A Modest House Goes For $1.1 Million

[Geoist]

...because it is located nearby Google's headquarters.

With just two bedrooms and a single bathroom spread over its modest 960 sq/ft living space, this unprepossessing 70-year-old bungalow in Mountain View, California, is on the market for a wallet-busting $1.1million (£700,000).
The reason? It's less than ten minutes' drive from the headquarters of online search and advertising giant Google.

Just an average middle-class American suburb... The area's property prices have risen in line with tech stocks.

What potential buyers will be paying for is the privilege of living in Mountain View.

Google is reputed to lead the pack in doling out the big bucks to its software engineers and designers, with even interns earning a massive $6,000 a month.

High prices aren't a problem if you're a well-to-do software engineer, but for the rest of humanity, you're suddenly priced out.

And the situation is only likely to get more difficult. Zillow predicts that Mountain View house prices are likely to rise a further 7 per cent next year.

The two-bedroom Silicon valley bungalow that costs more than $1MILLION because it's near Google's HQ | Mail Online

Perhaps it should be the community rather than a small minority benefiting from site values?

 

[joko104]

There are 6 vacant houses for every 1 homeless person in the USA.

 

[joko104]

Google is the evil empire. People just don't realize it yet.

 

[Aderleth]

Everything in Silicon Valley is ridiculously expensive these days. Single bedroom apartments in the nicer neighborhoods in SF average about $2500 (at least). My mom's house in the south bay appreciated like 40% last year. It's not just Google, but rather the whole tech industry that causes such things.

 

[Carjosse]

Welcome to the world of property. This is pretty much the norm in big cities now.

 

[calamity]

That house is a POS. So. THey buy it for $1.1M and build a $2.2 McMansion on top of the property, which is probably the size of a postage stamp.

 

[ocean515]

...because it is located nearby Google's headquarters.

View attachment 67150912



Perhaps it should be the community rather than a small minority benefiting from site values?

The property taxes collected will be well over $10,000 year. I'd say that's a substantial benefit to the community for such a small home.

 

[Geoist]

The property taxes collected will be well over $10,000 year. I'd say that's a substantial benefit to the community for such a small home.

That $1.1 million isn't for the house. It is for the location.

 

[Geoist]

Everything in Silicon Valley is ridiculously expensive these days. Single bedroom apartments in the nicer neighborhoods in SF average about $2500 (at least). My mom's house in the south bay appreciated like 40% last year. It's not just Google, but rather the whole tech industry that causes such things.

Is this the price of progress? I'd rather think it is the price of a shortsighted tax and land system.

 

[Geoist]

Welcome to the world of property. This is pretty much the norm in big cities now.

Pretty much been the norm since the hunter/gatherer system ended and the agricultural system was first developed. It can be fixed, though.

 

[Carjosse]

Is this the price of progress? I'd rather think it is the price of a shortsighted tax and land system.

It's not tax actually a tax could probably drive housing prices down in some areas. They go up in price because that is where people want to live and also because they can charge that much. It's a new kind of property bubble.

 

[Carjosse]

Pretty much been the norm since the hunter/gatherer system ended and the agricultural system was first developed. It can be fixed, though.

No I mean crap homes selling for ludicrous amounts of money.

 

[Geoist]

That house is a POS.

Yeah, 'modest' is a bit kind. :lol:

THey buy it for $1.1M and build a $2.2 McMansion on top of the property, which is probably the size of a postage stamp.

They don't even have to build anything to make a profit. They could tear it down and wait for land values to go up even more.

 

[Geoist]

No I mean crap homes selling for ludicrous amounts of money.

Do you think it is the house or the land that is valued at $1.1 million?

 

[Carjosse]

Do you think it is the house or the land that is valued at $1.1 million?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the house but it is probably the land.

 

[Geoist]

It's not tax actually a tax could probably drive housing prices down in some areas.

With the right tax, I definitely agree.

They go up in price because that is where people want to live and also because they can charge that much. It's a new kind of property bubble.

Naw, this is really nothing new. Land values have fluctuated for a long time now. They bring profits for a privileged few while the rest of the community pays for it.

 

[Mach]

...because it is located nearby Google's headquarters.Perhaps it should be the community rather than a small minority benefiting from site values?

The community already takes near 50% of those workers income plus property taxes plus whatever other godforsaken taxes CA takes out. Perhaps you should look to your own finances and earnings and stop looking at what others are getting, then coming up with outrageous reasons why you think you should be able to take it. It's like that in much of the high profile areas in CA, it's why they all move to Texas. Their $1M home there is $200K here, but when they see what they can get for $500K, still half of what they paid in CA, but a veritable mansion compared to the same CA residence, they are sold.

 

[Geoist]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the house but it is probably the land.

