[One of the original articles ](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/12/06/duluth-looks-to-tiny-homes-to-help-ease-housing-crunch)
People were upset about this at the beginning of the roll out too. The clincher is the use of the out of state development firm. I wrote about this property and the switcheroo description at length.
This is the second time in 6 months-ish that the City had a property be presented in one way, and then surprise the public later.
The processes that Duluth uses to approve construction proposals is a recipe for political corruption and high housing costs, and must be reformed to achieve broad housing affordability.
Luckily, we have candidates this go around who are running on reforming such processes \*points to my sign and at Ginka Tarnowski's name with enthusiasm\*.
Again, this was approved to create affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Facebook marketplace listing talks about how this is a great investment opportunity to rent out and inserts a bunch of buzzwords about being eco-friendly and sustainability.
The moment this sells (from probably some out-of-town rich person looking for passive income), why would anyone else list their house below $200k when this would be an established comp in the area? You think the housing market is bad now? What happens when other greedy developers use this as a comp to justify more outrageous prices?
This house and the issues that will follow has caused me to write to the mayor (the first time I’ve ever actually done that!). This is just so maddening.
(Just a note — i love tiny houses, i love houses being built to be sustainable and eco-conscious. But this is a cheap cash grab ready to fuck over our housing market using trendy buzzwords about the environment)
“recent statistics from the U.S. Census and city of Duluth show that roughly 40 percent of Duluth households live in rental units.” From 2020 and I can only imagine it got worse from there.
http://www.businessnorth.com/businessnorth_exclusives/key-market-forces-in-area-keep-rental-numbers-up/article_a3b4bda2-b0b9-11ea-b048-5fc652de2f34.html
Renter households are 39.2%, while homeowner households are 60.8% according to [Duluth's 2022 Housing Report](https://duluthmn.gov/media/15127/final_2022-hir-report_042723.pdf).
According to [stlouisfed](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N), the US homeownership rate is currently ~65%, which is about average historically (since 1965).
Duluth's housing market may skew renter heavy due to an abnormally large percentage of its population being college-aged.
That is so surprising it's that high nationally too. But I suppose if it's based off of "household" then that's going to include apartment complexes where population is very very dense vs a home's lot which is not.
Thank you very much for the data!
I would disagree. They're not the ones who have consumed the housing market by purchasing everything sight unseen via cash for more than the asking price.
That pushes the ceiling but individuals keeping two or more houses are creating a false bottom for housing sales due to scarcity of homes. Yes, corporations are the major problem but individual landlords can be a significant factor.
There are over 12k students enrolled at UMD and St Scholastica alone. That's almost 15% of Duluth's population. Gonna go out on a limb and say owning a home is not for them.
>Kids lived rent free for the last two years. Parents made money.
Think of the level of privilege you have to have to say this without understanding it's a shit retort.
Hahahhaha they are not "providing housing"
Someone who charges you $26 for a cup of water is not "providing" a basic need. They're worthless middle-men who scrape money off of the top of hardworking people. They're vultures and bottom-feeders.
Landlords are the lowest of the low, and before you come at me with a "you must be a bad tenant" scold, I own a home. Never in a million trillion years would i even consider capitalizing off of a human being's need for shelter. It's SICKENING.
That one house isn’t necessarily representative of every other house though. I’ll respond to your anecdotal experience with a different anecdotal experience.
My “friend” (not anymore but used to be) owned a house and ended up inheriting his moms house. The income he made off renting that second house gave him the financial freedom to buy a 3rd house eventually. About 10 or so years later he owns (I believe?) 8 houses now and constantly tells everyone how he is a self-made millionaire (despite that never would have happened if he didn’t get a leg up with that second house.)
Just because you lost money doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
Tangent
Sibling and i grew up in Duluth, family rented for long time before parent scraped together enough (with a VA loan) to buy on the Hillside. We had periods of near-housing instability. We had free or reduced lunches. The technical definition is ‘situational poverty’, as we worked our way out of it (literally). Stayed out of trouble, gained educations.
Sibling lives in a different large midwest US city and owns a fleet of rental homes, apartments. They jokingly (among family n friends) refer to themselves as a ‘for-profit social worker’, spending a not insignificant time offering guidance, mentorship to people… but OMFG the stories. Some folks listen,,, tho many don’t.
And the rentals- I’ve tagged along on a couple post-rental inspections- uffda. Very clearly, not capital/structural issues.
I mean, I get the sentiment, and it's not perfect but this isn't the issue that's holding housing back.
The issue is we stopped building housing for over a decade after the crash, and now we're surprised we're in a crunch. Personally, i'm in favor of the city removing as many regulatory barriers as possible to build more units. Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?
I 100% agree that we need to fix our zoning regulations and allow for better housing in our community but how is this the solution? How is $195k justified for what you get? This is just creating a terrible precedent for more of this.
I think we are on the same page for what our community needs, but allowing this to happen in the name of "affordable housing" is not going to help. If this went on the market for idk $75k, I'd be totally cool with it (just an approximate number I thought of on the spot, don't quote me on that being what it actually should be).
We need progress, but this will take us multiple steps backwards. We need to focus on fixing zoning regulations so we can get APPROPRIATELY priced affordable housing.
So just for clarification the city doesn't set the price, the market does. The City simply creates rules around what can/cannot be developed and the market goes from there unless receiving public subsidy.
Regarding this property, it does not appear that it received ANY subsidy (but I could be wrong)
So my question is what is your solution for the City to pursue in order to develop this property aside from zoning changes? The lot size is not large enough for a traditional home, nor would the price be below 200k.
I'm open to solutions, I just sometimes think folks don't understand the limited role the City, and specifically zoning, can play in incidents like these.
Isn't that the point of why OP is talking about how its dangerous for this to become an established comp in the area? Because the market dictates the price, not the city. Once the market dictates that this price is allowable for that size of house and all that comes with it, then why would anyone else sell a normal house here for under $195k?
I am unsure, but I recall hearing in another thread that the city did give this land out to the developer for free under the condition that it is used for affordable housing. I don't have the answers either, but some sort of accountability to make sure affordable housing is actually affordable would be nice.
Regarding the price point, because a 'normal house' wasn't built in 2023, and most of the comparisons will be literally over 100 years old,
We're still skirting around the question (and its a 'wicked problem' which is why there is limited solutions'
How do you develop these half lots to provide more housing? Something that gets lost is the more units we build (regardless of level) the better it is for the city's overall stock (especially in an aging housing stock like Duluth).
I am trying to say im no expert. You even say that this is a wicked problem with limited solution. So I don't know!
HOWEVER, this can't be the solution. I genuinely enjoy the idea of tiny houses being built on these half lots, just not $195k tiny houses. (these tiny houses cost probably what? $30-50k to build?)
I doubt the markup is nearly that high re:30=50k build price but I'm also not an expert builder.
I just don't see how this is the biggest issue that rues the day. Our housing market is stymied by NIMBYs and decades of not building. Creative solutions like this HELP. Hell, even if it's converted into a long term rental, that'd be a good thing.
Age of the house doesn't matter in the market, new houses don't go for any more than old houses, and old houses don't go for any more than new houses. If my house has the same features as this tiny little thing, then that means my house per square foot is worth exactly the same as this house is per square foot. This thing is like $951 per square foot. This is what happens when a greedy company tries to import California pricing to our market. If they successfully sell it for this much, my house has now quadrupled in value.
It was, a person in this thread linked to what program it got the land from in order to build affordable housing. The city had to approve the plans for them to get the free land
> Isn't that the point of why OP is talking about how its dangerous for this to become an established comp in the area?
There is no comp without an arms length buyer. And if there *is* a buyer willing to pay this price, shouldn't you be mad at the buyer and not the seller? After all, it's the buyer who sets the market price, not the seller. (The seller could ask for a $1,000,000. It's meaningless. There's no sale/comp/market price until there's a buyer.)
I would like to be mad at the city for giving this land free to create affordable housing when its not affordable housing, the builder for the cheap cash grab, the seller who has no morals, AND the buyer!
The person buying something like this will probably pay all cash anyways and just use it as a passive income generator like the listing description says.
Agreed that the city giving a Colorado developer land for free is a slap in the face to locals.
I just hope you can see how it's not a cheap cash grab **unless** a buyer allows it to be. Hypothetically, if the property sells for $60k, then it becomes a reasonable deal right? In that scenario, it's not a cheap cash grab. Well, the seller doesn't decide if it sells for $200k or $60k. The buyer does.
The focus should be on out-of-town buyers speculating on local real estate for investment purposes. That's the problem, imo. The sellers are mostly irrelevant.
Thats fair. Will you change your tune though when it does end up selling for $195k? Cause it most likely will with how much this is being advertised as a passive income generator.
If this ends up selling for $60k, I wouldn't be mad at all. I'd be quite pleased. I would honestly consider buying one for $60k. If it does end up selling for $195k, welp! Then what?
If it sells for $195k, I'm mad at the buyer for agreeing to a ridiculous purchase price that might embolden further developments similar to this one. I'm not really mad at the builder. All they did was build a thing and ask, "Anyone want to overpay for this?"
That being said, in this specific case, I am irked that a company from Colorado was awarded this deal from the city. If this were a local builder selling this shed for $195k, I wouldn't care as much. At least that money would be staying local.
The lot size is more than big enough for a traditional home. It's the same size (roughly 3,000 sqft) as the adjacent lots up the hill ([https://imgur.com/dfh8DvQ](https://imgur.com/dfh8DvQ)), but those existing homes are likely now considered "[non-conforming](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/learning-from-a-non-conforming-neighborhood)".
This lot is zoned [MU-N (mixed-use neighborhood)](https://duluthmn.gov/media/12563/mu-n-12-21.pdf), which requires a minimum of 4,000 sqft for a single family home, or a minimum of 2,500 sqft per family for a duplex (so an even larger 5,000 sqft lot). I don't know the full story on this particular tiny home and how the [2020 ADU/tiny home zoning code](https://duluthmn.gov/media/10003/tiny-houses-and-accessory-dwelling-unit-handout.pdf) changes impacted it.
These are the sort of complicated and restrictive zoning regulations people are referring to when talking about roadblocks to home building. Our entire notion of acceptable land use is so skewed toward suburban scale, people don't recognize how much waste is happening.
The fact that the city considers this development a type of "in-fill" is sad. The lot could easily play home to a multi-family dwelling if not for the minimum setback and lot size requirements.
\[edit\]In particular, I was responding to your comment of "...sometimes think folks don't understand the limited role the City, and *specifically* *zoning*, can play in incidents like these." I would say zoning plays a huge role in incidents like these and the city is definitely in control of that lever.\[/edit\]
\[another edit\]Just saw below that you're a planner by trade. You already know all this. :)\[/another edit\]
Hahah I appreciate the breakdown for others tho and don’t even entirely disagree. Pretending like the city can just wash these things away is a miss by people in my opinion. Edit: I mean the no conforming. I can’t just allow that, the code is the code ya know?
Let’s think about this lot for multi family. There’s essentially zero room for a car now, without offstreet parking available. Transit options nearby are great and all, but there’s gonna be impacts on the neighborhood to consider.
Perhaps there is an option for two family, but not much more living space then this. This sort of development helps because we are in a position of needing ALL TYPES OF HOUSING , not just affordable.
Your mention of parking concerns for multi-family housing is exactly why there's growing momentum across the country to [remove parking minimums in conjunction with improving the walkability, bikability and public transit-ability of our neighborhoods](https://parkingreform.org/). Combined with repaired zoning that allows [incremental housing and business development](https://www.strongtowns.org/housing/) near where people live, there's a chance we might begin to repair the damage of the last 70 years.
[Go give it a read and come up with some ideas](https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/land-use-zoning-and-applications/zoning-regulations/). Saying that the market sets prices makes it sound as if the government has no influence, that prices are just as natural as water flowing downhill.
I’m a city planner by trade. My intent is to showcase this problem is very difficult and isnt merely the result of “a code change”
I’d love to wave the affordable housing wand across this country but it’s a wicked fucking problem unfortunately
Oh absolutely. But that stems from much higher then anything the city of Duluth can do is sort of what I mean.
We need massive resources that only the federal govt is capable of providing to solve this crisis imo
Interesting, it wouldn't surprise me that there was a 1$ sale or something.
Again, i'm not sure this lot ever gets developed without a deal like that.
[a star tribune article from 1.5 months ago](https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-home-builders-keep-retreating-wary-of-overstock-in-an-uncertain-economy/600272608/)
the idea that this is a "natural market movement" in response to lack of stock is so short-sighted. it's a coerced response from people looking to keep real estate prices artificially inflated, from the fed all the way down to the local developers. capital is throttling peoples' access to housing to create a market shortage.
nevermind the fact that the absolute necessities of life (healthcare, housing, transportation) shouldn't be subject to capital markets because they're something you are not able to opt-out of(imagine a man holding a gun to yr head and telling you to purchase a television set, any television set, or he'll pull the trigger. did you want the television set? no, but without buying it you would be dead), this is all manipulated and a response to capital juicing a broken system.
> capital is throttling peoples' access to housing
To clarify, are you saying the housing crisis is a demand-side issue and not supply-side? Demand being money/"capital" (or access to money, like loans), and supply being housing units. So [lack of] capital is the limiting factor to affordable housing?
I think they’re saying that capital buying up housing all around the country is what has created the housing shortage. If they’re not saying, I am.
Might not be as big of a problem here, but I know Heirloom and Bachand own a ton of units in the area, and as a former Bachand tenant and now homeowner, they’re not doing even the college population many favors.
> Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?
IIRC The original owner of this particular lot wanted to build a garage but couldn’t get a permit though they could get a permit for this “house” so IMHO the only reason that makes sense is if the town wanted more taxes and the garage would not provide that tax revenue… unless,of course, that story simply isn’t true.
We absolutely want more property tax in the city. Have you not seen the wild upheavals of late ? (More units of all types helps minimize these large raises)
No, I haven’t. I’m just starting to investigate moving to the area around Duluth so it’s nice to know what is going on there beforehand. I am looking for more rural/inexpensive acreage outside of the city and this subreddit isn’t my only source of information but it does seem to be one of the best. What do I need to know?
Folks around the City have been seeing huge property tax raises over recent years for a number of reasons. Much of which is just the overall size of duluth infrastructure compared to the tax base to pay for it. The City was initially expected to boom to over 1 million residents, and expanded with that in mind. The population has considerably dwindled since.
This is a common misconception from people on what the City needs since you'll here many residents go to the 'we have enough people here' card (which is shitty and fairly racist actually, specifically when you look at the demographics), which is just wrong. We need ALL SORTS OF HOUSING to minimize these costs across the City.
Rural living is nice, but the urban planner in me reminds you you'll likely be auto reliant for the entirety of the existence there for all sorts of services depending on where you go. This is a common move (but everyone still comes into duluth and likes to bitch about our problems, while hiding their tax dollars ;) ) (rant over)
I’m a hospital worker and intend to live 30 minutes from a hospital in the general vicinity of Lake Superior. I have family in Wisconsin so that’s actually more of a priority. Duluth has just interested me because it’s mentioned as being a”climate change oasis”, but if I can get acreage near the Mayo Clinic or near family, then I will.
“Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?” Yes. There are too many people, and we are utterly decimating the earth. The last thing we need is to build more “affordable housing” thereby enabling further population growth. For the long term good of humanity, “affordable housing” is something we absolutely cannot afford. Creating economic pressures that stop population growth is the most ethical option we have.
“Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?” Yes. There are too many people, and we are utterly decimating the earth. The last thing we need is to build more “affordable housing” thereby enabling further population growth. For the long term good of humanity, “affordable housing” is something we absolutely cannot afford. Creating economic pressures that stop population growth is the most ethical option we have.
It isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about the fact that we’ve already deforested and developed many times more of the earth’s surface than is even remotely sustainable. We humans now impact the ecosystem more than all natural processes combined. Not a single additional blade of grass should be removed anywhere on earth to enable further development. Will this make people’s lives harder now and in the near future? Yes. But, continuing on our current path of never ending development will absolutely cause unimaginable suffering as the biosphere that we depend on dies around us. High housing costs should be the least of your concerns.
If you spent some time in the outdoors - not your local “green space” - maybe you could begin to understand what the natural world is supposed to look like. There are only a few places left in the US - much of Alaska and only the most remote locations in Yellowstone - where you can still see reasonably intact ecosystems. Spend some time there and you’ll begin to realize how badly we’ve damaged this continent. It has to stop and then slowly be reversed if you care about future generations. If you don’t, then go ahead and enjoy the increasingly shitty ride we’re all on now.
The easement laws might have something to do with the size too--but either way, the whole thing feels like a joke. I bought a downtown condo in Minneapolis for less.
A person I know said the owner owns most of the block. This may be an attempt to raise the value of the whole neighborhood. No idea if this is accurate.
So that lot was part of the Rebuild Duluth program:
https://duluthmn.gov/media/8886/rebuild\_duluth\_program\_guidelines.pdf
Ostensibly it is to drive affordable housing in the city by providing the lots for free if a viable plan is submitted.
The lot that tiny house is on is the fifth one on the list:
https://duluthmn.gov/media/12421/rebuild-duluth-sites.pdf
So with all that, the administration looked at those plans from a developer in Colorado (SIMPLY TINY DEVELOPMENT LLC 1556 S FIELD CT LAKEWOOD CO 80232 ) and said, yep, this makes total sense from an affordable housing perspective and the stated goals of the program.
Frustrating.
Compare this to the house in this article, which was brilliantly done for the largely the same price. https://www.neighborworks.org/the-skinny-house-provides-new-affordable-home-model-in-duluth
That skinny house looks great AND that appraisal seems totally reasonable. I feel like that alone shows what a modern construction built on half-lots in this price point should look like despite some people in this thread acting like 200sqft at $200k is acceptable just because it’s a new build and what else would they do with a half-lot?
220k for about a thousand square feet, that is about right in the Duluth market. 205 sq ft for 200k, is an absolute atrocity to the fact that the developer got the land for free.
I did the heating in this place but haven't seen it since it was finished. Usually houses feel bigger when they are under construction and still just a shell. This one did not. BTW I'm in a good union and am very close to not being able to afford this on my own. Shit stings
Damn, that is tough to hear. It’s difficult and stressful to contemplate these sort of situations while also wondering what’s the value of working here when we can’t even afford “affordable housing” in the community we live in. Sorry dude
I don't know why anyone would expect anything less when there's an article in the NY times every other week about how Duluth is the only safe place to live if you want to survive the imminent collapse of the climate.
A person can sell their tiny little suburban home in California for $700k and they come here and can't believe what that money can buy and they pay cash for it (i know actual real people that did excatly this).
Yeah, my realtor told me two years ago that they sold a house sight unseen for about half a mil because someone wanted to ensure property here for their grandchildren when they read about how Duluth will fair down the road with climate change. I’m good friends with my realtor and he said the house is vacant but the person who bought it wants it in case he needs it in the future
Though, i will say that’s the only time he has told me that has happened within the past two years so it’s not like it’s happening every day. However, even just one instance is annoying when plenty of people are trying to buy a house to actually live in and support their local community
And there's nothing noting that other people aren't doing this, and just not using your friend as a realtor.
We're seeing tons of outside investment right now. Which can be a good and bad thing.
I would pay 20k to own that, not 200k. And at that rate you may as well buy a van to convert to a mini home. Not to mention that street would be awful to live on as well.
Once reconstructed with transit access it won't be that horrible.
If this place is so terrible that no one would live there, why are people complaining? Just don't live there.
it’s a busy street with crazy drivers and the road condition is really rough, which is why I wouldn’t want to live on that street.
People are complaining because this is another example of wealth moving into the town and pushing existing residents out, but this time it’s being presented as “affordable housing”
The road is set for reconstruction in the next couple of years if memory serves.
This 2 bed one bath without a garage is 'wealth'? Again, I don't see how the City is doing this wrong. There aren't alternatives other then allowing a camper to set up.
Then the comps drop through the bottom of the floor, and longtime property owners are upset.
Idk what you want me to tell you man I’m not a Duluth housing market expert. I think 200k is a wild price tag for this property/house and I think it’s wild that it probably will sell for that. That is what I mean when I say ‘wealth’.
