Seeking Alpha

Bulldozing brand new suburbs. Amazing video of brand new suburban homes being razed, as lenders...

Bulldozing brand new suburbs. Amazing video of brand new suburban homes being razed, as lenders find it's cheaper to destroy out-of-vogue ex-urban communities than to keep them on the books.
Comments (20)
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    I wish they'd start doing that in Northern Virginia. Tons of foreclosures and they're STILL BUILDING NEW HOMES.

     

    Someone forgot to study supply and demand....
    11 May 2009, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Market Sniper
    , contributor
    Comments (668) | Send Message
     
    Remember back before the elections? The builders held up Congress for a $5 Billion dollar hand out or campaign funds would be withheld? Of course the greedy cowards caved on that one! Remember? Could have tied that $5 Billion to the builders' own bulldozers to get that money!
    11 May 2009, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    This is morally indefensible. This shows how morally bankrupt this nation has become.

     

    There are young people and low income people who work and who live crammed into little apartments, little run-down houses, shabby trailers, in their cars because they can't afford something better. They and their children will not be able to better themselves with education because they will have to pay so much just for shelter.

     

    Bulldozing perfectly good housing guarantees the serfdom of an entire generation, an entire income bracket.

     

    All the while, as taxpayers, we are all still doling out trillions to the bankers who created this bubble.

     

    Warped and disgusting.
    11 May 2009, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • History Buff 24/7
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Victorville is way out on the northeastern fringe of the LA megapolis, people were only buying houses there because the real estate prices closer to the coast were so friggin' insane. Now that the bubble for the whole region has popped you can see why these houses are worth nowhere near what the builders thought they would be.

     

    It's too bad they couldn't have just donated them to an outfit like Habitat for Humanity and let them finish building the houses. It's a shame any way you look it, no matter who's responsible.
    11 May 2009, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Market Sniper
    , contributor
    Comments (668) | Send Message
     
    Moral hazard, McHattie, not that that means much anymore. I bought and paid for my home, suspect you did as well. Should we hand a McMansion to someone whose life ambition is to live in a trailer park? Might be humane but also might be wrong.
    11 May 2009, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • Between The Numbers
    , contributor
    Comments (153) | Send Message
     
    This, to me, is a failure of markets. There has to be someone, somewhere, who would purchase these houses for a number greater than the cost to operate a bulldozer. The local regulators were fining and threatening the banks for owning incomplete under-code housing, yet not giving them a way to work out the negative cashflow situation and sell them. A liquidity crunch of houses in Southern California, where an asset was destroyed rather than sold. Go to the discount window, get the cash needed to fix them, get them sold at pennies on the dollar, repay govt and all is well. It would have been in everyone's interest to find a way to get them sold, fixed, and not knocked down.
    11 May 2009, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Anthony Breen
    , contributor
    Comments (263) | Send Message
     
    Only knocking it down to build a McMcMansion! (bigger and better (-10% down))
    11 May 2009, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • fatcat
    , contributor
    Comments (740) | Send Message
     
    This is old news,2 weeks at least...no matter,its still a waste of resources that should result in criminal charges,but none seem to come..
    11 May 2009, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • LivininCDM
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    This is one of those headline grabbing stories where when you look a little deeper there is a reason they razed these homes.

     

    First these were the models. They were build and the rest of the sub division never was when the developer pulled the plug. Vandals and thieves then came in and stole every last bit of anything valuable. (victorville is kinda a hole)

     

    So rather than leave a few homes in the middle of an undeveopled area for transients and miscreants to set up a meth lab in they tore it down.

     

    But it sure makes for a good headline.
    11 May 2009, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1413) | Send Message
     
    Exactly Market Sniper, we should make those houses available in some way to the less fortunate. I bought and paid for a lot of houses in the past but I am not so callous as to stereotype people as "someone whose life ambition is to live in a trailer park". I think that for the grace of a lot of luck and a supportive family when I was a kid that could be me.