As one wise man once said: Location, location, location.

 

[Aderleth]

Is this the price of progress? I'd rather think it is the price of a shortsighted tax and land system.

It's basic economics. The entire Bay Area is lousy with extremely well-paid people. That drives up prices of conveniently placed property. It's been happening here for decades, and not just in Mountain View. Places like Los Altos, Palo Alto and Los Gatos all have mean house prices in the $800-$900k range (if not higher by now), and San Francisco itself is off the charts in the centrally located areas. There's an awful lot of money in this area and people want to live here. :shrug:

 

[Geoist]

The community already takes near 50% of those workers income plus property taxes plus whatever other godforsaken taxes CA takes out.

Taxes on productive activities are a huge problem, as well. As you should already know, I advocate the reduction/elimination of taxes on goods, actual services, and work.

Perhaps you should look to your own finances and earnings and stop looking at what others are getting, then coming up with outrageous reasons why you think you should be able to take it.

I have this amazing ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Aderleth]

The community already takes near 50% of those workers income plus property taxes plus whatever other godforsaken taxes CA takes out. Perhaps you should look to your own finances and earnings and stop looking at what others are getting, then coming up with outrageous reasons why you think you should be able to take it. It's like that in much of the high profile areas in CA, it's why they all move to Texas. Their $1M home there is $200K here, but when they see what they can get for $500K, still half of what they paid in CA, but a veritable mansion compared to the same CA residence, they are sold.

That's basically a myth. If it were remotely as true as Rick Perry would like you to believe, demand would have dropped by now for these properties, and their prices would stop rising. Clearly that hasn't happened. Also, people's jobs are generally tied to Silicon Valley.

 

[Mach]

Taxes on productive activities are a huge problem, as well. As you should already know, I advocate the reduction/elimination of taxes on goods, actual services, and work.
I have this amazing ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I do like how the recent posts, this and the "Tax wealth the new Battleground" are basically just people seeing other people with money, and devising ways to take it from them. Really Geoist, at some level you have to know that's just naughty.

Geoist. Whoever invested in that property took all the risk. If you then wait until each of those investments that did well, to then swoop in and reap the rewards without having assumed that risk, you are cheating them, cheating the system. You would dramatically decrease real estate investment. The community would suffer, and you'd be claiming it was anyone but you who caused the issue.

Risk gets factored in Geoist. Use a less biased analogy. If a person takes a contract job overseas in Iraq, they may know every well, as warned in writing, that there is a significant chance of death or injury, and that they may cause irreparable harm to their family and at the very least miss out on years with the family. They weigh the cost, vs the risk, and they make the call. Now let's say they did really well that year, $400K for a contract job that might pay $80K in the U.S. If we punished them for that after the fact, that would have let them take all the risk, and you'd get to reap the reward. If you told them before they went that they'd have to fork over much of it to you, they simply would not have gone. You'd have essentially, artificially, increased the price for anyone trying to get labor to Iraq, and you'd have cheated that individual out of a great paying job. Of course, you'd probably come in with a big contract firm with a government deal and provide it all, effectively having shut out all individuals from competing with you...that would be typical big government corruption yes?

So no, it would be terrible and terrifying for the community if you grabbed peoples money who took risk and were rewarded.

 

[ocean515]

That $1.1 million isn't for the house. It is for the location.

Ok. And the "community" will still share in the property taxes collected. Although, it's California, so what that means is debatable.

 

[Mach]

That's basically a myth. If it were remotely as true as Rick Perry would like you to believe, demand would have dropped by now for these properties, and their prices would stop rising. Clearly that hasn't happened. Also, people's jobs are generally tied to Silicon Valley.

It's exaggeration, not myth. It's true they all have not moved here. It's also true a lot of tech business comes to some combination of Dallas, Austin, San Antonia, and Houston, in part because of high taxes, home prices, labor cost. The advantages of being proximal to other tech in SV is of course still very strong, but it's been eroded. All that high prices in CA means is that demand is still greater than outgoing, it doesn't mean there is no outgoing.

 

[Aderleth]

It's exaggeration, not myth. It's true they all have not moved here. It's also true a lot of tech business comes to some combination of Dallas, Austin, San Antonia, and Houston, in part because of high taxes, home prices, labor cost. The advantages of being proximal to other tech in SV is of course still very strong, but it's been eroded. All that high prices in CA means is that demand is still greater than outgoing, it doesn't mean there is no outgoing.

Sure some people leave, and to the extent that it does happen it usually has more to do with property values and cost of living in general than it does with taxes or any other regulatory issue. My point was that Silicon Valley is still seeing a net growth in population and business. The notion that people are fleeing California in droves is pure fabrication, largely for bull**** political reasons.