California’s Quest to Push Housing Even Further Out of Reach

Renting Must be Part of the Solution By David Howard Make no mistake: It is a difficult time for homebuyers right now, and California stands out as one of the nation’s toughest states to buy a home. It’s not just that home prices are hitting an all-time high, and that California features some of the least affordable housing markets in the country. High interest rates mean that even families that have enough for a down payment will be left with expensive, budget-busting mortgage payments. Experts are declaring right now as ‘the worst time to buy a home.’ Millennials in California have growing families, and they are going to need more housing options — not less. But even as many families are locked out of buying a home, California policymakers are pushing for new laws that would also make it harder for them to find places to rent. Renting must be part of the solution. Daunting Numbers To keep up with its growing population, California needs to build 180,000 homes per year. However, over the last decade, it’s averaged less than 80,000 new homes per year. On top of this, California has less land available for development, meaning a variety of housing solutions are needed including multifamily and single-family rental properties. Across California, it is cheaper to rent than to buy. For young professionals and growing families, renting likely makes more sense from both a financial and a convenience perspective. Renting can save tens of thousands of dollars throughout a year in California where on average, the difference between renting and buying a home is $803 per month — not including insurance, taxes, and other homeownership expenses. By some estimates, California renters could save $112,000 or more over five years given the cost difference to rent versus buy. For higher cost of living areas like Los Angeles, San Jose and San Franciso the difference can be even greater. For decades, renting has been synonymous with apartment buildings. The truth is many growing families need more space, but the only pathway to renting a single-family home is dealing with mom-and-pop owners who may not be great caretakers. Today, housing providers are offering a new solution to California families: professionally-managed single-family homes in desirable neighborhoods where families can be close to their jobs and good schools. These companies make upfront investments to renovate homes; they stay in touch with residents through apps, and they employ teams of on-the-ground maintenance staff who can quickly respond for repairs. Companies also offer high quality amenities and features that are not typically available for a first-time home buyer. Families who rent with these housing providers are finding the right home that meets their needs, circumstances, and budget. For potential critics, it’s important to point out that single-family rental housing has no impact on the supply or cost of housing, a fact backed by research from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve and the University of Southern California. Additionally, research from the Urban Institute has found that roughly 574,000 single-family homes are owned by large companies or investors — just about 1% of the more than 46.6 million total rental properties available nationwide. AB 2584 and SB 1212 So, why are some California legislators doing their very best to limit single-family rental housing? AB 2584 and SB 1212 propose burdensome regulations to the housing market that are both anti-renter and anti-housing. By scapegoating single-family rental housing providers, it ignores the root causes for housing market issues in California and threatens to remove a vital housing option for those living in or interested in moving to the state. Despite the highly beneficial nature of single-family rentals, California is losing ground on this critical housing solution. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of single-family rentals dropped by 81,548 units, according to Census data. When combined with the prospect of proposed regulations, the result would exacerbate, not improve the housing situation in the state — limiting investment in rental properties and stifling new housing construction. Legislators should be laser-focused on making housing as accessible as possible, encouraging policies that make it easier to buy and easier to rent. Californians need access to more single-family homes, especially in growing and high-demand communities.

Read More

Nearly 40% of Homeowners Couldn’t Afford Their Home Today

Home Prices Have Doubled Over the Last Decade By Dana Anderson, Redfin Nearly two of every five (38%) homeowners do not believe they could afford to buy their own home if they were purchasing it today.  This is according to a Redfin-commissioned survey of roughly 3,000 U.S. residents conducted by Qualtrics in February 2024. The relevant question was: “If you were looking to purchase a home, do you think you could afford a home like yours in your neighborhood today?” Nearly three in five (59%) homeowners who answered this question have lived in their home for at least 10 years, and another 21% have lived in their home for at least five years. That means the majority of respondents have seen housing prices in their neighborhood skyrocket since they purchased their home: The median U.S. home-sale price has doubled in the last 10 years, and has shot up nearly 50% in the last five years alone.  Home prices have soared over the last decade for several reasons. Already-high home prices skyrocketed during the pandemic, when remote work and ultra-low mortgage rates motivated many Americans to move and buy homes. Even before the pandemic buying boom, home prices were increasing due to a prolonged supply shortage, along with a strong labor market and growing population pushing up demand.  Rising mortgage rates are another reason many homeowners could not afford their own home if they were to buy it today. The typical person purchasing today’s median-priced home for $420,000 has a record-high $2,864 monthly housing payment with a 7.1% mortgage rate, the current 30-year fixed-rate average. If they were to purchase a home for the same price with a 4% mortgage rate, which was common in 2019, their monthly payment would be $2,210, roughly $650 less. “Rising home prices are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Americans who already own homes benefit from rising values and they can consider themselves lucky they broke into the housing market while they could still afford it.” said Redfin Senior Economist Elijah de la Campa. “On the other hand, price appreciation makes the prospect of buying a new home daunting or even impossible for many people who want to move. Prices have risen enough that a similar home and location would be much pricier than a home someone already owns–even accounting for inflation. Add elevated mortgage rates to the equation, and moving up to a bigger, better home is even more costly and perhaps out of reach.” The situation is especially dire for first-time buyers, who have not built up equity from the sale of a previous home. Nearly 40% of U.S. renters don’t believe they’ll ever own a home, up from 27% last year. Of the Gen Zers and millennials who do expect to buy their first home soon, more than one-third (36%) expect to use a cash gift from family to help with their down payment.  Broken Down by Generation Baby boomers are least likely to be able to afford their current home if they were to buy it today. Nearly half (45%) of baby boomers said they could not afford a similar home in their neighborhood now, compared to 39% of Gen Xers and 24% of Gen Zers and millennials. That stands to reason, as baby boomers are more likely to have bought their home a long time ago for a much lower price. That dynamic contributes to the shortage of homes for sale: Empty-nest baby boomers own twice as many large homes nationwide as millennials with kids, largely because older Americans, with no financial incentive to sell, are hanging onto their homes.  Unsurprisingly, lower-income homeowners are least likely to be able to afford their own home today. More than half (51%) of respondents earning under $50,000 annually would not be able to afford their home, compared to 34% of people earning $50,000-$100,000 and 21% of people earning more than $100,000.