     

    On May 11 07:01 PM Market Sniper wrote:

     

    > Moral hazard, McHattie, not that that means much anymore. I bought
    > and paid for my home, suspect you did as well. Should we hand a McMansion
    > to someone whose life ambition is to live in a trailer park? Might
    > be humane but also might be wrong.
    11 May 2009, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • proman
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    These were models so the street improvements would not be complete yet. In order to get a certificate of occupancy to allow habitation of the homes, you would need to complete the street improvements - likely final capping of the streets, raising manholes, sidewalk work, street trees and other landscaping, etc. This could cost several hundred thousand dollars or more - just depends on what off-site work was linked to those homes. Plus, you then have to sell or rent the 4 models in the middle of a see of empty lots. Additionally, if there are mello roos bonds on the property, the vacant lot tax rate is lower than compared to occupied homes. Selling the homes would trigger the mello roos tax for the entire subdivision or certainly a portion of it to kick in - could be several hundred thousand dollars per year depending on how many lots would get hit with the increased tax. As crazy as it seems, without a waiver on the cetificate of occupancy requirements and taking into account possible mellos roos triggers, the most economically efficient disposal of the homes is to raze them rather than complete all off-site work and then sell or rent them. The money needed to complete the offsite work and pay the higher taxes could be spent on alternative housing solutions for many more families than just the 4 families who would live in the models.
    11 May 2009, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • prudentinvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (841) | Send Message
     
    Destruction of property, such as housing, is the act that a warring nation woud inflict upon its enemies to demoralize their populace. Sadly, it seems that self-inflicted economic instability has reached the point that we are now at war with ourselves.
    11 May 2009, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Jolly_Rancher
    , contributor
    Comments (550) | Send Message
     
    Those young and low income people you describe can't afford the upkeep on homes that size. Homes are much more expensive than most people think to maintain. Yard, plumbing, A/C, heat, carpet, association dues, property tax. The utilities alone are unmanageable for this income group. That size house might cost $500 per month to cool in the summer. Inflation has eaten up our standard of living, and those low income people are paying for it. There's a reason they are where they are.

     

    On May 11 06:48 PM D. McHattie wrote:

     

    > This is morally indefensible. This shows how morally bankrupt this
    > nation has become.
    >
    > There are young people and low income people who work and who live
    > crammed into little apartments, little run-down houses, shabby trailers,
    > in their cars because they can't afford something better. They and
    > their children will not be able to better themselves with education
    > because they will have to pay so much just for shelter.
    >
    > Bulldozing perfectly good housing guarantees the serfdom of an entire
    > generation, an entire income bracket.
    >
    > All the while, as taxpayers, we are all still doling out trillions
    > to the bankers who created this bubble.
    >
    > Warped and disgusting.
    11 May 2009, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Jolly_Rancher
    , contributor
    Comments (550) | Send Message
     
    I forgot to mention a few more expenses that make such home ownership untenable for that income group. Most of these types of new developments are located many miles from any type of economically viable area which means commute times of at least an hour to and from work. That means having having a great reliable car is essential. It means very high gas and auto maintenance costs. Furthermore, child care which these low income people rely on is not always available in these areas. Usually it's 15 minutes to anywhere for anything, such as a movie or groceries. How about lawn equipment, lawn irrigation? All of this adds up to very high costs. And all of this for a a cheaply constructed home with 1500 more sq ft than their current apartment. What's the purpose? You're just putting people on a treadmill.

     

    On May 11 06:48 PM D. McHattie wrote:

     

    > This is morally indefensible. This shows how morally bankrupt this
    > nation has become.
    >
    > There are young people and low income people who work and who live
    > crammed into little apartments, little run-down houses, shabby trailers,
    > in their cars because they can't afford something better. They and
    > their children will not be able to better themselves with education
    > because they will have to pay so much just for shelter.
    >
    > Bulldozing perfectly good housing guarantees the serfdom of an entire
    > generation, an entire income bracket.
    >
    > All the while, as taxpayers, we are all still doling out trillions
    > to the bankers who created this bubble.
    >
    > Warped and disgusting.
    11 May 2009, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Market Sniper
    , contributor
    Comments (668) | Send Message
     
    OK, anarchrist. I am not a heartless guy. We give them the houses. Free and clear so they can pay the property taxes. Funny thing about that though, when people do not earn what they have, they tend to not give it any value. Hopefully, a few of those homes are not located in YOUR neighborhood. Peace, brother.

