Im +30 in Spain and I thought the demographic winter would land some great opportunities to buy a home. But looking into some deserted municipalities everything keeps being expensive, despite the extremely low demand (and I know this because I scrape the listings and track em). If I want to buy a shitty house that needs restoration I'm investing over 200k. Not to mention that the land registry holds values way above the market, so even if If I was able to buy for 1€ I would be paying taxes over 100k or whatever the value.
If you talk to some owners they seem to not care. Yeah they know that their property is falling apart but they won't sell under $value because they bought it at that price or similar reasonings.
So as an individual, what can I do? I don't want to be renting my whole life, I actually want to buy property but the market just doesn't adjust for some reasons. Remember we're talking about Spain, where the job market is shit, and the economy just can't keep up with the events.
Or you could just wait. A lot of people have been surprised that the housing market hasn't crashed. Two of the theories are:
1: supply is more elastic than demand. In other words, more sellers took potential listings off the market than buyers stopped looking.
2: governments printing money inflated investor assets like stocks and real estate.
If these are true, a backlog of listings from could flood the market next year, and the government money printing machine should turn off too. So perhaps the real estate adjustment has just been delayed.
But who knows, predicting what the market is going to in these crazy time is a mug's game.
Over the past 30 years buy-to-let has fundamentally changed the housing market to the point where I honestly don't believe there'll ever be a housing market crash again. Rich people will buy up all the available housing stock to rent out (or to AirBnB) if there's a small price drop. That will stop there ever being a big price drop.
Barring a sea change in housing policy that enables massive amounts of new houses to be built, I would make a significant wager that in 50 years time about 75% of people will rent their home all their life.
Add to this the fact that governments (at least in the US, and in many other countries) have made it clear that housing won't be allowed to fall. This combined with money printing means the price is almost guaranteed to rise.
The reason is that for most homeowners their home equity is the majority of their savings, and homeowners vote in higher proportion than renters (on average). Any politician that allows home values to fall too much will be facing the end of their career.
Under these conditions the only way housing will fall in a lasting way is if something so terrible happens to the economy that... well... you'll have bigger problems than housing.
Housing is fundamentally broken and very hard to fix due to vested interests all over the place. "Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment," and we've clearly decided that housing is a financial instrument first and a place to live second.
There is one way out of the housing price trap: telework plus ubiquitous broadband via things like 5G and Starlink. That could allow people to escape the housing trap by locating away from price hotspots. If you simply must live in a big city this won't work for you, but keep in mind that you could always live somewhere more rural and visit big cities any time you please.
> There is one way out of the housing price trap: telework plus ubiquitous broadband via things like 5G and Starlink.
I don’t buy that. People don’t like to live in cities primarily because of jobs, but because living in cities is fun.
People like to be close to other people, exchange with others and their community.
Living in a small town sounds depressing to me, no matter how fast the internet connection might be.
Maybe if you create your own commune, bring in a social circle from the city. But that has a tendency to fall apart.
> People don’t like to live in cities primarily because of jobs, but because living in cities is fun.
This is mostly only true of younger childless people. Once you have kids you can forget about having any fun for the next 15 years or so. And after that, well, how many 45 year olds do you see in nightclubs?
It's your choice. Trouble is that if you stay in a city under the current housing finance regime it will be a lot harder to build wealth. A lot will get eaten by rent or mortgage.
"housing policy that enables massive amounts of new houses to be built"
I think you mean "new homes". I don't think there's anywhere in the US with a housing crisis is due to new houses not being allowed. It's usually due to the difficulty in tearing down houses (and low-density apartments) and building higher density apartments. This may seem pedantic, but in these discussions the distinction is important. In almost every housing-related thread on HN, I see people using them interchangeably, in ways that are confusing.
I'm not sure what distinction you're getting at? I'm in Somerville Massachusetts, houses are very expensive, and the land is all built out. If you tore down a house, you would not be able to build as large a house in its place, in almost all circumstances. You definitely couldn't build a bigger one. What are you trying to get at with "new houses" versus "new homes"?