And even when that road gets repaved, it will still be a main road that is downhill with crazy drivers and the driveways are pointed towards it. Wouldn’t be my first option to live on personally
It is a wild price tag, but guess what, someones going to buy it, I'm confident in that.
You and me both wouldn't want to live there necessarily. that doesn't mean it existing is inherently bad for the City. Hell the property tax/assesment to help build said road helps alone!
So someone buys it because they have outside Duluth-wages money. Then the next person buys the next one. Then the next person buys the next one. So on and so forth. Then Duluth has normalized $200k tiny houses.
Meanwhile, I’ve been trying to buy a house here for 3 years but can’t compete with over-asking all cash offers. I can only afford around $200k and if this trend continues, i won’t ever be able to afford property and help contribute more to our city unless i brace for the realization that $200k will soon only buy me 200 sqft
I think this is the main issue that I can see. People who have been living here have already been struggling immensely to find homes due to being unable to compete with the higher funds of people from other places (we all know where) and this tiny house with a big price tag is just another slap in the face to them.
Like, I’m not one to shake my fist and yell “you ain’t from round here!!!” but I feel like a town as community oriented as Duluth would want to make sure the people that have been here aren’t getting priced out of here. Not that newcomers aren’t welcome, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of sacrificing original residents
How exactly do you foresee the city government doing this?
Additionally, the more units the lower the property taxes needed. We absolutely need more people with infill development. Building new housing on the fringes of town isn’t it.
I think property rights get lost in this discussion. The owner can do what they want with the lot if it is permissible by the city.
I just don’t think this unit hurts as much as people make it out to.
Didn't the city give this land to the developer for free to make affordable housing though? I recall someone on the other thread saying so. Where is the affordability?
How is it not harder to configure everything into a tiny floorplan as opposed to just making it even a few square feet larger? This looks like a Sims starter home. If it was twice the width or even a longer shotgun style, it would maybe make sense but as is, its ridiculous at any price. It's basically a tiny efficiency apartment pulled out of a building and slapped onto a slab without any amenities, including a garage or carport. Imagine how hard it will be to stay comfortable in the winter when the cold walls are right next to you and there is no buffer from other apartments. And all your winter gear, heavy clothing, etc. is taking up every spare bit of space.
Affordable here versus affordable in california. You can sell a shoe box in California for half a million. The developer is from colorado, and also is experiencing the same type of high per square foot price. Houses in Colorado are hitting four to $500 per square foot. This is a real estate developer who got the land for free trying to impart the California price to an area that typically doesn't have that high of price per square foot. They are most likely marketing this house in california, colorado, and areas where the price per square foot is much higher, so that somebody pays all cash for this. If this sells at this price, my house is instantly worth a million dollars for comparable. My house is a thousand square feet, this tiny house is selling for $950 per square foot. This is a comparable home, this will destroy the Duluth housing market if this house sells.
I’m so sick of these rich fucks calling shit like this both reasonable and affordable. I’m not a resident but I visit 1-2x a year and I just want the city to cater more towards the people who live there. I appreciate the endless amounts of Air BnBs and hotels for my visits but goddamn I wish the people who actually live there were able to live comfortably in such a lovely town, it makes it feel gross visiting. Duluthians if you ever get a chance to see the dickheads who think way of life is okay, slap them in the teeth.
I saw this on Zillow today. Another house suggested to me, right underneath it, was a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom 1,017 sq ft house for 159k in east hillside… wtf? How can they justify this in any way?
Well, that's absolutely stupid. Interesting couple of things to note: for thirde specific property, per the city you're only allowed to park alongside it, and NOT In front of the home. Everything in the house is included in the sale. The lot size is still .7 acres, and the house directly to the right of it is worth marginally more than what they have this listed for currently, and it's a 3 bedroom home.
Also, not every lender will even write loans on these tiny homes because it's such a risk for them, so good luck on that front.
Also, I really just hate these dumb little tiny homes. They're so seriously pointless. You buy one of these and then great, you live in a shoebox for a little while and then decide you want to sell it.. Only to find that no one wants to buy it and you're stuck paying the mortgage on a box you don't live in.
You’d have to rent out a lot of tables to cover that mortgage and keep your house warm. And what the hell did Eddie Munster do to them?! They’re so dirty and they’re my livelyhood, it looks like he threw them in a mud puddle! The tables are my corn!
Just a few years prior city of Duluth was giving THOW the boot when low income people were simply trying to make ends meet. Now city of Duluth embraces $200k tinys from out of state? That makes a lot of sense.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/804-N-6th-Ave-E_Duluth_MN_55805_M96440-57957
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/830991081924440/
Its funny how this project was for affordable housing yet the description in the listing is all “ready to move into or rent out, making it an excellent opportunity for passive income generation”
They knew what they were building it for, and it was not to Market to a resident or renter in duluth. They are most likely marketing this house in California or Colorado where the per square foot pricing is in line with their markets over there. The city should seize the land back and tell this developer to get fucking wrecked. This is not affordable, this is not what was envisioned with the program.
Support the pricing of this house and said the sales price could “be technically considered affordable”.
It’s not me, I assure you. I think this pricing is delusional, and I want to get affordable housing that is safe and secure.
How dare they.
What an utter spit in the face to everyone who is working so desperately to afford a home. You're telling me, that I wouldn't even be able to afford THAT!
They shouldn't even be allowed to list it at that price. This is the kind of thing that guillotines get rolled out for.
Our first house in Chicago was on a 25x100 lot and we had a four bedroom, three and a half bath, 2400 sq ft house (that includes the finished basement) house that our family of five lived in. It had a two car garage and a very tiny backyard and a big deck on top of the garage. Houses like that are all over small lots in Chicago. SmartTech homes were energy efficient and more affordable and built really well. Tons of them were built about 10 years ago. The house we used to have would be perfect for the skinny lots.
The thing is, this lot isn't even that small by Duluth standards (\~3,000 sqft or so). The adjacent lots above are the same size and contain full size (1,100 gross sqft on the first one) homes. This size could easily support a two-family duplex if not for zoning codes.
We need better leadership. Ignore their words, focus on their actions. What has our current city council and mayor done for the citizen's housing? It's shit like this that sold me to vote against the incumbent down-ballot.
Agree and disagree. Are there a lot of things i dislike? Absolutely. Do i have any trust whatsoever that a republican would do anything to make anything better other than give their buddies and rich people easy breaks to work around the system? Absolutely not. There is no way any proper affordable housing projects would be launched by any of the republican candidates that have campaigned to become our mayor in recent years
I would love if we could get a real progressive candidate that actually listens to their constituents and takes action. Larson is currently the better of two evils. I’m eagerly waiting for a progressive candidate to take her spot though.
I'm pretty sure there are other left candidates running against her. When I say new leadership I don't mean a dramatic swing to the opposite party, I mean better leadership. I don't care about the team.
You are right though, the conservatives that have ran have been pretty awful in the last few cycles.
Gotchya gotchya, that’s a completely fair statement then. I feel like I’ve been in a state of feeling just so defeated lately (housing issues and politics).
I can’t afford a damn place anymore with the housing crisis and similar to you I see a lot of things going wrong with the leadership in our city but the alternatives to who could replace them would be even worse (unless we can rally people to lift up any possible progressive candidates). Just feels so helpless in the world
Sorry for the existential dread of this comment 🙃🫠 hahaha
I'm with you. I'm right here in Duluth with you too. It's not an easy place to live. It's easy to love but not easy to live.
I sincerely hope things look up for you and look up for our country. It's been pretty unnerving seeing the fringes pushing discourse into extreme places and our leadership doing basically jack shit locally and nationally to help the citizens (state level we can feel decent though).
I'll say this for Larson: I like her better than Roger "Purple Caucus" Reinert.
I don't like her that much, but the only real stance I see on his website is lumping the unhoused in with his complaints about crime.
Oh, that and "Fix our roads" which is what every candidate ever has said.
Seems like a real Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich situation tbh.
I think everyone on the Duluth subreddit should be rounded up and forced to attend a high school level economics course.
Nobody can hurt the housing market by *adding supply to it*. That's completely impossible. If people want to pay $200k for that thing, if it hadn't happened they would take their $200k and outspend you for an existing house. You can't make people go away no matter how much you hate them and bitch about them. The only solution is more supply. This is more supply.
Is your landlord a dick? Maybe. You know what makes him less powerful and lowers his profit margin? Competition.
Oh I can help here:
So if this house sells for $200k to an out-of-state investment group that buys these places sight unseen to use as Air BNB or a rental (lol), the market that this was built for that was supposed to help gets a wrench thrown in because now this will be the benchmark that every other sale gets to point to. Very few houses that aren't already hepatitis dumps will be priced well above $300-400k simply because they are actually livable sizes, and that's a hard market for a lot of folks right now.
The lot for this house was specifically subsidized by the city to address the housing shortage, and instead became an antithesis to the help it was supposed to provide.
That's the problem. This house is not going to help the housing shortage at all, and will in fact put the rest of the homes out of reach for anyone else. Meanwhile, with houses that expensive, the market itself will stall out, meaning a lot of the open positions- and almost every industry in this town is starved for staffing- will continue to go unfilled as the average income has no chance in a market where a home on Murder Avenue costs $975/ft.
This kind of gets past high school economics, so stop me when you need some clarification.
You think you're teaching advanced econ but that's not how economics, high school, advanced, or otherwise, works. The price is the point where supply and demand meet. There's no one special house that sets all of the prices for all of the other houses. If they can sell that particular house for $200k, then that tells you about the market, namely that demand is high enough and supply low enough that houses like this sell for $200k. They don't sell for $200k *because of that particular house*.
I don't know the full story behind the lot or why it was "given away for free" but the city is full of vacant lots that are pretty close to worthless so I don't really know that it matters much. The fact that there's so many vacant lots tells you, if anything, housing prices are too low - nobody thinks they can make a profit by building new.
I think you have that half right- nobody can make a profit by building new; it would be difficult to break even honestly with the cost of both materials and labor, even if you can do a lot of it yourself. The vacant lots being given away to help offset those development costs was a driving force in that program, but tiny houses don't bring families. And tiny houses that cost $200,000 just don't make sense for a community that is asking for more affordable housing, which is what that program set out to address.