     

    On May 11 08:47 PM anarchist wrote:

     

    > Exactly Market Sniper, we should make those houses available in
    > some way to the less fortunate. I bought and paid for a lot of houses
    > in the past but I am not so callous as to stereotype people as "someone
    > whose life ambition is to live in a trailer park". I think that
    > for the grace of a lot of luck and a supportive family when I was
    > a kid that could be me.
    11 May 2009, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • PCScipio
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    "You bought and paid for a home? How else would you buy a home besides paying for it?" !!!!!!!!!!!!! Cetin, where the hell have you been!!
    11 May 2009, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • patently-absurd
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    what kind of a tool "pays" for a house any more, when you can just....walk? Tra la la lah la la! Everything is beautiful and filled with ooey gooey rainbowey goodness!!! DOW 70,000,000 by Friday! YAYYY!

     

    /good drugs

     

    On May 11 10:55 PM PCScipio wrote:

     

    > "You bought and paid for a home? How else would you buy a home besides
    > paying for it?" !!!!!!!!!!!!! Cetin, where the hell have you been!!
    11 May 2009, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Ed, Jr.
    , contributor
    Comments (745) | Send Message
     
    Some commentors here tried to explain to the bleeding hearts crowd the reason for the demolishing, but people don't want to listen anymore.

     

    One more try, although I doubt it will take....

     

    The city was threatening to impose hefty fines if the homes were not brought up to code and maintained.. Since the sewer system roads and street lights and more for that planned community were not complete, and there was nobody willing to pay for all of that, nobody would be allowed to live there for years. Maybe 10 years or more-- nobody knows. There were only a couple of homes that had been built, and no new ones were going up in an area that has been devastated by the housing collapse. So, facing big fines,and rather than spend a couple million dollars to develop the community, they were torn down. They were already in bad shape, due to vandals.

     

    Nobody -- not homeless or poor or anybody else-- would be allowed to live there until all of the improvements were completed.

     

    But to those for whom a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing, you have decided that you are right , regardless of the facts, and as you always do, you troll through the comments section and click the thumbs down because the facts don't agree with your agenda.

     

    The SA comments section has taken a real turn for the worse because of the agenda of a few. And I can assure you, their agenda has nothing to do with facts.
    12 May 2009, 04:07 AM Reply Like
  • Living4Dividends
    , contributor
    Comments (1220) | Send Message
     
    I am surprised that no one yet has failed to point out the historical significance of this: In the Great Depression, there were such severe excesses of certain livestock and crops, that the U.S. and other govts bought up the excess products and burned them.

     

    12 May 2009, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • History Buff 24/7
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    There's been a lot of fire and smoke about this story, the perception of some of the posters here seems to fall into one of two camps, but as usual it's not that simple:

     

    1. It's a criminal waste to destroy housing stock when there are so many needy people who could reside in it.
    2. External circumstances (legal, government, location, etc.) made it impossible for these houses to be lived in, and giving them to people who couldn't take care of them wouldn't do a darned bit of good in the long run.

     

    There is something to be said for both positions. I wasn't expressing moral outrage earlier when I said it was a shame that it happened, but I can understand why it happened and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone.

     

    I also understand that giving things to people who can't afford them or take care of them doesn't do them any favors either.

     

    Right now there is too much housing, and vacant housing is a wasting asset due to vandalism, squatting, etc. A few years from now this will NOT be the case and these houses would be desirable again. That being said, I understand why the builders cannot wait that long, they are doing what is best for their short term financial position.

     

    Being a homeowner if I were just speaking for my own short-term interests I should be cheering the developers on, because when the pendulum swings the other way it will make my property that much more valuable when the inevitable shortage develops. But there's enough bleeding heart liberal in me to feel that I'd rather live in a society where the maximum amount of people can experience the benefits of home ownership. Given a choice I would sure as heck rather live in a neighborhood filled with home owners than home renters (I've lived in both) because there is a vast difference in the way the properties and the neighborhoods are kept up.
    12 May 2009, 10:09 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector