy city has produced many implications that are positive for all of our residents—wealthy and low-income alike. These include:

  1. An Increase in Tax Revenue. As NPR recently noted, “the city’s tax base improved significantly over the past decade. As more people move into the city, its coffers are in a better position to fund new amenities and services.”
  2. Improved Public and Private Facilities. Increased city revenues result in better public facilities (such as improved lighting, libraries, and community centers) and new, welcome, private investment (often in grocery stores and other necessary day-to-day retail previously missing from the neighborhood).
  3. Improved Schools. In a recent article, a long-term D.C. resident made the point clearly, “When I was in fifth grade, my teacher didn’t even show up. The current school system is better than it’s ever been.”
  4. Upgraded Housing Stock. Often when a property is handed down generation-to-generation, it maintains its original—often functionally obsolete—infrastructure. However, in the process of the development and sale of these properties, their infrastructure gets brought up to a modern standard of living.
  5. Increased Property Values for Long-Time Home-Owners. Long-time homeowners can see the value of their property skyrocket. In one cited example, a D.C. resident purchased her property in 1981 for $42,00 now saw her property valued at $888,000 in 2017 (in part due to a massive $150,000 valuation jump in 2016 alone).

Looking Forward: Our Shared Challenges

In discussing the positive implications in D.C.’s change into a wealthy city, we don’t want to paint a perfectly rosy picture. This change—and our ongoing shift to an increasingly wealthy city—has raised many challenging questions. These include:

  • How can we ensure all of D.C.’s residents benefit from the above positive implications?
  • How can we best use our city’s increased tax revenue?
  • How can we provide modern, high-quality affordable housing for our city’s low-income residents?

These are important questions to answer.

In future articles, we will bring more of our perspective on how to best answer these questions, and to tackle these challenges.

But for today, we’d like to hear from you.

What do you see as the major challenges and opportunities within D.C’s change to a wealthy city?

Hit reply and let us know. We’d love to discuss your perspective, and (with your permission) share your thoughts in a future article.

So it seems you are saying DC was sort of immune from the 2008 crises?  Any data how the DC RE market performed during or throughout that period?

Post: 100+ Unit Apartment Deals

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147

Where exactly in Michigan? I thought it was much higher in some areas.

Post: Housing Bubble: Why it may be worse than previously thought

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Matt R.:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:

Someone mentioned that they did not think the Fed was paying attention to the LA housing market.  That is completely false.  The LA branch of the San Francisco Fed is all over it.  The Fed in general has more than 150 PhDs that consider domestic real estate on an on going basis.  They also have a huge number of people collecting data.

You can find much of their work product online.

That might be me, although I said Idk how much they track LA vs not tracking. If forecasting is their focus...they certainly did a horrible job of publically communicating ( or adjusting rates / lending guidelines to prevent) that to RE investors last GFC. 

The federal reserve's responsibility is more along the lines of managing the economy, regulating financial institutions and some consumer protection.  They focus extensively on achieving a target natural rate of unemployment and controlling inflation. In terms of the 2008 crises, part of the job would include implementing policies that ensure such events don't occur and if they do, implement yet again more policies to dig you way out of it. There are both proactive and reactive elements of the job.

Post: Had no idea Californians were spiritual

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Scott T.:

@Account Closed

Hey Mike, The LA Times link seems inoperable, at least on my end. A strategy suggestion: Find a NEED and fill it, anywhere USA, etc. and save perusing mountains of (biased / manipulated) PUBLISHED data. (That everyone ELSE, is following!) The BEST places to invest in rental properties" is in the "lower priced" house, etc. areas, that still have higher rents, and solid, diversified employment, that are steadily growing... And the worst places are grossly overpriced housing markets, people are leaving, along with large, medium and small employers. Fairly simple math.  ;-)

And BTW, I haven't read the "tit for tat" dialog, and that comment wasn't directed at you... but REIers, in general. Afterall, nearly 100% of today's published material is quite biased (if not completely CONTROLLED... like the 'fake news,' to 'academia,' as two extreme examples) and clearly has "control the meme," 'end goal' objectives. (Like: "Invest in city A, B or C," for e.g.)   :-)

 Hey Scott.. wasn't aware of the link issue. This should be it: http://tiny.cc/LAIncomeMap

Thank you for the post by the way... I seriously get shocked when someone residing in Cali, remotely suggest out of state lower priced areas for rental CF :-)  

By the way, do you feel that the income map is anywhere close to 'sort of accurate' or is it just bologne? The census bureau data from a median/average standpoint doesnt seem to be too different. Some of the investors just made it almost sound like actual income in LA is twice or more the government data... which was sort of troubling.

Post: Housing Bubble: Why it may be worse than previously thought

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Matt R.:

Still there are serious issues with affordable housing in LA that also impact attracting workers. You could have challenges in job growth if few can afford to live there is one biggie. Currently the afford index is 29%. Personally I think it is lower or these numbers are in lag time. That number for affordability was single digits last peak though. 

From the investor's standpoint, if the majority of LA's labor force, wage earners, do not earn an income that can qualify them for an average house, this is an investment risk -- you have a very limited pool of buyers who have qualifying income to buy. 

If you go on any of the job sites  (indeed.com etc.) to filter how many job postings in the City of LA have advertised wages in excess of what is the qualifying income (use $135,000 for instance), you would be shocked. Even in the tech sector.

The number of posted job count is not what reflects the health of the economy.

Post: Housing Bubble: Why it may be worse than previously thought

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Matt R.:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:

 Idk how closely the feds track LA real estate and my guess is they don't spend much time forecasting LA RE.

However this guy and others at UCLA do full time. This example is actually from Hong Kong I think.

 :-) lol, you are correct, I cant see LA on the map. I'll send in your complaint

Post: Housing Bubble: Why it may be worse than previously thought

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Matt R.:
Originally posted by @Account Closed:

 lol... is this a paid advertisement? :-) 

Post: Should I move to invest?

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Kevin Wiley:

Hey community, 

I've wanted to move for a long time now. I currently live in Clearwater, FL and have lived here since 1997. I'm 25 now and my wife and I want to move somewhere else. We're looking at Dallas, Denver, or Houston. Is it smart to move for the purpose of investing? 

We want to house hack in whichever city we move to. Has anyone else done this? 

Thoughts? 

 This is a personal decision. If moving anywhere enables or enhances your ability to achieve your goals and objectives, you move. If not moving hinders your ability to achieve your goals or objectives, you move.

Post: Are there really any cashflow property in Bay Area(CA)?

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @Jain P.:

I was wondering , if I am the only one, having hard time finding 'positive cash flow' property in Bay Area(California). Or is this a fact, and known to everyone? 

Sorry, i am newbie to biggerpockets, so this question may sound very basic to everyone here. I just wanted to get people's opinion, that Bay Area properties are not for investment anymore, considering cashflow aspect?

I ran the biggerpocket calculator, and also did my own calculations, and most of the properties are running "Cash Flow Negative"

 Unless you are putting a significant amount of money down, in excess of 20%, the negative cash flow often may exceed the $500 you mentioned. Of course, not sure which particular city you were buying in. 

Post: Analyzing a 50-unit apartment- "The 1% Rule" ?

Account ClosedPosted
  • Professional
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Posts 624
  • Votes 147
Originally posted by @John Woodrich:

@Kyle R. you can't compare location when renting.  The map above was quite helpful for me in 

Another example would be north Minneapolis or Detroit.  If you talk to the city you can probably pickup some houses for $10k but you sure won't want to drive down the street late at night!

 Maybe I'm just being green here but why wouldnt you want to drive down a street in Detroit at night? :-)