Subject Line Ideas: City of brotherly anti-investment sentiment
Why first-time buying is down
Why women live longer than men(Funny)
VERY IMPORTANT: If you don't see any images in this message, be sure to click the "Display Images" link in your email reader. That will make life easier for everyone, trust me.
Feature Article:The city of brotherly anti-investment sentiment
Critical Reads:Why first-time buying is down
The Funnies: Why women live longer than men
Philadelphia is known as the “City of Brotherly Love,” although many will tell you they have no idea who thinks the name fits. What also doesn’t fit, according to some city leaders, is investment in communities by real estate companies. A new tax being considered in Philly is downright discriminatory against real estate investors and could hinder development of the city’s neighborhoods.
If you’re ready, let's dig in...
The City of Brotherly Anti-Investment Sentiment
The city of Philadelphia, like many U.S. cities, is undergoing changes when it comes to real estate. Chalk it up to younger professionals wanting more urban than suburban surroundings, call it “re-gentrification” or whatever, but neighborhoods continue to get injections of new life from real estate developers.
Who are now, of course, going to be punished for that if some folks have their way.
Some city leaders, including the director of planning for transportation and utilities – who’s spearheading the charge – want to institute a 1.5-percent transfer tax hike for anyone who sells a home less than two years after buying it. It’s been dubbed by some the “anti-speculation tax,” aimed at flippers.
The new tax, the thinking goes, will discourage speculation in neighborhoods that have been in decline for years. The reasoning, even less logical, is that improving neighborhoods will displace existing residents who have hung on for years despite the decline.
It’s difficult to see why city leaders would want to discourage potential investment in neighborhoods that have been in decline. Fixing up run-down homes to make an area more desirable seems to be a win-win, no? The work involved brings jobs. People moving in mean an opportunity for access to better amenities – grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants – for those already living there. And those who have “hung on” for years – don’t you think they’d want nicer places to live around them?
The supposed threat of current residents being displaced is exaggerated. What threat does revitalization of a neighbor pose, exactly? If houses are rehabbed and sold, the existing residents don’t have to buy them. It’s not as if new houses hitting the market price out those already living there.
And if it’s an increase in property taxes we’re talking about – a rise in overall property values will trigger that – the existing property owners who incur a tax increase will also enjoy equity gains without having to do a thing. That’s a pretty fair trade-off.
If there’s any one group that might suffer, it’s renters. They don’t get the benefit of an asset going up in value, the way homeowners would, and they could see rent increases based on landlords’ attempts to make up the potential property tax increases. Theoretically, at least, newer homes in an area could lead to greater demand for both rentals and owned homes in a neighborhood, which could also help drive up rates.
That’s the price you might pay for having better neighborhoods in your city. Is the alternative – keeping neighborhoods run-down – a better one?
A key argument of the supporters of this new tax is that investors who bring money into redeveloping neighborhoods are “outsiders” who don’t know the communities’ needs. They’d prefer to see these community development corporations – in many cases, also rehabbers – which operate inside and are made up of people from the community.
It’s a short-sighted idea at best and narrow-minded at worst. If there’s a poor community with struggling housing options, struggling businesses and a struggling population, where is the “inside” development money helping right now? If the money doesn’t come from outside the struggling neighborhood, the neighborhood is likely going to continue to struggle.
And that’s how investment goes. Real estate investors and developers pick areas based on opportunity and potential. It’s how capitalism works. The money these companies make is a result of their taking on the risk. That’s how investment works. And if you have investors ready, willing and able to take on that risk – and, yeah, they’ll make some money – to help turn around a bad neighborhood, why would you want to discourage them, or make it harder for them to do so?
Since the last financial crisis, there’s been a lot of backlash against speculators, who are often blamed for the real estate crash. But not every investor is a speculator, and re-developing neighborhoods NEED investment.
So the anti-investor sentiment makes no sense.
Why First-Time Buying is Down
According to a recent National Association of Realtors survey, the simple “desire to own” has surged as a reason people become first-time homebuyers. Yet at the same time, numbers show that first-time homebuyers are at their lowest level in almost 30 years. So if they want to own homes but aren’t buying, what gives? This CNBC.com article explains why first-time buying is down.
How to Get a Home Security Camera for Nothing
One of the technological components that’s benefitted from the rise of the smart home is home security systems. It no longer costs an arm and a leg to monitor your home for safety, but it’s still an expense in most cases. But if you have an old smart phone you’re not using, this CNet.com article explains how to easily turn it into a working home security camera for free.
Income-Rich and Time-Poor: Two-Income Households
When you have a job, you are basically trading time for money. And in America, it’s becoming increasingly necessary for the top income-earners to work more hours. For a dual-income household, that means doubling that time-for-money deal, and statistics show that it’s taking its toll on family time. This article from The Atlantic outlines the problem of being income-rich but time-poor.
Why Women Live Longer than Men
It’s a short list, actually:
Your Name
Your Company
Your Contact Info
Note: The sender of this message may receive compensations for products or services featured.