(Day 6 of the 30 in 30 challenge.)
Great timing. Time magazine puts out an article in the September 6, 2010 print issue, "The Case Against Homeownership" (shortened version here), where as NAR puts a reprint of part of a New York Times article FOR homeownership.
The PRINT version of the Time article goes into more depth (obviously) but some of the things it argues against homeownership are things like "mobility" (where homeowners and their families are more easily able to move to take advantage of opportunities in different geographical areas) and partially that renters are forced out of the "better" neighborhoods (or flat out zoned out of a preferred area). Cities such as New York and Portland (OR) supposedly do better economically, where as cities like Detroit and Cleveland have thousands of homeowners that are "stuck" where they are, to put it bluntly.
Now of course, we as agents do business with either, but obviously there's more money to be made for us in homeownership. However, the grand majority of my business right now is rentals, so I can't complain either way. Are the better homes in neighborhoods with more homeowners? Can't argue with you there. But I have seen the case of personal friends being "stuck" with their homes in the last couple years in the housing market, where as if they were renting, the moving process would have been less painful and less expensive.
Oh well, each side has it's points...
Comments(1)