My feeling is that the pandemic and impending economic collapse will change that.
Remember when the 2008 crisis hit, no one was buying but no one was renting either. And a lot of banks with real estate on their books just let it sit there (where it sits today).
Once a the credit default domino chain starts to fall, people and organization will need to get liquid. The first stage will see some people jump in on pent-up demand but after that, real estate will fall through the floor. It will literally drop to near nothing in places.
> no one was buying but no one was renting either.
As someone who was in eighth grade at the time, can you clarify what you mean by this? Every person either 1) buys property, 2) rents property, 3) goes homeless, or 4) dies. There aren't really any other choices.
from the point of view of the owner of an empty housing unit, if no one is buying and no one is renting then you are just left paying property tax and maintenance on an empty unit.
But, at least in my local market, it would surprise if the banks are sitting on empty units from 2008, as far as I know it all got auctioned off years ago.
This article predicts the covid crisis will center around a new collateralized debt instrument "[after post 2008 banking reform] [d]emand shifted to a similar—and similarly risky—instrument, one that even has a similar name: the CLO, or collateralized loan obligation. A CLO walks and talks like a CDO, but in place of loans made to home buyers are loans made to businesses—specifically, troubled businesses."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/coronav... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23480680
If banks let real estate sit on their books, why did the real estate market crash? I remember seeing whole neighborhoods of new homes in Las Vegas going for $100K just to move them.
> Or you could just wait. ... 2: governments printing money inflated investor assets like stocks and real estate.
Waiting will only help modestly. In the meantime, while you wait, your purchasing power is being destroyed, which is likely to put you in an at-best net break-even scenario on waiting.
2a) Asset prices - such as housing - have been permanently adjusted higher because the real standard of living, the real value of the currencies in question (USD and Euro in this case) have been debased by the central banks and their wildly aggressive 'printing.'
Skeptical? You can see this vividly in the permanently set higher price of things like gold, oil, platinum, copper, silver. Gold isn't going back to $200 or $400 ever again. A gallon of milk will never be $0.25 again. Housing isn't going back, either. What you're seeing are permanently higher lows and higher highs on housing prices, as the currencies are getting destroyed. The average person can't outrun the destruction, only people with liquid assets can attempt to keep up. That isn't to say there can't be a drop in real-estate prices, rather, it's to say that the drop won't roll prices back to a prior band/range.
Occasionally we get a very dramatic demonstration of this destruction in action, as in ~2003-2007, the commodity bubble, caused by the disastrous US financial policies during the Bush years, which smashed the dollar and sent everything else soaring when priced in dollars (also nicely represented in the extreme skyrocketing in GDPs - when priced in dollars - in every other nation on the planet at exactly the same time; eg Czech's GDP went up 300% in just seven years, 2002-2008, priced in dollars; needless to say, their economy didn't actually expand by 300% in that time, that was the USD imploding).
The US has seen very modest real growth over the last 20 years, and a lot of inflation (housing, healthcare, education, vehicles, maintenance costs, etc.). Most people can't keep up with the asset inflation vs their incomes. The same is true in most of Europe, the EU has seen net zero growth for about ~13-14 years now (and that's ignoring the setback from the virus). People can only tolerate this situation for so long before you get hefty civil unrest or political revolution, we've prominently seen a taste of it in the US and France, and elsewhere.
Do you know why software developers are now earning a median of $110,000 per year in the US? Because they're one of the few segments keeping up with inflation at all (thanks to the super fat margins in the industry and global reach of US tech). $70,000 in 2000 is about equal to $110,000 today (and that's a poor adjustment, because major costs like education & healthcare & housing have soared over that time). Or price it in gold over time (up 500%+ since 2000), and then you'll see, the software developers are actually struggling to keep up, and everyone else is de facto drowning.
