Personally I wouldn't buy one of these houses. I would imaging that it costs less to build this type of house and if the intended purpose is to build homes that people with smaller budgets can comfortably afford then I can live with it. If the intended purpose is to build rental units for investors I'm totally against it. We live in a patio villa neighborhood of 50 houses. A neighbor who knows what is going on in our area has stated that there are 22 rental houses here. After about 10 months living here I was seeing different people all the time. Now I know why. With that high of a rental ratio you loose that neighborhood feeling, too many people are transient and have no feelings towards their neighbors. I also realize that there standards that are supposedly enforced as far as maintenance of the home exterior and yard but, I think I can identify the rentals by the appearance of the yards. Most of the permanent residents have removed that nasty looking ground cover used in new homes with mulch, decorative rock or bricks, palms, flowers and other enhancements. Landlords only worry about the minimum standards they must abide by and view any enhancements as an unnecessary expense. I'm not saying the rental houses look trashy, they just don't show the pride of a permanent homeowner.
Maybe I'm a bit too intense in my view but in our former neighborhood, a nice neighborhood, the house next to us became a rental after the original owner defaulted on the loan. A real estate investment company bought the house and we went through some of the nicest and nastiest renters you can imagine. At times the grass got knee high with the nastiest renters but even with the good renters the yard never progressed beyond grass. No shrubbery, flowers or decorative works. There needs to be codes or whatever established that restrict the percentage of rentals vs owner occupied. 22 our of 50 is too big of a percentage. I prefer no rentals.
|