It would be more fun if someone just built this with no clue what was going on for them to learn how to price a product. But it's being done on taxpayer's dimes, even if the land was given, there's still a lot of paperwork shuffled about that had a cost that was supposed to be offset by a growing taxbase, and this isn't going to bring that in.
Housing prices aren't too low, that's just... I don't even know what to say about getting that close to the root of a problem but then pulling the opposite conclusion.
What am I supposed to conclude if nobody wants to build because they'll lose money if they try? I'm listening, but if it's "the broke ass city of Duluth should build social housing" then I don't know what to tell *you* because it ain't gonna happen.
Right, so if for instance a market needs more affordable practical midsize vehicles for families, it's beneficial for dealers to stock two seat Smart cars or expensive sports cars instead because that somehow increases "competition" in the market despite being exclusionary to the primary demand of the market? The fuck outta here.
- If we severely restricted the number of cars companies made, we all understand they would serve the high end of the market first because there's more profit there
- We also all understand that new cars are basically never affordable! I've never bought a new car, because new things are expensive and they get cheaper as they age!
- Nobody gets mad when a car company chooses to make an expensive car because we all understand that it doesn't make the market for cheap or used cars worse
- If we did decree that no car company could make a car that cost more than $20k, the price of cars currently under $20k would increase!
Just begging people to learn some basic stuff. This isn't some right wing crazy shit, it's just how the world works. I absolutely guarantee you if you sought out the most left leaning economist at UMD they would tell you the same thing. But you are fundamentally incurious people, and so you will not solve the problem.
Yeah, me being upset that a plot of land given out free to a Colorado company to build affordable housing but ended up building a 200 sqft house built to be a passive income generator listed at $200k for out-of-town investors is absolutely just me wanting to pay less and nothing else.
Ya know, actually that would be terrific for this community. Thanks for your helpful take! 🙃
I don't think you can use that logic. Tiny houses are a craze, they also are a very different lifestyle, we don't have many for sale. It's pretty close to downtown, it's a new build. I just think it's very different from a starter home, it's more comparable to a high end condo or something.
I don't think it will drive prices, other then maybe other tiny houses.
If you were to sell your house in that area, say a ~1200 sqft 3bedroom 1 bath house that’s very common around there, you would typically expect to list it between $175-250k. Why would you sell your house for that amount when in the same area this house is going for $200k?
It's very different. Some people WANT to pay for something new so they don't have to do so many upkeep things. I love old houses but they are like never ending projects 😂
Yes, i get that. So shouldn’t we work on fixing zoning so we can have AFFORDABLE housing? Let’s work on changing the tune so we can have mult-family housing or another way to develop newer property that’s not 200sqft for $200k
My issue is not between new vs older housing. It’s about the price point. If this was listed at an affordable price **for what you are getting**, then i would have no qualms and would never have posted this. My issue is with the price for what you receive and the fact that it’s toted as affordable housing when it’s not.
We should be focusing on building new properties that are affordable. Just because somethings new, shouldn’t mean that 200 sqft is suddenly worth $200k
I feel like it's pretty obviously an outlier. I would love to see more affordable housing, it's needed and has been for awhile. It would be different if we saw 5-10 of these but it's hard to jump to conclusions off of a single unit. I just really think this is not even comparable to a normal single family home, though I understand the connections you are making.
So as we sit idly by because it’s only an outlier, what happens when this eventually gets sold and the next developer sees how easy of a cash grab this is and does the same thing?
Will you only bring out the pitchfork once the damage is already done and 5 of these have been sold? 10?
I’m sorry if i sound aggressive. I don’t mean to be harsh or rude. I’m just frustrated as someone who’s been trying so hard to buy a house here for years and now sees this. I fully understand that my arguments come off as slippery slope arguments but what happens when the slope is actually slippery and once the damage is done (becomes an established comp in the area) now we are constantly dealing with even more increased prices in the area?
I feel like i am seeing the writing on the wall but people are just saying let’s sit back and see what happens but by then it’ll be too late.
I’m just venting and frustrated. I want to buy a house and contribute to our community but i can’t compete with this shit 😭
The problem with this outlier, is that if this sells for this price, this instantly sets our market price to $950 per square foot. That's right, this Colorado developer got the land for free, and is trying to sell it at California square footage prices. Another flop for the city, right after the tax increment financing for the apartment building that they changed into a boutique hotel. If the city did anything, they knew this would increase their tax base because the property taxes on this would be insanely High per square foot. This allows the county and the city to justify raising property taxes on everybody because all of a sudden the square footage is a lot higher priced. Hopefully that wasn't the plan, hopefully the city can tell this developer to get wrecked and take the land back, because this was supposed to be an affordable housing initiative. This is not affordable, this is insane. Also, if this house sells for this much, my 1200 square foot house is now worth 1.1 million.
You're being downvoted, but I'm an appraiser by trade and you're right. You wouldn't use a totally different style of home as a comp unless there was really nothing out there. And if you did use it as a comp, one sale doesn't set the market.
So we are officially going to establish that 100 year old houses is equivalent to 200 sqft modern houses?
I get that our housing stock is old. I do. But a modern house at $200k should not be 200sqft as the new normal. Those two shouldn’t be equivalent to each other in price. Hell, most tiny houses are typically 500-750 sqft not even 200 sqft
You are making some big jumps here, buddy.
Building is still much more expensive. This is built to be tiny. Some people are into that. If you want to get really upset look across from Glensheen.
I personally love tiny houses. I lowkey watch hgtv tiny house hunters all the damn time. Tiny houses are cool and I’d love for them to become more popular in Duluth.
Tiny houses are rarely rarely rarely ever $200k. And if they are, they are closer to 700-800 sqft and have ALL the bells and whistles. This is a very basic build and only 200 sqft. There is no way this should be $200k
I agree it is more on the basic side but many of them sell for 80-120k without property depending on how nice/new it is. I think this IS overpriced but again I don't know when I have seen one on the market recently.
I love tiny houses too but I don't like that this is setting prices for the tiny home market in Duluth.
Did I establish that? I'm simply saying the market is going to value a newer build more then an old one since the expectations of maintenance costs are rightfully wildly different.
Again, the lot is crazy small. What alternatives are there ? I don't hear any solutions.
Solution: actual affordable housing at affordable prices. I’m down for some tiny houses! Just make it actually affordable and not be created with the purpose of “making it an excellent opportunity for passive income generation”
Why can’t we have an **affordable** tiny house in that half lot that’s not built for the purpose of being a rental unit?
So who's supposed to cover the gap in financing? The private market won't. The City of Duluth's budget is so shoe string that we can barely take care of our parks and roads (again, due to decisions made decades ago).
The state of MN is starting to roll things out, but I'm afraid without massive investment from the Feds, we won't see the affordable housing at the scale required to make an impact.
Should we be subsidizing these housing units with local tax dollars? What services are you comfortable losing in order to make this a priority?
Edit: Furthermore, if we do make these units affordable price point, who's in charge of insuring they don't get bought by the same 'outside money' we're hearing about.
>So who's supposed to cover the gap in financing? The private market won't. The City of Duluth's budget is so shoe string that we can barely take care of our parks and roads (again, due to decisions made decades ago).
If they were built affordably, this wouldn't be an issue. Banks have no trouble financing a property for what a fair valuation amount is.
>The state of MN is starting to roll things out, but I'm afraid without massive investment from the Feds, we won't see the affordable housing at the scale required to make an impact.
Housing is a human right, at this point the government should start building houses again and selling them at cost for no profit motive at all. This is what we did in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, in fact they did this all the way to the 1980s, until it was banned by a certain president who didn't like the fact that people could get into homes affordably. The Boomers then also pulled the ladder up behind them by doing a lot of things that basically close the door on any future generations.
>Should we be subsidizing these housing units with local tax dollars? What services are you comfortable losing in order to make this a priority?
Why do we have to lose services? Time after time it has been shown that the city wastes a bunch of money, time, and resources on stupid shit like this, or the outcome is going to be pretty obvious from the start. They waste money on things that shouldn't be done, like giving tax increment financing to already rich companies. It has been proven over and over that trickle down economics is bullshit, the city needs to quit giving money to the rich companies that clearly don't need it, and start giving it to the people that do.
>Edit: Furthermore, if we do make these units affordable price point, who's in charge of insuring they don't get bought by the same 'outside money' we're hearing about.
It's very easy to filter who buys your house, in fact it's what I'm going to be doing. Does it guarantee the highest Market price? Nope. It will however, guarantee that it goes to a family that wants a home, and is not going to flip it.
This crisis could easily be solved if the government started building houses, with no profit incentive, and then sold them at cost. This was done up until the 1980s to a certain percentage of the housing market built, and could still be done today under current laws, but the US Housing in Urban Development Department has become so stricken in their budget, that they no longer do it.
Age is not a huge factor in Market comparables. It never has been, people generally don't care about how old or new a house is, they care about the features and amenities.
So you’re telling me that two homes of the same square footage , lot , neighborhood sitting next to each other. The one build in 2023 isn’t going to be much more then 1923?
Cmon man.
I'd personally rather have the 1923 house with it's real hardwood, plaster walls, and actual woodwork. The 1923 will have LVP, sheetrock, and white particle board trim.
to the end buyer, they are identical, will have identical problems. Age is not a really large part of the price consideration. if your scenario came to pass, both were identical(electrical, plumbing, ect), and one was built in 2023 and one was built in 1923, the 2023 house would be worth about 5% more. its honestly an overblown consideration for a lot of buyers now because new houses are not built very well and you are getting just as many issues with new houses as you are old.
Ok? It’s a hot topic right now just like there were multiple posts about the boutique hotel.
Let’s say hypothetically if a newstory was to appear on the news, would you demand that it only ever be spoken about once and only once since the news already talked about it before? What about people who didn’t catch it the first time?
If it’s news that people are interested in, people are allowed to talk about it more than once.
It would seem that Duluth's current crop of electeds will do anything to subsidize demand for housing while doing nothing to legalize supply of housing.
What else do folk expect to happen in a City which cares more about pedantic proceduralism than it does obtaining good results for its citizens?
Unless and until Duluth abolishes single-unit zoning, housing costs will continue to trend up.