ShadowStats.com tracks the Consumer Price Index according to the old 1980 and 1990 methodologies.... 6% or 10% annually vs. less than 2% under the current CPI index.
Move to Italy and buy one of the €1 houses in the article? The language is easy for you, and depending where you are in Spain, it might be a closer move than to other parts of Spain.
Of course there's a catch, but if what you really want is to own your own home and you're flexible about where you live, you're the right person for this kind of initiative.
There's usually a catch to these effectively free real estate deals. Like the home is a registered historic site so you're on the hook for tens or hundreds of thousands in maintenance that all has to be approved by some council of greybeards who won't accept anything that isn't made in exactly the same way it was 500 years ago. "These replacement stones were worked with power tools, they've lost their authenticity!"
By the way the land is on a consecrated ancient battlefield/holy site, so you can't put a shovel in it without a full archeological review.
The most common catches I'm aware of (doing some research) are:
* Some towns have a requirement that you start a small business to qualify.
* In some towns the houses are auctioned with a starting bid of one Euro. The nicest ones will get bid up a fair bit, but a lot of them close for one to five thousand euro. The nicest ones (minimal renovation required) can close for up to twenty-five thousand euros.
* Often a refundable deposit of two to five thousand euros is required, with the catch that you start moving in or renovating within a year and complete moving in and/or renovating within three years.
* The houses are often long abandoned. Renovation costs are going to be what they are -- significant -- so you best be handy, as you can cut your renovation costs by 80-90% if you eliminate labor costs. Regardless, your renovations will need to be approved.
* Tax contracts and real estate closing costs, which will typically be a few (as in, around 2 to 3) thousand euros.
Or where they will require that certain companies or people are doing the work because that's the only way they will be satisfied. Never mind that these are overpriced, deliver crap work or both, you won't get a permit in any other way. The best outcome is you pay them to stay away.
This happens in other places as well (Portugal, Spain).
This is a very valid point. As someone with an Italian step-dad who's dealt with property in Italy, I can say that dealing with permits etc in Italy is really not easy. Things really do work their own, Italian, way. It's not the same as real estate in the US, even if you are comparing historic regulations here to there.
Guess I don't really have a point to this comment, other than to say this parent comment might sound like an extreme exaggeration but AFAIK it isn't.
edit: looks like jacquesm has made a similar point
If I emigrate I would do for the money, It doesn't make sense from my POV to go to a tiny town in a country I don't know, leaving behind my friends an relatives. The same applies for everywhere else.
I think you're dismissing the tax implications too easily. Unless they are waiving the taxes you're still going to pay a at least 10k€ just for the title change alone.
Heck, there are a lot of properties in Germany (where there are actually jobs) that would require less than €200k.
People here say these are remote but that is really mostly just how "spoiled" (in quotes because I'm "spoiled" that way too!) Germans are with commute. You can be 1 hour drive away (including traffic) from many fairly central places in Berlin & have very cheap housing outside the city (partially this is because traffic is actually not that bad in Berlin & partially because it's in the middle of an otherwise fairly empty & large plain[0]).
In comparison nowhere within reasonable 1 hour drive from central London is cheap, nor from SF/LA/NYC or heck even Tel Aviv.
You'd be surprised. 1hr commute from London in reality is 40 minutes on the train (10 minutes walk either side, even getting out of a major train station takes that long). And 40 minutes ride from central London is Sevenoaks, Reading, St. Albans, and zone 6 commuter towns like Amersham or Borehamwood -- your 3-bed semi will still cost you half a million pounds if not much more. (Thanks to the NIMBY policy that designated dozens square miles of farms inside the M25 as "green belt" and dozens more as private golf courses...)
Only if you rent or stay far away from the hotspots. Germany has one of the lowest home ownership rates recorded at 41%.
In Munich, an average <80m2 apartment 40+ minutes away from the city center costs around 640K EUR. And if you're looking at a decent detached house we're talking about a million at the very least.
