by twistjusty » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:00 am
I'm tired now of reading "poor homeowner" stories from the P-I and the Times that are actually about condo flippers. These stories are trite, and do nothing to work up my empathy.
What can also retire: the relatively new concept of "starter homes." I live among people who, fifty-five years later, are still in their "starter homes." Most living Americans don't appreciate that until recently, it was very common for multiple generations of a family to share a dwelling. Nor do they appreciate that prior to WWII, the percentage of home ownership in the United States was below 50%. I bet there'd be fewer reverse mortgages and "golden age" deferrals of property tax if multiple generations stayed in one house.
What magic atmosphere dust obliterates history knowledge here? How do people who were affected by the dot-com bust rebound from economic insecurity and buy houses with jumbo loans here? Do they expect inheritances? I'm not so sure that Seattle is viewed as special as the homeowners view themselves as special: "Oh nothing can happen to me because I've been at middle-income or better my whole life, and either my parents or the government will bail me out."
I envy their confidence and feelings of security. I'm in my starter home that I bought last millennium, and although my mortgage increases in affordability and is lower than anything comparable I could rent locally, I can't help but feel anxious over the next four years. Maybe because I'm not expecting a bailout.
[/url]
"A society in which consumption has to be artificially stimulated in order to keep production going is a society founded on trash and waste, and such a society is a house built upon sand." -- Dorothy L. Sayers