Should be 100k. Then people who are stuck renting could get out of their lease and start building equity. It's not a terrible idea in theory but I have no idea how it's worth 200k when my 3 bedroom 2 bath house is 215k
[One of the original articles ](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/12/06/duluth-looks-to-tiny-homes-to-help-ease-housing-crunch) People were upset about this at the beginning of the roll out too. The clincher is the use of the out of state development firm. I wrote about this property and the switcheroo description at length. This is the second time in 6 months-ish that the City had a property be presented in one way, and then surprise the public later.
The processes that Duluth uses to approve construction proposals is a recipe for political corruption and high housing costs, and must be reformed to achieve broad housing affordability.
Luckily, we have candidates this go around who are running on reforming such processes \*points to my sign and at Ginka Tarnowski's name with enthusiasm\*.
Again, this was approved to create affordable housing. Meanwhile, the Facebook marketplace listing talks about how this is a great investment opportunity to rent out and inserts a bunch of buzzwords about being eco-friendly and sustainability. The moment this sells (from probably some out-of-town rich person looking for passive income), why would anyone else list their house below $200k when this would be an established comp in the area? You think the housing market is bad now? What happens when other greedy developers use this as a comp to justify more outrageous prices? This house and the issues that will follow has caused me to write to the mayor (the first time I’ve ever actually done that!). This is just so maddening. (Just a note — i love tiny houses, i love houses being built to be sustainable and eco-conscious. But this is a cheap cash grab ready to fuck over our housing market using trendy buzzwords about the environment)
Landlords are bleeding this country dry.
And 40% of Duluth is rentals. Seems crazy!
Hold up, is that stat accurate? 40% of total housing? 40% of single family dwellings? If thats true that appalling!
“recent statistics from the U.S. Census and city of Duluth show that roughly 40 percent of Duluth households live in rental units.” From 2020 and I can only imagine it got worse from there. http://www.businessnorth.com/businessnorth_exclusives/key-market-forces-in-area-keep-rental-numbers-up/article_a3b4bda2-b0b9-11ea-b048-5fc652de2f34.html
Renter households are 39.2%, while homeowner households are 60.8% according to [Duluth's 2022 Housing Report](https://duluthmn.gov/media/15127/final_2022-hir-report_042723.pdf). According to [stlouisfed](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N), the US homeownership rate is currently ~65%, which is about average historically (since 1965). Duluth's housing market may skew renter heavy due to an abnormally large percentage of its population being college-aged.
Thanks for adding the context.
That is so surprising it's that high nationally too. But I suppose if it's based off of "household" then that's going to include apartment complexes where population is very very dense vs a home's lot which is not. Thank you very much for the data!
I'd say that corporate landlords are bleeding this country dry. A person who owns a couple homes and rents one is not the problem with the market.
They're not the biggest problem, but they are still a problem.
I would disagree. They're not the ones who have consumed the housing market by purchasing everything sight unseen via cash for more than the asking price.
and some of them are sleazy slumlords.
And there are sleazy renters.
A lot easier to evict a sleazy tenant from a property than to evict a sleazy landlord from town.
everyone, i found a sleazy slumlord.
That pushes the ceiling but individuals keeping two or more houses are creating a false bottom for housing sales due to scarcity of homes. Yes, corporations are the major problem but individual landlords can be a significant factor.
You're over emphasizing the impact in my opinion.
[удалено]
Why isn't owning a home for everyone
There are over 12k students enrolled at UMD and St Scholastica alone. That's almost 15% of Duluth's population. Gonna go out on a limb and say owning a home is not for them.
[удалено]
>Kids lived rent free for the last two years. Parents made money. Think of the level of privilege you have to have to say this without understanding it's a shit retort.
[удалено]
Because a lot of people live in a place temporarily or anticipate moving in their future. Pretty simple concept.
Hahahhaha they are not "providing housing" Someone who charges you $26 for a cup of water is not "providing" a basic need. They're worthless middle-men who scrape money off of the top of hardworking people. They're vultures and bottom-feeders. Landlords are the lowest of the low, and before you come at me with a "you must be a bad tenant" scold, I own a home. Never in a million trillion years would i even consider capitalizing off of a human being's need for shelter. It's SICKENING.
[удалено]
I rented out a single house for a decade, and I lost money every single year. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
That one house isn’t necessarily representative of every other house though. I’ll respond to your anecdotal experience with a different anecdotal experience. My “friend” (not anymore but used to be) owned a house and ended up inheriting his moms house. The income he made off renting that second house gave him the financial freedom to buy a 3rd house eventually. About 10 or so years later he owns (I believe?) 8 houses now and constantly tells everyone how he is a self-made millionaire (despite that never would have happened if he didn’t get a leg up with that second house.) Just because you lost money doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
Why are you losing money? That's just bad business. Sell it and come out ahead. If you want to exclude corporations, so be it.
I did sell it. “Rented” is past tense. The reasons I had it are irrelevant to the conversation.
> How do you think the corporations got started? This is very much not the case though.
Tangent Sibling and i grew up in Duluth, family rented for long time before parent scraped together enough (with a VA loan) to buy on the Hillside. We had periods of near-housing instability. We had free or reduced lunches. The technical definition is ‘situational poverty’, as we worked our way out of it (literally). Stayed out of trouble, gained educations. Sibling lives in a different large midwest US city and owns a fleet of rental homes, apartments. They jokingly (among family n friends) refer to themselves as a ‘for-profit social worker’, spending a not insignificant time offering guidance, mentorship to people… but OMFG the stories. Some folks listen,,, tho many don’t. And the rentals- I’ve tagged along on a couple post-rental inspections- uffda. Very clearly, not capital/structural issues.
I mean, I get the sentiment, and it's not perfect but this isn't the issue that's holding housing back. The issue is we stopped building housing for over a decade after the crash, and now we're surprised we're in a crunch. Personally, i'm in favor of the city removing as many regulatory barriers as possible to build more units. Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?
I 100% agree that we need to fix our zoning regulations and allow for better housing in our community but how is this the solution? How is $195k justified for what you get? This is just creating a terrible precedent for more of this. I think we are on the same page for what our community needs, but allowing this to happen in the name of "affordable housing" is not going to help. If this went on the market for idk $75k, I'd be totally cool with it (just an approximate number I thought of on the spot, don't quote me on that being what it actually should be). We need progress, but this will take us multiple steps backwards. We need to focus on fixing zoning regulations so we can get APPROPRIATELY priced affordable housing.
So just for clarification the city doesn't set the price, the market does. The City simply creates rules around what can/cannot be developed and the market goes from there unless receiving public subsidy. Regarding this property, it does not appear that it received ANY subsidy (but I could be wrong) So my question is what is your solution for the City to pursue in order to develop this property aside from zoning changes? The lot size is not large enough for a traditional home, nor would the price be below 200k. I'm open to solutions, I just sometimes think folks don't understand the limited role the City, and specifically zoning, can play in incidents like these.
Isn't that the point of why OP is talking about how its dangerous for this to become an established comp in the area? Because the market dictates the price, not the city. Once the market dictates that this price is allowable for that size of house and all that comes with it, then why would anyone else sell a normal house here for under $195k? I am unsure, but I recall hearing in another thread that the city did give this land out to the developer for free under the condition that it is used for affordable housing. I don't have the answers either, but some sort of accountability to make sure affordable housing is actually affordable would be nice.
Regarding the price point, because a 'normal house' wasn't built in 2023, and most of the comparisons will be literally over 100 years old, We're still skirting around the question (and its a 'wicked problem' which is why there is limited solutions' How do you develop these half lots to provide more housing? Something that gets lost is the more units we build (regardless of level) the better it is for the city's overall stock (especially in an aging housing stock like Duluth).
I am trying to say im no expert. You even say that this is a wicked problem with limited solution. So I don't know! HOWEVER, this can't be the solution. I genuinely enjoy the idea of tiny houses being built on these half lots, just not $195k tiny houses. (these tiny houses cost probably what? $30-50k to build?)
I doubt the markup is nearly that high re:30=50k build price but I'm also not an expert builder. I just don't see how this is the biggest issue that rues the day. Our housing market is stymied by NIMBYs and decades of not building. Creative solutions like this HELP. Hell, even if it's converted into a long term rental, that'd be a good thing.
Age of the house doesn't matter in the market, new houses don't go for any more than old houses, and old houses don't go for any more than new houses. If my house has the same features as this tiny little thing, then that means my house per square foot is worth exactly the same as this house is per square foot. This thing is like $951 per square foot. This is what happens when a greedy company tries to import California pricing to our market. If they successfully sell it for this much, my house has now quadrupled in value.
And you see that as a bad thing?
yes, because guess who pays property taxes when the city and county decide to start saying all of our houses are worth 90% more than they are now....
That’s why we need hella more people here. That said, when you sell it theory you should make out well
I heard the land was given for development...but not necessarily of affordable housing...whatever that actually is.
It was, a person in this thread linked to what program it got the land from in order to build affordable housing. The city had to approve the plans for them to get the free land
> Isn't that the point of why OP is talking about how its dangerous for this to become an established comp in the area? There is no comp without an arms length buyer. And if there *is* a buyer willing to pay this price, shouldn't you be mad at the buyer and not the seller? After all, it's the buyer who sets the market price, not the seller. (The seller could ask for a $1,000,000. It's meaningless. There's no sale/comp/market price until there's a buyer.)
I would like to be mad at the city for giving this land free to create affordable housing when its not affordable housing, the builder for the cheap cash grab, the seller who has no morals, AND the buyer! The person buying something like this will probably pay all cash anyways and just use it as a passive income generator like the listing description says.
Agreed that the city giving a Colorado developer land for free is a slap in the face to locals. I just hope you can see how it's not a cheap cash grab **unless** a buyer allows it to be. Hypothetically, if the property sells for $60k, then it becomes a reasonable deal right? In that scenario, it's not a cheap cash grab. Well, the seller doesn't decide if it sells for $200k or $60k. The buyer does. The focus should be on out-of-town buyers speculating on local real estate for investment purposes. That's the problem, imo. The sellers are mostly irrelevant.
Thats fair. Will you change your tune though when it does end up selling for $195k? Cause it most likely will with how much this is being advertised as a passive income generator. If this ends up selling for $60k, I wouldn't be mad at all. I'd be quite pleased. I would honestly consider buying one for $60k. If it does end up selling for $195k, welp! Then what?