Unfortunately doesn't add up when salaries in tech are 55-85k EUR, with net income somewhere around half of that.
But yes, outside of purchasing real estate, cost of living is pretty good relative to quality of life.
I would not say that 2 hours of driving every day is affordable, if you calculate the fully-loaded euros per km cost of owning, maintaining, fueling, insurance and operating a vehicle, how many km you would put on it every work week, and the cost of paying for parking in the urban center. 0.75 euro cents per km would not be an unreasonable figure.
The first thing is to look in places without good transit as germans (reasonably!) prefer those. The moment it requires owning a car anything outside Berlin (so in Brandenburg) will be affordable.
It returns 83 results & while not all of them are within 1 hour drive from Berlin, at least a bunch of them are.
Also if you're in the affluent south or west of the country (which I suspect is where you searched?) you will have far fewer options for cheap housing than in the depopulated former East-Germany around Berlin. You definitely can't repeat this "trick" outside of Munich.
Near the Dutch German border there are plenty of houses that are affordable, well under 200K. Don't cross that border though, then prices will skyrocket.
Hey, are you up for chatting more about Berlin houses? I'm Dutch and my German is ... not too great. But I am mildly interested in it. So if you're up for it, my email is in my profile.
This is super interesting, because the land registry in Barcelona reflects something like 25% of market value today for cadastral value, and was even less before their recent adjustment (+50% in my case) a couple years ago.
Spain has a big issue which OP didn't mention. We built more houses than were needed between 2000-2008. Which sadly means a ton of the emoty homes are owned by Banks, so if they devalue the houses their stock price plummets. So they are incentivized to keep the prices artificially high.
That isn't the case anymore. Most of the stock has already been sold, and what isn't sold has been transferred to Sareb, except a few ones that may produce some profit in the future.
There are shortable futures contracts tied to US housing price indexes[1], but they're highly illiquid (rarely trade, and have wide bid/ask spreads). This is probably related to the difficulty of hedging, since as another poster points out housing is not fungible, and to the very high transaction costs involved in buying or selling the underlying.
Yeah I know about those. Robert Shiller was behind this project, in his mind many mortgages should be bundled with a put option on such an index. I agree. Needles to say his idea didn't catch on.
Here I was thinking about shorting specific homes, those for which one of the parent comments implied that their value is substantially lower than the current asking prices. It's a very futuristic idea, though not entirely impossible. If you're long on something then lending that thing out to a short seller is profitable because he has to pay you the lending fees (usually up to a few % per year).
Interesting idea! Who would take the other (long) side of the trade? Why would someone who thinks housing prices are going up not just buy a house outright?
The long party is whoever currently owns the property that is being sold short. It would be essentially a leverage tool for property owners. As a property owner you already enjoy a cash flow stream in the form of rent (could be implicit if you live in the property), you'd get a second stream from the short seller.
The only fuzzy part in this scheme is when does the short seller finally get paid. It would probably require some kind of a foreclosure on the property (otherwise the property owner would have to lock up a significant amount of some other collateral), putting a cap on the short sale profits.
This is kind of how reverse mortgages work. There the bank (or some other financial company) plays the role of the short seller, while the retiree is the long. The short side payout happens at death.
This is the problem with a lack of land and property taxation. Elderly people will hold onto assets forever, until death essentially, whilst the building and society collapses around them. Meanwhile they demand a huge amount of welfare and healthcare services without paying into the system.
At least the land tax system in the USA encourages downsizing and efficient allocation of this resource.
And what would you'r solution be? Take from them the houses they worked their whole lives to acquire and put them in elderly homes? They have paid their share to society by providing the taxes for 65+ years that they have worked and brought us where we are today.
Those homes are not vanished from the market. They will be inherited by their children and so on.
Land taxation is by my opinion inherently bad for that specific reason ( if they have only one piece of land )
The problem is that we are pilling into cities where land is minimal and thus the market works in supply and demand.
