ReportWire

Tag: Bay Area Housing

  • San Jose named world’s least affordable city for first-time homebuyers

    [ad_1]

    San Jose has been ranked No. 1 for the least affordable city in the world for first-time homebuyers in a new global study, underscoring how far housing costs have outpaced wages in the heart of Silicon Valley.

    The study — conducted by financial services company Remitly — analyzed housing affordability in more than 150 cities worldwide by comparing average local incomes with typical home prices and applying standard mortgage criteria. California dominated the rankings, with six cities in the top 20. After San Jose, Los Angeles ranked second, Long Beach ranked third, San Diego ranked fourth and Vancouver, Canada rounded out the top five as the least affordable cities globally. San Francisco came in 10th and Oakland scored 19th.

    In San Jose, where the average home price is about $1.37 million, a worker earning the city’s average salary of $86,605 could afford about 27.3% of a typical home, according to the study. For two average earners making a combined $173,210, it would only buy them about 54.6% of a property.

    The findings come as San Jose leaders continue to debate how to address a housing crisis that has increasingly priced out not only low-income residents, but also middle-class workers who keep the city running.

    During the Jan. 27 City Council meeting, several residents spoke during public comment on a proposal to expand the city’s downtown residential incentive program to encourage the conversion of vacant commercial buildings into housing. The expansion, approved in a unanimous vote, will waive or reduce certain development taxes and fees and allow eligible conversion projects to include no deed-restricted affordable homes, a tradeoff city officials said is necessary to make conversions financially feasible.

    Several speakers said the proposal, while increasing housing supply, will do little to address affordability if new homes are priced beyond the reach of most residents.

    “The city needs to ensure that affordable housing is included,” Katherine Hedges, one of several residents who urged the council to prioritize affordability alongside new development, said at the meeting.

    Others warned that rising housing costs are already affecting the city’s ability to deliver basic services. John Tucker, a city employee, urged councilmembers to pause the proposal, citing low employee satisfaction, staffing shortages and a hiring freeze that has left departments stretched thin.

    “We understand the goal of encouraging downtown housing and conversions, but incentives should come with clear public benefit and guardrails, especially when city services are slipping and budgets are tight,” Tucker said at the meeting.

    Residents also questioned whether housing labeled as “affordable” — typically aimed at households earning up to 80% of the area median income which in Santa Clara County is $111,700 for an individual and $159,550 for a family of four — actually meets the needs of San Jose’s lowest-income residents.

    Housing advocates said the city’s current approach has contributed to widening economic and racial disparities.

    Regina Celestin Williams, executive director of SV@Home, said San Jose has been intentional about building housing in recent years, but much of it has been geared toward residents who can afford high rents or buy a home.

    Williams said while the city has invested in shelter and services for people experiencing homelessness, it has largely failed to address the needs of middle-class residents, particularly families.

    “Traditionally when you think of middle class, you think of a family,” she told San Jose Spotlight.

    She added that families are being displaced along with communities of color, especially Black and Indigenous residents.

    “If you allow the market to dictate, rents get extreme,” Williams said. “Once rent is set at $6,000, no one’s going to lower it.”

    Data shows the income needed to afford the average asking rent in Santa Clara County is about $10,767 a month, or roughly $62 an hour.

    San Jose’s minimum wage is $16.90 an hour, or about $70,000 a year for a full-time worker — far below what is needed to afford a median-priced home in the city.

    Real estate experts have previously estimated that households may need incomes approaching $300,000 to qualify for a mortgage in San Jose, a figure that has risen sharply in recent years as prices and interest rates have increased.

    A 2022 analysis by San Jose Spotlight found that monthly mortgage payments of roughly $9,000 were being described as “reasonable” in the city’s housing market. Housing advocates said conditions have worsened since then.

    Despite its booming tech economy, San Jose’s cost of living now rivals or exceeds that of other major U.S. cities, according to the Remitly study.

    Mayor Matt Mahan’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    The mayor has previously promoted San Jose as the best place to live and work, while pledging to accelerate housing construction and streamline development.

    Housing advocates said the latest ranking highlights the growing disconnect between that vision and the reality facing residents.

    “As a big city, you would think it would be affordable for everybody to live here,” Williams said. “But it’s not.”

    Editor’s note: This story was originally published by San Jose Spotlight.

    [ad_2]

    Maryanne Casas-Perez | San Jose Spotlight

    Source link

  • $524,000 annual salary needed to buy median-priced home in this Bay Area county

    [ad_1]

    It is no secret living in the Bay Area comes with a high price tag.

    A new report from the California Association of Realtors solidifies what is already known about the region’s pricey real estate. The association reports anyone wanting to buy a median-priced home in San Mateo County will need to earn more than half a million dollars a year — $524,000 to be exact.