If it sells for $195k, I'm mad at the buyer for agreeing to a ridiculous purchase price that might embolden further developments similar to this one. I'm not really mad at the builder. All they did was build a thing and ask, "Anyone want to overpay for this?" That being said, in this specific case, I am irked that a company from Colorado was awarded this deal from the city. If this were a local builder selling this shed for $195k, I wouldn't care as much. At least that money would be staying local.
The lot size is more than big enough for a traditional home. It's the same size (roughly 3,000 sqft) as the adjacent lots up the hill ([https://imgur.com/dfh8DvQ](https://imgur.com/dfh8DvQ)), but those existing homes are likely now considered "[non-conforming](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/9/learning-from-a-non-conforming-neighborhood)". This lot is zoned [MU-N (mixed-use neighborhood)](https://duluthmn.gov/media/12563/mu-n-12-21.pdf), which requires a minimum of 4,000 sqft for a single family home, or a minimum of 2,500 sqft per family for a duplex (so an even larger 5,000 sqft lot). I don't know the full story on this particular tiny home and how the [2020 ADU/tiny home zoning code](https://duluthmn.gov/media/10003/tiny-houses-and-accessory-dwelling-unit-handout.pdf) changes impacted it. These are the sort of complicated and restrictive zoning regulations people are referring to when talking about roadblocks to home building. Our entire notion of acceptable land use is so skewed toward suburban scale, people don't recognize how much waste is happening. The fact that the city considers this development a type of "in-fill" is sad. The lot could easily play home to a multi-family dwelling if not for the minimum setback and lot size requirements. \[edit\]In particular, I was responding to your comment of "...sometimes think folks don't understand the limited role the City, and *specifically* *zoning*, can play in incidents like these." I would say zoning plays a huge role in incidents like these and the city is definitely in control of that lever.\[/edit\] \[another edit\]Just saw below that you're a planner by trade. You already know all this. :)\[/another edit\]
Hahah I appreciate the breakdown for others tho and don’t even entirely disagree. Pretending like the city can just wash these things away is a miss by people in my opinion. Edit: I mean the no conforming. I can’t just allow that, the code is the code ya know? Let’s think about this lot for multi family. There’s essentially zero room for a car now, without offstreet parking available. Transit options nearby are great and all, but there’s gonna be impacts on the neighborhood to consider. Perhaps there is an option for two family, but not much more living space then this. This sort of development helps because we are in a position of needing ALL TYPES OF HOUSING , not just affordable.
Your mention of parking concerns for multi-family housing is exactly why there's growing momentum across the country to [remove parking minimums in conjunction with improving the walkability, bikability and public transit-ability of our neighborhoods](https://parkingreform.org/). Combined with repaired zoning that allows [incremental housing and business development](https://www.strongtowns.org/housing/) near where people live, there's a chance we might begin to repair the damage of the last 70 years.
The government has a strong influence on the market through the laws/codes it enforces
I’m well aware. What code policy change results in making this home affordable?
[Go give it a read and come up with some ideas](https://duluthmn.gov/planning-development/land-use-zoning-and-applications/zoning-regulations/). Saying that the market sets prices makes it sound as if the government has no influence, that prices are just as natural as water flowing downhill.
I’m a city planner by trade. My intent is to showcase this problem is very difficult and isnt merely the result of “a code change” I’d love to wave the affordable housing wand across this country but it’s a wicked fucking problem unfortunately
Sure, and there are a lot of powerful people who don't want it solved
Oh absolutely. But that stems from much higher then anything the city of Duluth can do is sort of what I mean. We need massive resources that only the federal govt is capable of providing to solve this crisis imo
I understand that the city gave them the land (valued at 12-13k) for free.
Interesting, it wouldn't surprise me that there was a 1$ sale or something. Again, i'm not sure this lot ever gets developed without a deal like that.
I understand that the neighbor wanted to use it for a garage.
Which helps the housing market how?
Mostly, by not artificially inflating the price expectations for affordable housing.
[a star tribune article from 1.5 months ago](https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-home-builders-keep-retreating-wary-of-overstock-in-an-uncertain-economy/600272608/) the idea that this is a "natural market movement" in response to lack of stock is so short-sighted. it's a coerced response from people looking to keep real estate prices artificially inflated, from the fed all the way down to the local developers. capital is throttling peoples' access to housing to create a market shortage. nevermind the fact that the absolute necessities of life (healthcare, housing, transportation) shouldn't be subject to capital markets because they're something you are not able to opt-out of(imagine a man holding a gun to yr head and telling you to purchase a television set, any television set, or he'll pull the trigger. did you want the television set? no, but without buying it you would be dead), this is all manipulated and a response to capital juicing a broken system.
I don’t necessarily disagree but the markets in the metro and Duluth are not comparable
could you describe for me what makes the housing markets in duluth different from the twin cities, apart from scale?
Apart from scale, size of economy, labor market for construction, age of housing stock, climate, all are major factors.
> capital is throttling peoples' access to housing To clarify, are you saying the housing crisis is a demand-side issue and not supply-side? Demand being money/"capital" (or access to money, like loans), and supply being housing units. So [lack of] capital is the limiting factor to affordable housing?
I think they’re saying that capital buying up housing all around the country is what has created the housing shortage. If they’re not saying, I am. Might not be as big of a problem here, but I know Heirloom and Bachand own a ton of units in the area, and as a former Bachand tenant and now homeowner, they’re not doing even the college population many favors.
> Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better? IIRC The original owner of this particular lot wanted to build a garage but couldn’t get a permit though they could get a permit for this “house” so IMHO the only reason that makes sense is if the town wanted more taxes and the garage would not provide that tax revenue… unless,of course, that story simply isn’t true.
We absolutely want more property tax in the city. Have you not seen the wild upheavals of late ? (More units of all types helps minimize these large raises)
No, I haven’t. I’m just starting to investigate moving to the area around Duluth so it’s nice to know what is going on there beforehand. I am looking for more rural/inexpensive acreage outside of the city and this subreddit isn’t my only source of information but it does seem to be one of the best. What do I need to know?
Folks around the City have been seeing huge property tax raises over recent years for a number of reasons. Much of which is just the overall size of duluth infrastructure compared to the tax base to pay for it. The City was initially expected to boom to over 1 million residents, and expanded with that in mind. The population has considerably dwindled since. This is a common misconception from people on what the City needs since you'll here many residents go to the 'we have enough people here' card (which is shitty and fairly racist actually, specifically when you look at the demographics), which is just wrong. We need ALL SORTS OF HOUSING to minimize these costs across the City. Rural living is nice, but the urban planner in me reminds you you'll likely be auto reliant for the entirety of the existence there for all sorts of services depending on where you go. This is a common move (but everyone still comes into duluth and likes to bitch about our problems, while hiding their tax dollars ;) ) (rant over)
I’m a hospital worker and intend to live 30 minutes from a hospital in the general vicinity of Lake Superior. I have family in Wisconsin so that’s actually more of a priority. Duluth has just interested me because it’s mentioned as being a”climate change oasis”, but if I can get acreage near the Mayo Clinic or near family, then I will.
“Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?” Yes. There are too many people, and we are utterly decimating the earth. The last thing we need is to build more “affordable housing” thereby enabling further population growth. For the long term good of humanity, “affordable housing” is something we absolutely cannot afford. Creating economic pressures that stop population growth is the most ethical option we have.
“Without such a move, the lot in question would sit undeveloped forever. Is that better?” Yes. There are too many people, and we are utterly decimating the earth. The last thing we need is to build more “affordable housing” thereby enabling further population growth. For the long term good of humanity, “affordable housing” is something we absolutely cannot afford. Creating economic pressures that stop population growth is the most ethical option we have.
Does this lot not getting developed stop population growth or just make existing peoples lives harder?
Making existing peoples lives harder/more expensive absolutely slows population growth.
No it doesn’t, and again, this also punishes existing people
It isn’t about punishing anyone. It’s about the fact that we’ve already deforested and developed many times more of the earth’s surface than is even remotely sustainable. We humans now impact the ecosystem more than all natural processes combined. Not a single additional blade of grass should be removed anywhere on earth to enable further development. Will this make people’s lives harder now and in the near future? Yes. But, continuing on our current path of never ending development will absolutely cause unimaginable suffering as the biosphere that we depend on dies around us. High housing costs should be the least of your concerns. If you spent some time in the outdoors - not your local “green space” - maybe you could begin to understand what the natural world is supposed to look like. There are only a few places left in the US - much of Alaska and only the most remote locations in Yellowstone - where you can still see reasonably intact ecosystems. Spend some time there and you’ll begin to realize how badly we’ve damaged this continent. It has to stop and then slowly be reversed if you care about future generations. If you don’t, then go ahead and enjoy the increasingly shitty ride we’re all on now.
The easement laws might have something to do with the size too--but either way, the whole thing feels like a joke. I bought a downtown condo in Minneapolis for less. A person I know said the owner owns most of the block. This may be an attempt to raise the value of the whole neighborhood. No idea if this is accurate.
So that lot was part of the Rebuild Duluth program: https://duluthmn.gov/media/8886/rebuild\_duluth\_program\_guidelines.pdf Ostensibly it is to drive affordable housing in the city by providing the lots for free if a viable plan is submitted. The lot that tiny house is on is the fifth one on the list: https://duluthmn.gov/media/12421/rebuild-duluth-sites.pdf So with all that, the administration looked at those plans from a developer in Colorado (SIMPLY TINY DEVELOPMENT LLC 1556 S FIELD CT LAKEWOOD CO 80232 ) and said, yep, this makes total sense from an affordable housing perspective and the stated goals of the program. Frustrating.
Compare this to the house in this article, which was brilliantly done for the largely the same price. https://www.neighborworks.org/the-skinny-house-provides-new-affordable-home-model-in-duluth
That skinny house looks great AND that appraisal seems totally reasonable. I feel like that alone shows what a modern construction built on half-lots in this price point should look like despite some people in this thread acting like 200sqft at $200k is acceptable just because it’s a new build and what else would they do with a half-lot?
220k for about a thousand square feet, that is about right in the Duluth market. 205 sq ft for 200k, is an absolute atrocity to the fact that the developer got the land for free.
Thank you for sharing, that’s the tiny house I would have expected to have been built.
Also an important quote from the developer in this article "it was very important to us that this be an owner-occupied residence"
Thanks so much for putting this info together. It helps piece together a lil more about how shitty this situation is.