Hopefully as years pass, where remote work is more and more accessible you can be owning your own 1 euro or whatever home in any area and not worry about limited land.
I really don't understand this argument. Land taxes are supposed to pay for the various services in the area (schools, roads, etc). You don't pay your fair share and be done, you pay every year because those services cost money every year. If, at some point, you can no longer afford those costs (excluding those situations where social welfare safety nets are supposed to help), you move somewhere else. You don't get to keep taking advantage those services without paying for them just because you've been there for a long time.
In Germany thats what income tax is for. The municipality receives the money and funds local infrastructure from it. I think the rest of Europe is at least similar in this regard.
One can argue about which system is better, but taxing elderly people out of their homes would never fly politically over here.
... and that's why we have families who are on the verge of welfare not selling their expensive (additional) properties, waiting them to appreciate even more in value, dreaming of selling them somewhere in future and making their children set for life, while working class people have to pay 50% of their already heavily taxed wages for rent...
No. The main funding for local communities are property tax ("Grundsteuer") and business tax ("Gewerbesteuer"), income tax share only accounts for about a third. The height of both are also set on the local level the community has a very direct way to change the available money.
edit: A solution to this problem is to allow seniors to defer payment of the land value tax until the next purchase of the land, at which point the next buyer will receive the deferred tax burden.
Land tax also does not allow you to simply exist - you have to make a profit to pay the tax. You can't just grow your own food and ignore the economy. It also comes with perverse incentives, like opposing anything that might raise property values unless you want to sell.
Perhaps it's a uniquely American view, having no connection to the land you live on, looking at it as just an economic resource to be 'allocated'.
Even in pre-civilised societies you couldn't simply exist. You didn't pay taxes, yet you also had to work hard to protect the land from intruders, or, heck, even had to bust your ass off to provide regular access to basic things such as water and food.
People on this thread rightly point out that this isn't a great deal b/c the costs to actually get it to livable condition, along with conservation constraints might be quite significant.
I think an interesting point of comparison is Japan's policies around abandoned houses, and efforts to try to prop up vanishing rural communities, where aside from repair/renovation and administration costs, the owner can also be obligated to actively farm agricultural land associated with the property.
On a similar point, this video goes through the costs of buying an abandoned house in Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwRjO3kHxU4 To be fair, although there are a lot of "extras", the sums involved still seemed relatively small.
Can you throw away owned real property elsewhere? The closest I can think of is not paying property taxes and hoping the state/municipality will seize the property and not come after you for the difference. If the actual value of the property is zero or negative it's difficult to come out ahead.
If after a decade of reading about $500 houses in Detroit people haven't figured out what "cost of compliance" means then they probably never will at this point.
When you read the words "$<small_number> house" the words you should read in your mind are "dilapidated building in a municipality with crazy back-tax scheme that would make the California RMV proud and probably also regulatory capture by relevant trade(s) that inflates the cost of repairing the building"
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
You wanna know how much a house costs look at the average income of the working households in the neighborhood. What they can afford is about what it costs.
Or maybe "$<small_number> house" just means somewhere no one wants to live. You can get a reasonable house in rural Saskatchewan without any fine print for under USD$20K.
Yeah I mean for $1 I expect a shed without running water but I expect most of the cheapness to be due to high fixed costs and low demand, e.g. because of a non-existent job market.
Now that tons of people with good tech jobs can work from almost anywhere, I expect some of these remote locations to become quite poopular. I wouldn't mind spending summers in a shed in a remote part of Italy, for example.
4G is more than enough for what I need (I'm going to assume now that anywhere at all populated in these countries already have decent 4G or will have within the foreseeable future). This is the case already in e.g. Northern rural Sweden. It's far far less densely populated than anywhere in Italy.
Best part is you won't even need to lie about wanting to stay in Sask!
Once you're in the country for 3 years, you can apply for citizenship. I think they take a year to process, but you'll get it if you were here long enough and didn't do anything stupid.
