(04-12-2021, 09:59 PM)LynnInDenver Wrote:(04-12-2021, 09:53 PM)Black Aeronaut Wrote: I had a thought about that.
What if - as a local City or County ordinance - you place a mandatory moratorium on selling your home for ten years after purchase?
Some considerations:
1) Only applies to houses bought AFTER the law goes into effect, this way no one can cry about being stuck with something they didn't want because of the law.
2) Only applies to single-family houses and properties with a single-family house and any number of in-law units. Multifamily units like apartments and duplexes are not applicable.
2) Exception: if such an event occurs that causes that the insurance company declares the house a total loss, then the owner is released of any moratoriums.
3) Exception: Condemned houses. These may be flipped as a condemned property is doing no one any favors at all.
Thoughts?
Generally speaking, they do apply some of these - specifically the "must live in it, and for ten years" to first time home buying programs. I also wonder about the impact on people who buy houses that, while not condemned, are also badly in need of updating or cleaning and then being put back on the market (admittedly, the latter can feed into the problem). There's also the issue of "I lost my job due to a major industrial downturn, and the only way I can get a comparable job is to move out of state where my skills are still viable."
Well, this moratorium would, of course, apply to all buyers. I would say, "Maybe make first time buyers the exception," but then I realized that it would be all too easy for some skeezy-ass cheese-needle to go around and have people who have never bought a house do it for them so they can flip it in exchange for a cut of the profits.
As for the condition of the house, that's really no different from how things are now. It's all on the buyers and sellers. A seller would be free to make all kinds of improvements, as would a buyer, but the quid pro quo would still be that ten year moratorium. It's up to a home owner to maintain and/or improve their property. They let shit go to pieces? That's all on them.
Besides, banks REALLY don't like it when you don't have any equity (the difference between what you owe on your mortgage and what your home is currently worth) built up in your mortgage and suddenly you wanna sell it because the grass is looking greener on the other side. This doesn't really start happening until, surprise surprise, about ten years into your mortgage. Yeah, most are willing to work something out if something happens and you need to make repairs or improvements. The banks want to make a profit, and they can't do that if you shortchange them on the mortgage. This is why a lot of mortgages come with penalties for selling too early.
As for having to moving long-distance... well, there is a such thing as renting out. Granted, I know it's not easy being a landlord and all, but this is what property managers are for. Perhaps as part-and-parcel with the ordinance, the City can set up a market of property managers for home owners. Might not be a bad idea because there is a demand for rental properties, too. (Here in San Antonio, the rents are becoming an issue, too, and the city council has been looking into instituting rent controls in the Downtown area to keep low-income workers in the area. Supply and demand definitely applies to rental properties.)