Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by derefr on Sunday October 06, 2013 @03:51PM (#6505198)

> Which in context is basically the nuclear option; the value of a house which can't get a mortgage is pretty much $0.

Wouldn't that mean that the cash-up-front price of the homes would go down until they became affordable? I'd like to buy a $0 house.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by jamesaguilar on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:31PM (#6505326)

Worth less than it costs to build is a more appropriate way of phrasing it. Houses in Richmond are substitutable, to some extent, by buying where mortgages are available. So the depth of the house "order book" in Richmond would be very shallow. It wouldn't be $0, but it would be a lot less than in places you can get a mortgage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by Lazare on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:13PM (#6505667)

Whups. I misspoke; it will wreck the housing market and stop new building, but it will not drop the price of existing houses to $0. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]