Less extreme example: When people sell their house 30% below market rate then you have to prepare yourself for the possibility that you have to spend that saved 30% on remodeling the home. Cheap properties usually have problems but estimating how much it costs to fix them is difficult if you are not the owner. However, the owner knows that it would take X amount of money to repair the home so he deducts X from the market price to clear the sale.
When you're saving 99% expect to replace up to 99% of the house.
The only real way to save money is by doing the repairs/remodeling yourself but that's basically a second job.
Yeah, but you won't. Conservation laws will prevent you from tearing down the old house and instead oblige you to invest to prevent it from falling over on its own.
It's Southern Europe. Ask the locals how often they wait for the bureau to allow repairs and how often they just go ahead and do whatever changes they feel are needed.
Be sure to ask the locals how often they get away with that vs. how often foreigners get away with it (especially foreigners who've paid a 5000-euro deposit and explicitly promised not to do it, in exchange for a 1-euro purchase price)
Uh, no, that's a good way to get fined, at least in Portugal/Spain.
People will often circumvent rules when they can (e.g. add a second story without a permit, but avoid putting regular windows to claim it's just a storage attic), but if you want to make more profound changes, you better be prepared to fight the bureaucracy.
This video [0] "The Truth Behind Italy's $1 Homes" by Business Insider, explains the concept, the motivation behind it and how these houses will cost you way more than 1$ in fees and restoration efforts.
Earlier they talk about taxes + fees totalling about $3,000. A few seconds after listing the expenses they cite a Forbes article, where one residents expects to spend $124,000 to renovate their place.
They talk about some of these homes requiring at least $17,000 of renovations to be done.
The houses are sometimes auctioned off, starting at $1, but they may be sold for more than $20,000.
The deposit is refundable if you start renovating within a year after buying the house.
I'm even lazier than you, so I won't watch it and just guess: I suspect that the purchase is contingent on you committing funds to restoration that honour history (if appropriate) or code. e.g., you can't buy a ruined castle, make it remotely liveable and camp there; you'd need to deal with local council, sewage, plumbing, running electricity, etc. Where a certain technique of centuries-old stonework was used, you'd need to find the lone expert accredited in renovating and securing walls, etc.
There are hundreds of amazing ruins around Australia that the land owners can't justify renovating because the costs to do it justice are too much. Huge shame.
If you click the ellipsis (...) above the subscribe button there's an option to "open transcript" which pops up in the top right corner. You can copy-paste the whole thing into notepad or whatever.
I looked into this pretty extensively when Italy announced it and like most government initiatives there it's a borderline scam and was done for the PR not because it makes sense. Each of these houses requires extensive renovation work, usually of the type that can only be performed by an expensive specialized contractor.
Besides the expected costs for this work (Which will be at least 20k Euros up to 200k or more) you will be responsible for paying for many different permits to do this work which can also add up to 100s of Euros. Then you will find out that you get only one year from purchase to complete all renovations or you forfeit your investment.
After all this if you still aren't convinced you will find that the local governments will take months to issue each permit. The few specialized contractors licensed to perform the work will not show up for weeks at a time randomly whenever they feel like it. After one year you will have paid tens of thousands of Euros to local governments and contractors and your house will be worse than when you started.
Since you didn't meet the deadline the local government will take the house back and sell it for 1 Euro to the next sucker in line. This is a stimulus program for local governments and contractors in small Italian towns, and you are the source of funding if you decide to try to buy one of these houses.
>After all this if you still aren't convinced you will find that the local governments will take months to issue each permit. The few specialized contractors licensed to perform the work will not show up for weeks at a time randomly whenever they feel like it. After one year you will have paid tens of thousands of Euros to local governments and contractors and your house will be worse than when you started.
Maybe, but this is a constant, no matter how much you initially paid the house (to be restructured).
Strangely enough, for a few hundred thousands of dollars/Euros, a large number of houses already perfectly rehabiitated are available that you can buy and enter into in a matter of a few days.