    Yep, just over half a mil to purchase on the Peninsula. The minimum qualifying amount for a median-priced home in Santa Clara County goes down a notch to the tune of $482,400 annually.

    In San Francisco, one would need to make just north of $400,000 a year.

    The association said those staggering numbers are the result of the Bay Area’s unique mix of high tech salaries and low housing inventory.

    Business and tech reporter Scott Budman examines the latest numbers and what is fueling the rising prices. Watch his report in the video above.

    [ad_2]

    Scott Budman and Kristofer Noceda

    Source link

  • What to know about the White House’s 50-year mortgage proposal

    [ad_1]

    The White House says it is considering backing a 50-year mortgage to help alleviate the home affordability crisis in the country. But the announcement drew immediate criticism from policymakers, social media and economists, who said a 50-year mortgage would do little to resolve other core problems in the housing market, such as a lack of supply and high interest rates.

    Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said on X over the weekend that a 50-year mortgage would be “a complete game changer” for homebuyers. FHFA is the part of the federal government that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy and insure the vast majority of mortgages in the country.

    The 30-year mortgage is a uniquely American financial product and the default way to buy a home since the New Deal. Politicians and policymakers at the time wanted to create a standardized mortgage that borrowers could afford and pay off during their working years, when the average lifespan for an American was 66 years old.

    Lower payment

    Extending the life of a mortgage to 50 years does decrease a borrower’s monthly payment.

    The average selling price of a home in the U.S. was $415,200 in September, according to National Association of Realtors. Assuming a standard 10% down payment and an average interest rate of 6.17%, the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage would be $2,288 while the payment on a 50-year mortgage would be $2,022. That’s presuming a bank would not require a higher interest rate on a 50-year mortgage, due to the longer duration of the loan.

    But significantly higher interest

    Because even more of the monthly payment on a 50-year mortgage would go toward interest on the loan, it would take 30 years before a borrower would accumulate $100,000 in equity, not including home price appreciation and the down payment. That’s compared to 12-13 years to accumulate $100,000 in equity when paying off a 30-year mortgage, excluding the down payment.

    A borrower would pay, roughly, an additional $389,000 in interest over the life of a 50-year mortgage compared to a 30-year mortgage, according to an AP analysis.

    Other analysts came to a similar conclusion.

    “Extending a mortgage from 30 years to 50 years could double the (dollar) amount of interest paid by the homebuyer on a median priced home over the life of the loan and significantly slow equity accumulation,” wrote John Lovallo with UBS Securities.

    Broader housing issues

    A 50-year mortgage does nothing to solve one critical issue when it comes to housing affordability — the lack of supply of homes. States like California and cities like New York have recently passed legislation or made regulatory changes to allow builders to build homes faster with less regulatory red tape.

    There’s also the raw cost of homebuilding in the country. Products such as steel, lumber, concrete, copper and plastics that go into home construction are now subject to tariffs under President Trump. Further, many construction jobs were being done by undocumented workers, particularly in the Southwest, where deportations are impacting the ability for homebuilders to find enough labor to build homes.

    “Many of the big things that would address supply right now are going in the wrong direction,” said Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project.”

    Pulte said on X that the introduction of a 50-year mortgage was just a “potential weapon,” among other solutions the White House has considered to combat high housing prices.

    Americans don’t live long enough

    The average age of a first-time homebuyer has been creeping up for years and is now roughly 40 years of age. A 50-year mortgage would be difficult to underwrite for a bank for a 40-year-old first-time homebuyer, who would be 90 years old by the time that home is paid off. The average life expectancy of an American is now roughly 79 years, meaning there’s 11 years of life expectancy not covered in a 50-year loan.

    “It’s typically not a goal of policymakers to pass on mortgage debt to a borrowers’ children,” Konczal said.

    Others have tried longer loans

    Other parts of the financial system have extended loan terms, to mixed results. The seven-year auto loan has become increasingly common as car prices have risen and Americans keep their cars longer. Despite longer loan terms, auto loan delinquencies have been rising, and the average price of a new car is now $49,740 compared to a price of $38,948 for a new vehicle five years ago.

    Student loans were originally designed to be paid off in 10 years, and now there are multiple payment options that extend repayment out to 20 years.

    Economists pointed out that a 50-year mortgage may do the opposite of helping with home affordability by causing home price inflation by introducing more potential buyers into a market struggling with supply.

    Trump downplays idea

    After significant criticism, President Trump seemed less enthused about the 50-year mortgage. When asked by Laura Ingraham of Fox News about the idea, President Trump said it “might help a little bit” but seemed to brush it off.

    Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cannot insure a mortgage that is longer than 30 years, so any 50-year mortgage would be considered a “non-qualifying mortgage” and would be more difficult to sell to investors. Congress would have to amend U.S. financial laws in multiple places to allow for 50-year mortgages, and there seems to be little appetite for Congress to take this on immediately.

    [ad_2]

    Ken Sweet | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Tiny home builder’s customers ask: Where did their $100M go?

    Tiny home builder’s customers ask: Where did their $100M go?

    [ad_1]

    Katie Lucas’s San Leandro backyard is supposed to have the grandparents’ new “tiny home” by now. Instead, she has just a shell of a house. 

    “It should be a finished home,” she said, sobbing. ”With my mother-in-law and my grandma here.” 

    Katie hired and started paying Anchored Tiny Homes in 2022. “We’ve paid $211,000 so far,” she said. But this April, work stalled. And Now? “They are at a complete halt,” Lucas said.  

    Katie says subcontractors told her that ATH stopped paying them. “That’s when I lost it,” she said, “Because when we were invoiced, we paid [ATH] right away.”  

    Katie says she questioned Anchored Tiny Homes, but it stopped communicating.

    Customers Unite Online

    So, she shared her story on Facebook and created a group called “Scammed by anchored tiny homes.” Other angry customers came out of the unfinished woodwork.

    “I just feel so cheated,” said Girija Subramanya in the South Bay. 

    “They have not been transparent about what’s going on,” said Alan Miller in Oakland.  

    “I don’t know where my money went,” said Maria Djapounova in Walnut Creek. Djapounova says workers stopped showing up to her home two months ago. Despite paying $109,000, so far, her ADU is barely more than studs. 

    “We’ve paid more than 50% of the amount we were supposed to pay them, and as you can see, my ADU isn’t even 50% done,” she said.   

    Alan Miller in Oakland faces a similar bind. “We basically had a large plywood box in our backyard. And nothing more,” he said.

    Miller calculates his family pre-paid Anchored Tiny Homes $80,000 for work that no one did. For us, it’s just catastrophic,” he said. “They haven’t told us where our money went.”

    More Money, Less (or no) Work

    Down in Cupertino, Girija Subramanya explains what she has to show for her money: “Nothing. Zero.” Subramanya says she paid $32,000 for designs and permits that stalled. “I just want my money back,” she said. “I’m so pissed off.” 

    NBC Bay Area talked with other homeowners in Newark, Redwood City, Pleasant Hill, Saratoga, San Jose, and Hayward who tell similar stories. “We’re all holding the bag,” Miller said 

    The Contractors State License Board confirmed for NBC Bay Area that it is investigating. CSLB says it identified nine consumer complaints, so far, where a “probable violation has occurred.” And, “if proven would present a risk of harm to the public.” 

    The customers’ Facebook group suggests more angry people in and around Sacramento.

    We contacted Anchored Tiny Homes. it did not respond. Customers shared recent messages in which CEO Colton Paulhus told them he was “finalizing deals with investors.” He wrote: “we have no intention of leaving any jobs unfinished or any contractors unpaid.” 

    History of Failure

    Anchored Tiny Homes is based in Sacramento. In a now-removed YouTube video CEO Paulhus says “it’s a family business. It’s me, my dad, and my brother.”  

    In his now-removed YouTube podcast, called “The Visionaries Table,” Paulhus has said he previously headed six failed businesses. But, he said Anchored Tiny Homes was very successful. “I can tell you right now: a $100 million dollar business,” he said in an episode. 

    Customers heard him. “I have a lot of questions,” said Subramanya. The many homeowners we spoke with fear Anchored Tiny Homes has sunk.  “I want to know where my money went,” said Djapounova. “Is it all gone,“ asked Lucas.

    They see at least 100 million reasons for regulators and law enforcement to follow the money. “At least investigate them,” Subramanya said. “They have taken money and run,” Lucas said. 

    So, Now What?

    Miller, an attorney, said he’s looking for accountability. “I hope the owners of this company will have to account for what happened to this money,” Miller said. “Whether it was recklessness or negligence on their part. Or was it something worse?”

    Some people, like Miller, are resuming work — by hiring a new contractor and basically paying for some stuff again. Other families can’t, and are just stalled. A few folks, like Djapounova, told us subcontractors are threatening to put a lien on their home if they don’t pay the invoices they say Anchor Tiny Homes didn’t pay. 

    If you were an Anchored Tiny Homes customer, you can share your story with the state. Do that online at cslb.ca.gov. The complaint button is on the homepage, third circle from the right. 

    You can also share your story with NBC Bay Area Responds

    [ad_2]

    Chris Chmura

    Source link