Read More

Foreclosure Activity Increases in Q1 2024

Bank Repossessions Up 7% By ATTOM Team ATTOM, a leading curator of land, property, and real estate data, released its Q1 2024 U.S Foreclosure Market Report, which shows a total of 95,349 U.S. properties with a foreclosure filing during the first quarter of 2024, up 3% from the previous quarter but down less than 1% from a year ago. The report also shows a total of 32,878 U.S. properties with foreclosure filings in March 2024, down less than 1% from the previous month and down 10% from a year ago. “Q1 2024’s foreclosure data reveals a market in transition, with slight increases in filings and starts, alongside a notable decrease in REO properties,” explains Rob Barber, CEO at ATTOM. “While foreclosures remain relatively stable, we are closely monitoring these trends. Homeowners continue to hold significant equity, contributing to a persistently hot housing market.” Foreclosure Starts Increase Nationwide A total of 67,657 U.S. properties started the foreclosure process in Q1 2024, up 2% from the previous quarter and up 4% from a year ago. States that had 100 or more foreclosures starts in Q1 2024 and saw the greatest quarterly increase included:  » New Hampshire (up 43%)  » Illinois (up 26%)  » Florida (up 22%)  » Rhode Island (up 21%)  » Nevada (up 16%) Those major metros with a population of 200,000 or more that had the greatest number of foreclosures starts in Q1 2024 included:  » New York, New York (4,404 foreclosure starts)  » Houston, Texas (2,977 foreclosure starts)  » Chicago, Illinois (2,867 foreclosure starts)  » Los Angeles, CA (2,398 foreclosure starts)  » Miami, FL(2,319 foreclosure starts) Highest Foreclosure Rates in DE, NJ, and SC Nationwide, one in every 1,478 housing units had a foreclosure filing in Q1 2024. States with the highest foreclosure rates were:  » Delaware (one in every 894 housing units with a foreclosure filing)  » New Jersey (one in every 919 housing units)  » South Carolina (one in every 929 housing units)  » Nevada (one in every 961 housing units)  » Florida (one in every 973 housing units) Among 224 metropolitan statistical areas with a population of at least 200,000, those with the highest foreclosure rates in Q1 2024 were:  » Columbia, South Carolina (one in every 569 housing units)  » Spartanburg, South Carolina (one in 597)  » Lakeland, Florida (one in 624)  » Atlantic City, New Jersey (one in 628)  » Cleveland, Ohio (one in 662) Other major metros with a population of at least 1 million and foreclosure rates in the top 15 highest nationwide, included:  » Cleveland, Ohio at No.5  » Riverside, California at No. 9  » Orlando, Florida at No.10  » Las Vegas, Nevada at No. 13  » Jacksonville, Florida at No. 15 Bank Repossessions Increase 7% Lenders repossessed 10,052 U.S. properties through foreclosure (REO) in Q1 2024, up 7% from the previous quarter but down 20% from a year ago. Those states that had the greatest number of REOs in Q1 2024 were:  » Michigan (1,049 REOs)  » California (845 REOs)  » Pennsylvania (838 REOs)  » Illinois (810 REOs)  » Texas (596 REOs). Average Time to Foreclose Increases 2% Properties foreclosed in Q1 2024 had been in the foreclosure process for an average of 736 days. While this marks a slight increase from the previous quarter, it represents a 20% decrease from the same time last year, continuing a downward trajectory observed since mid-2020. States with the longest average foreclosure timelines for homes foreclosed in Q1 2024 were:  » Louisiana (2,641 days)  » Hawaii (2,031 days)  » New York (1,958 days)  » Nevada (1,701 days)  » Kentucky (1,701 days). States with the shortest average foreclosure timelines for homes foreclosed in Q1 2024 were:  » Montana (123 days)  » Virginia (152 days)  » Texas (163 days)  » Wyoming (191 days)  » West Virginia (217 days)

Read More