Also, in all western world you will need to comply with building regulations, build masonry and plants according to norms, have licensed architects and engineers for the projects, "fight" with contractors, etc., etc.
Italy is not much worse or different than other countries in this regard, maybe - it greatly depends on the specific place - permmits will talke a little longer than in other places, but all the rest will be very similar in any EU country.
you'll find a lot of issues living in a house without a 'certificato di abitabilità', connecting utilities might be outright impossible and you might be fined/removed from the premises.
No, you cannot live in the house until it is certified as habitable. Like many things in Italy this would no doubt be flexible with the right "permits" paid for to the right officials. But the houses would likely have no working electricity, heat, water or plumbing. So you wouldn't really want to live there anyway.
Detroit ten years ago was famous for $1000 houses. But these houses were gutted, without wiring or plumbing or furnaces. In other words a shell, stripped by scrappers.
Most of those houses have been torn down. But the city has a program that rebuilds the salvageable houses to better than new then sells them at a bargain. The deal is you must live there as your primary residence for five years. These houses begin at $50,000.
- Envisage a restructuring and re-evaluation project within 365 days of purchase.
- Support notarial fees for registration and volture.
- Once all permits are granted, works must start within a maximum of 2 months.
- To guarantee the faireness of the purchase by the buyer, the municipality asks to enter into a surety policy of 5 thousand euros lasting for three years that is then refunded.
So it's about the same as buying a plot of land (where you usally need to build something within a period of time).
€1 for a plot of land isn't terrible either.
There used to be seaside plots for €1 in northern Sweden, with the caveat that you need to live there permanently for 5 years.
If Italy is anything like Germany in terms of conservation laws, you wouldn't want those buildings even if they were accompanied by a small to medium pile of cash. It will cost you more than building anew to restore usability while observing all the conservatory dos and don'ts.
and the results might be backward to live in, we used to live in a old cottage house that was renovated, split into a moltitude of small apartment units and sold separately; city council didn't allow to install shutters or to add balconies; with only blinds you get a ton of heat getting in on summer and without balconies we had to dry laundry in house, which was then often moist in winter.
Rules in Italy about restoration are very detailed, but, depending to the place, restoration using original materials and techniques is not that expensive, it may be even cheaper.
In Italy, at least in my experience, what increases the costs are taxes, and requirements to declare the “habitability” of a place...
> While Topeka gets its program [to pay people to move there] underway, other places in America and across the globe are already trying to entice new residents with cash and other perks. Here’s a look at some other spots that would love to have you think about living there.
Assuming plenty of time, not much luxury taste, wanting to ramp up tech skills, limited (but existing) funds
Buy one, establish a hacker space, hold regular events, show the awesome projects you do, try to have community-positive impacts. Do some remote gigs for funding.
At worse you get kicked out because people don't get technology, don't want you around, find out you're not going to be a source of income.
At best, people love what you do, help you renovate because plenty of materials and help can be had in some communities, and you go from homeless to remote tech worker.
During a similar initiative, friends of mine in Italy have been kicked out by the local community, jealous they could enjoy such benefit.
Maybe some of these repopulation projects don’t consider enough the effect over the local rural communities, which are usually very conservative and suspicious toward “strangers”.
Most of those 1-Euro houses are in Sicily, Italy. This is connected to the fact, that "la famiglia" ("the family", mafia) is controlling everything in society. They will even give you presents worth more than 1 Euro, because they know they will get every cent back from you. If you stay long enough there, they will give you orders (like "you need to make this and this") and if you refuse to do it, they will - and I am not kidding or making it up - just kill your children (if you have them). So - no - I would not buy this 1-Euro house in Sicily, Italy. It is cheaper to go to the hotel there than to own anything... People are relocating from Sicily because of this problem...
This has been told by the people who relocated, because they were not willing to risk their children. Another example: if you start your business there, someone from "the family" will come after a while and tell you: "You need a secretary. And I have found one for you." Now if you reject them, they will go after you. This is why people are leaving. It would be a beautiful place to live, but because of this, people are living. Many Italian politicians tried to fight "the family", most of them were killed.
No offense, but from what I know that is exactly what an anecdote is. As for your claim about the mafia, I have no idea personally but good thing you mentioned it.
if this comes with land, i might be interested. but whats the point of a crumbling house? homes in europe dont come with extensive backyards or gardens.
building tiny homes surrounded by an edible landscape and reselling it could be my next hobby-career. its the stuff of day dreams.
having said that..it would depend on how it would be taxed. europe? i am going to go with steep.
> There's an old joke that has two economists coming across a $20 bill on the sidewalk, which goes:
> The young economist looks down and sees a $20 bill on the street and says, "Hey, look a twenty-dollar bill!"
> Without even looking, his older and wiser colleague replies, "Nonsense. If there had been a twenty-dollar lying on the street, someone would have already picked it up by now."
Finding a $20 on the street falls within the realm of reason, and is not likely a scam. Finding a suitcase full of cash however, and picking it up probably has strings attached.
I you stop at the attention grabbing headline, sure it's too good to be true.
It's probably clear to everyone that the cost in the end is going to be bigger. If you watch Raed667's video, the municipalities involved are quite upfront about it and not really trying to scam anyone.
But basically you can see that as a subside or a promotion. The fact that there is going to be other costs associated doesn't means the market ruled it as a bad deal as bobwernstein claimed
It really depends on the price. At 150k€ they're not worth buying, at 1€ plus taxes, deposits and various renovation works... Maybe.
One might get a nice vacation house for cheap.
One of such houses (not those shown in the video) was actually near the places where I grew up. Such place is nowadays decently connected (still sub-optimal, but decent). If somebody was forward-looking enough could have bought property for extremely cheap and would be working from there now.
In my opinion, one of the big factors in evaluating a house is the nearby infrastructure, mainly connectivity and railroads / public transport in general. You'll need those anyway. If they're either not present or subpar then you should value the property less imho.
Edit: decently connected means a fttc (fiber to the cabinet, copper on last mile) connection, max speeds being 1gbps down / 100 mbps up, for 25-35 €/month -- you'll never reach such speeds of course, but even one tenth of that would still be usable for most things.
You don't of course, because you mostly can't. Yeah there might be some kind of technology to push the speed to that limit, but I don't expect to see speed pushed in the kind of areas where houses are sold basically at loss for 1€.
So, long story short: that's the advertised speed.
Advertised speed usually means it's technically possible, even if it doesn't happen in practice. It seems there is indeed 1Gb/s VSDL technology but at least Wikipedia doesn't list any such deployment in Italy. But even 100Mb/s is good enough connectivity in my experience with fiber and apparently that's common for FTTC deployments.
Might not be DSL, but DOCSIS (coaxial), as part of an HFC system[1]. Version 3.1 can reach over 1Gbps, though that rather depends on how many people you are sharing it with.
The market (especially in real estate) is not totally frictionless and arbitrage-free. Plus people can have genuinely different valuations for consumable assets (like housing) - that's the entire point of a market, to facilitate trade where both sides make a gain on the transaction.
I don't think anyone would buy these houses as an investment, but if you wanted a quiet house in the countryside and spoke Italian already, maybe it could work for you.
Maybe rewrite that as "if you wanted a quiet house in the countryside and spoke Italian already, had experience managing a challenging renovation in a foreign country, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spare to put towards the required renovations, maybe it could work for you."
If you talk to some owners they seem to not care. Yeah they know that their property is falling apart but they won't sell under $value because they bought it at that price or similar reasonings.
So as an individual, what can I do? I don't want to be renting my whole life, I actually want to buy property but the market just doesn't adjust for some reasons. Remember we're talking about Spain, where the job market is shit, and the economy just can't keep up with the events.