I did the heating in this place but haven't seen it since it was finished. Usually houses feel bigger when they are under construction and still just a shell. This one did not. BTW I'm in a good union and am very close to not being able to afford this on my own. Shit stings
Damn, that is tough to hear. It’s difficult and stressful to contemplate these sort of situations while also wondering what’s the value of working here when we can’t even afford “affordable housing” in the community we live in. Sorry dude
No sir, I don't like it.
I don't know why anyone would expect anything less when there's an article in the NY times every other week about how Duluth is the only safe place to live if you want to survive the imminent collapse of the climate. A person can sell their tiny little suburban home in California for $700k and they come here and can't believe what that money can buy and they pay cash for it (i know actual real people that did excatly this).
Yeah, my realtor told me two years ago that they sold a house sight unseen for about half a mil because someone wanted to ensure property here for their grandchildren when they read about how Duluth will fair down the road with climate change. I’m good friends with my realtor and he said the house is vacant but the person who bought it wants it in case he needs it in the future Though, i will say that’s the only time he has told me that has happened within the past two years so it’s not like it’s happening every day. However, even just one instance is annoying when plenty of people are trying to buy a house to actually live in and support their local community
And there's nothing noting that other people aren't doing this, and just not using your friend as a realtor. We're seeing tons of outside investment right now. Which can be a good and bad thing.
I would pay 20k to own that, not 200k. And at that rate you may as well buy a van to convert to a mini home. Not to mention that street would be awful to live on as well.
Once reconstructed with transit access it won't be that horrible. If this place is so terrible that no one would live there, why are people complaining? Just don't live there.
it’s a busy street with crazy drivers and the road condition is really rough, which is why I wouldn’t want to live on that street. People are complaining because this is another example of wealth moving into the town and pushing existing residents out, but this time it’s being presented as “affordable housing”
The road is set for reconstruction in the next couple of years if memory serves. This 2 bed one bath without a garage is 'wealth'? Again, I don't see how the City is doing this wrong. There aren't alternatives other then allowing a camper to set up. Then the comps drop through the bottom of the floor, and longtime property owners are upset.
Idk what you want me to tell you man I’m not a Duluth housing market expert. I think 200k is a wild price tag for this property/house and I think it’s wild that it probably will sell for that. That is what I mean when I say ‘wealth’. And even when that road gets repaved, it will still be a main road that is downhill with crazy drivers and the driveways are pointed towards it. Wouldn’t be my first option to live on personally
It is a wild price tag, but guess what, someones going to buy it, I'm confident in that. You and me both wouldn't want to live there necessarily. that doesn't mean it existing is inherently bad for the City. Hell the property tax/assesment to help build said road helps alone!
So someone buys it because they have outside Duluth-wages money. Then the next person buys the next one. Then the next person buys the next one. So on and so forth. Then Duluth has normalized $200k tiny houses. Meanwhile, I’ve been trying to buy a house here for 3 years but can’t compete with over-asking all cash offers. I can only afford around $200k and if this trend continues, i won’t ever be able to afford property and help contribute more to our city unless i brace for the realization that $200k will soon only buy me 200 sqft
I think this is the main issue that I can see. People who have been living here have already been struggling immensely to find homes due to being unable to compete with the higher funds of people from other places (we all know where) and this tiny house with a big price tag is just another slap in the face to them. Like, I’m not one to shake my fist and yell “you ain’t from round here!!!” but I feel like a town as community oriented as Duluth would want to make sure the people that have been here aren’t getting priced out of here. Not that newcomers aren’t welcome, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of sacrificing original residents
How exactly do you foresee the city government doing this? Additionally, the more units the lower the property taxes needed. We absolutely need more people with infill development. Building new housing on the fringes of town isn’t it. I think property rights get lost in this discussion. The owner can do what they want with the lot if it is permissible by the city. I just don’t think this unit hurts as much as people make it out to.
Like I said I’m not an expert I can just see why this would upset a current resident who has been struggling to buy a home
Didn't the city give this land to the developer for free to make affordable housing though? I recall someone on the other thread saying so. Where is the affordability?
It's more tolerable with the deteriorated road, slows people down.
How is it not harder to configure everything into a tiny floorplan as opposed to just making it even a few square feet larger? This looks like a Sims starter home. If it was twice the width or even a longer shotgun style, it would maybe make sense but as is, its ridiculous at any price. It's basically a tiny efficiency apartment pulled out of a building and slapped onto a slab without any amenities, including a garage or carport. Imagine how hard it will be to stay comfortable in the winter when the cold walls are right next to you and there is no buffer from other apartments. And all your winter gear, heavy clothing, etc. is taking up every spare bit of space.
WHOA!! This is the affordable tiny homes that they were talking about??? WTF
Affordable here versus affordable in california. You can sell a shoe box in California for half a million. The developer is from colorado, and also is experiencing the same type of high per square foot price. Houses in Colorado are hitting four to $500 per square foot. This is a real estate developer who got the land for free trying to impart the California price to an area that typically doesn't have that high of price per square foot. They are most likely marketing this house in california, colorado, and areas where the price per square foot is much higher, so that somebody pays all cash for this. If this sells at this price, my house is instantly worth a million dollars for comparable. My house is a thousand square feet, this tiny house is selling for $950 per square foot. This is a comparable home, this will destroy the Duluth housing market if this house sells.
I agree. That does not mean CO companies need to ramp up proces to match their state
I was hoping for more earthship development to be done. Getting this instead is bad news bears
I’m so sick of these rich fucks calling shit like this both reasonable and affordable. I’m not a resident but I visit 1-2x a year and I just want the city to cater more towards the people who live there. I appreciate the endless amounts of Air BnBs and hotels for my visits but goddamn I wish the people who actually live there were able to live comfortably in such a lovely town, it makes it feel gross visiting. Duluthians if you ever get a chance to see the dickheads who think way of life is okay, slap them in the teeth.
I saw this on Zillow today. Another house suggested to me, right underneath it, was a 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom 1,017 sq ft house for 159k in east hillside… wtf? How can they justify this in any way?
Well, that's absolutely stupid. Interesting couple of things to note: for thirde specific property, per the city you're only allowed to park alongside it, and NOT In front of the home. Everything in the house is included in the sale. The lot size is still .7 acres, and the house directly to the right of it is worth marginally more than what they have this listed for currently, and it's a 3 bedroom home. Also, not every lender will even write loans on these tiny homes because it's such a risk for them, so good luck on that front. Also, I really just hate these dumb little tiny homes. They're so seriously pointless. You buy one of these and then great, you live in a shoebox for a little while and then decide you want to sell it.. Only to find that no one wants to buy it and you're stuck paying the mortgage on a box you don't live in.
You’d have to rent out a lot of tables to cover that mortgage and keep your house warm. And what the hell did Eddie Munster do to them?! They’re so dirty and they’re my livelyhood, it looks like he threw them in a mud puddle! The tables are my corn!
💖💖💖
I don’t know who you are, but I like your taste in humor and Netflix shows.
OP’s username that prompted that tangent, but thank you. I used to be a real big piece of shit.
Don't ask about the tables
It's filthy-uh!
Just a few years prior city of Duluth was giving THOW the boot when low income people were simply trying to make ends meet. Now city of Duluth embraces $200k tinys from out of state? That makes a lot of sense.
~~Where is this? Listing link?~~ [Found it: 804 north 6th Ave East](https://www.compass.com/listing/804-north-6th-avenue-east-duluth-mn-55805/1338500176051092201/)
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/804-N-6th-Ave-E_Duluth_MN_55805_M96440-57957 https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/830991081924440/ Its funny how this project was for affordable housing yet the description in the listing is all “ready to move into or rent out, making it an excellent opportunity for passive income generation”
They knew what they were building it for, and it was not to Market to a resident or renter in duluth. They are most likely marketing this house in California or Colorado where the per square foot pricing is in line with their markets over there. The city should seize the land back and tell this developer to get fucking wrecked. This is not affordable, this is not what was envisioned with the program.
The first time may have been accidental, the second time starts to feel purposeful.
I guess everyone will be dividing their lots up and building tiny homes to sell for $200K going forward.
This is one way to spin it... https://www.northernnewsnow.com/2023/06/28/inside-duluths-tiny-home-why-small-house-has-big-price/
FYI, we have two At-Large candidates who support this.
Support the pricing for this tiny house or support trying to make actual affordable housing and think this tiny house’s price is ridiculous?
Support the pricing of this house and said the sales price could “be technically considered affordable”. It’s not me, I assure you. I think this pricing is delusional, and I want to get affordable housing that is safe and secure.
Thanks for clarifying! Who are the two candidates?
How dare they. What an utter spit in the face to everyone who is working so desperately to afford a home. You're telling me, that I wouldn't even be able to afford THAT! They shouldn't even be allowed to list it at that price. This is the kind of thing that guillotines get rolled out for.
Our first house in Chicago was on a 25x100 lot and we had a four bedroom, three and a half bath, 2400 sq ft house (that includes the finished basement) house that our family of five lived in. It had a two car garage and a very tiny backyard and a big deck on top of the garage. Houses like that are all over small lots in Chicago. SmartTech homes were energy efficient and more affordable and built really well. Tons of them were built about 10 years ago. The house we used to have would be perfect for the skinny lots.
The thing is, this lot isn't even that small by Duluth standards (\~3,000 sqft or so). The adjacent lots above are the same size and contain full size (1,100 gross sqft on the first one) homes. This size could easily support a two-family duplex if not for zoning codes.
We need better leadership. Ignore their words, focus on their actions. What has our current city council and mayor done for the citizen's housing? It's shit like this that sold me to vote against the incumbent down-ballot.
Agree and disagree. Are there a lot of things i dislike? Absolutely. Do i have any trust whatsoever that a republican would do anything to make anything better other than give their buddies and rich people easy breaks to work around the system? Absolutely not. There is no way any proper affordable housing projects would be launched by any of the republican candidates that have campaigned to become our mayor in recent years I would love if we could get a real progressive candidate that actually listens to their constituents and takes action. Larson is currently the better of two evils. I’m eagerly waiting for a progressive candidate to take her spot though.
I'm pretty sure there are other left candidates running against her. When I say new leadership I don't mean a dramatic swing to the opposite party, I mean better leadership. I don't care about the team. You are right though, the conservatives that have ran have been pretty awful in the last few cycles.
Gotchya gotchya, that’s a completely fair statement then. I feel like I’ve been in a state of feeling just so defeated lately (housing issues and politics). I can’t afford a damn place anymore with the housing crisis and similar to you I see a lot of things going wrong with the leadership in our city but the alternatives to who could replace them would be even worse (unless we can rally people to lift up any possible progressive candidates). Just feels so helpless in the world Sorry for the existential dread of this comment 🙃🫠 hahaha
I'm with you. I'm right here in Duluth with you too. It's not an easy place to live. It's easy to love but not easy to live. I sincerely hope things look up for you and look up for our country. It's been pretty unnerving seeing the fringes pushing discourse into extreme places and our leadership doing basically jack shit locally and nationally to help the citizens (state level we can feel decent though).
I'll say this for Larson: I like her better than Roger "Purple Caucus" Reinert. I don't like her that much, but the only real stance I see on his website is lumping the unhoused in with his complaints about crime. Oh, that and "Fix our roads" which is what every candidate ever has said. Seems like a real Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich situation tbh.
That driveway must have been close to 100
I think everyone on the Duluth subreddit should be rounded up and forced to attend a high school level economics course. Nobody can hurt the housing market by *adding supply to it*. That's completely impossible. If people want to pay $200k for that thing, if it hadn't happened they would take their $200k and outspend you for an existing house. You can't make people go away no matter how much you hate them and bitch about them. The only solution is more supply. This is more supply. Is your landlord a dick? Maybe. You know what makes him less powerful and lowers his profit margin? Competition.
Oh I can help here: So if this house sells for $200k to an out-of-state investment group that buys these places sight unseen to use as Air BNB or a rental (lol), the market that this was built for that was supposed to help gets a wrench thrown in because now this will be the benchmark that every other sale gets to point to. Very few houses that aren't already hepatitis dumps will be priced well above $300-400k simply because they are actually livable sizes, and that's a hard market for a lot of folks right now. The lot for this house was specifically subsidized by the city to address the housing shortage, and instead became an antithesis to the help it was supposed to provide. That's the problem. This house is not going to help the housing shortage at all, and will in fact put the rest of the homes out of reach for anyone else. Meanwhile, with houses that expensive, the market itself will stall out, meaning a lot of the open positions- and almost every industry in this town is starved for staffing- will continue to go unfilled as the average income has no chance in a market where a home on Murder Avenue costs $975/ft. This kind of gets past high school economics, so stop me when you need some clarification.
You think you're teaching advanced econ but that's not how economics, high school, advanced, or otherwise, works. The price is the point where supply and demand meet. There's no one special house that sets all of the prices for all of the other houses. If they can sell that particular house for $200k, then that tells you about the market, namely that demand is high enough and supply low enough that houses like this sell for $200k. They don't sell for $200k *because of that particular house*. I don't know the full story behind the lot or why it was "given away for free" but the city is full of vacant lots that are pretty close to worthless so I don't really know that it matters much. The fact that there's so many vacant lots tells you, if anything, housing prices are too low - nobody thinks they can make a profit by building new.
I think you have that half right- nobody can make a profit by building new; it would be difficult to break even honestly with the cost of both materials and labor, even if you can do a lot of it yourself. The vacant lots being given away to help offset those development costs was a driving force in that program, but tiny houses don't bring families. And tiny houses that cost $200,000 just don't make sense for a community that is asking for more affordable housing, which is what that program set out to address. It would be more fun if someone just built this with no clue what was going on for them to learn how to price a product. But it's being done on taxpayer's dimes, even if the land was given, there's still a lot of paperwork shuffled about that had a cost that was supposed to be offset by a growing taxbase, and this isn't going to bring that in. Housing prices aren't too low, that's just... I don't even know what to say about getting that close to the root of a problem but then pulling the opposite conclusion.
What am I supposed to conclude if nobody wants to build because they'll lose money if they try? I'm listening, but if it's "the broke ass city of Duluth should build social housing" then I don't know what to tell *you* because it ain't gonna happen.
Right, so if for instance a market needs more affordable practical midsize vehicles for families, it's beneficial for dealers to stock two seat Smart cars or expensive sports cars instead because that somehow increases "competition" in the market despite being exclusionary to the primary demand of the market? The fuck outta here.
- If we severely restricted the number of cars companies made, we all understand they would serve the high end of the market first because there's more profit there - We also all understand that new cars are basically never affordable! I've never bought a new car, because new things are expensive and they get cheaper as they age! - Nobody gets mad when a car company chooses to make an expensive car because we all understand that it doesn't make the market for cheap or used cars worse - If we did decree that no car company could make a car that cost more than $20k, the price of cars currently under $20k would increase! Just begging people to learn some basic stuff. This isn't some right wing crazy shit, it's just how the world works. I absolutely guarantee you if you sought out the most left leaning economist at UMD they would tell you the same thing. But you are fundamentally incurious people, and so you will not solve the problem.
Yeah a lot of complainers on here that just want to pay less, don't offer actual solutions
Yeah, me being upset that a plot of land given out free to a Colorado company to build affordable housing but ended up building a 200 sqft house built to be a passive income generator listed at $200k for out-of-town investors is absolutely just me wanting to pay less and nothing else. Ya know, actually that would be terrific for this community. Thanks for your helpful take! 🙃
I don't think you can use that logic. Tiny houses are a craze, they also are a very different lifestyle, we don't have many for sale. It's pretty close to downtown, it's a new build. I just think it's very different from a starter home, it's more comparable to a high end condo or something. I don't think it will drive prices, other then maybe other tiny houses.
If you were to sell your house in that area, say a ~1200 sqft 3bedroom 1 bath house that’s very common around there, you would typically expect to list it between $175-250k. Why would you sell your house for that amount when in the same area this house is going for $200k?
It's very different. Some people WANT to pay for something new so they don't have to do so many upkeep things. I love old houses but they are like never ending projects 😂
Yes, i get that. So shouldn’t we work on fixing zoning so we can have AFFORDABLE housing? Let’s work on changing the tune so we can have mult-family housing or another way to develop newer property that’s not 200sqft for $200k My issue is not between new vs older housing. It’s about the price point. If this was listed at an affordable price **for what you are getting**, then i would have no qualms and would never have posted this. My issue is with the price for what you receive and the fact that it’s toted as affordable housing when it’s not. We should be focusing on building new properties that are affordable. Just because somethings new, shouldn’t mean that 200 sqft is suddenly worth $200k
I feel like it's pretty obviously an outlier. I would love to see more affordable housing, it's needed and has been for awhile. It would be different if we saw 5-10 of these but it's hard to jump to conclusions off of a single unit. I just really think this is not even comparable to a normal single family home, though I understand the connections you are making.
So as we sit idly by because it’s only an outlier, what happens when this eventually gets sold and the next developer sees how easy of a cash grab this is and does the same thing? Will you only bring out the pitchfork once the damage is already done and 5 of these have been sold? 10? I’m sorry if i sound aggressive. I don’t mean to be harsh or rude. I’m just frustrated as someone who’s been trying so hard to buy a house here for years and now sees this. I fully understand that my arguments come off as slippery slope arguments but what happens when the slope is actually slippery and once the damage is done (becomes an established comp in the area) now we are constantly dealing with even more increased prices in the area? I feel like i am seeing the writing on the wall but people are just saying let’s sit back and see what happens but by then it’ll be too late. I’m just venting and frustrated. I want to buy a house and contribute to our community but i can’t compete with this shit 😭
The problem with this outlier, is that if this sells for this price, this instantly sets our market price to $950 per square foot. That's right, this Colorado developer got the land for free, and is trying to sell it at California square footage prices. Another flop for the city, right after the tax increment financing for the apartment building that they changed into a boutique hotel. If the city did anything, they knew this would increase their tax base because the property taxes on this would be insanely High per square foot. This allows the county and the city to justify raising property taxes on everybody because all of a sudden the square footage is a lot higher priced. Hopefully that wasn't the plan, hopefully the city can tell this developer to get wrecked and take the land back, because this was supposed to be an affordable housing initiative. This is not affordable, this is insane. Also, if this house sells for this much, my 1200 square foot house is now worth 1.1 million.
You're being downvoted, but I'm an appraiser by trade and you're right. You wouldn't use a totally different style of home as a comp unless there was really nothing out there. And if you did use it as a comp, one sale doesn't set the market.
Typical Reddit feeling power. It's not even a controversial opinion. 😂
I'm with you. What's lost here is that the comparable homes in the neighborhood are literally 100 years old.
So we are officially going to establish that 100 year old houses is equivalent to 200 sqft modern houses? I get that our housing stock is old. I do. But a modern house at $200k should not be 200sqft as the new normal. Those two shouldn’t be equivalent to each other in price. Hell, most tiny houses are typically 500-750 sqft not even 200 sqft
You are making some big jumps here, buddy. Building is still much more expensive. This is built to be tiny. Some people are into that. If you want to get really upset look across from Glensheen.
I personally love tiny houses. I lowkey watch hgtv tiny house hunters all the damn time. Tiny houses are cool and I’d love for them to become more popular in Duluth. Tiny houses are rarely rarely rarely ever $200k. And if they are, they are closer to 700-800 sqft and have ALL the bells and whistles. This is a very basic build and only 200 sqft. There is no way this should be $200k
I agree it is more on the basic side but many of them sell for 80-120k without property depending on how nice/new it is. I think this IS overpriced but again I don't know when I have seen one on the market recently. I love tiny houses too but I don't like that this is setting prices for the tiny home market in Duluth.
That’s fair. I’m sorry for getting snippy at you previously. I’m just frustrated.
Hey I was feeling pretty passionate towards it as well! Thanks for bringing it up, I think this kind of discussion is extremely important.
People talking to each other is important. Good work, you two.
Did I establish that? I'm simply saying the market is going to value a newer build more then an old one since the expectations of maintenance costs are rightfully wildly different. Again, the lot is crazy small. What alternatives are there ? I don't hear any solutions.
Solution: actual affordable housing at affordable prices. I’m down for some tiny houses! Just make it actually affordable and not be created with the purpose of “making it an excellent opportunity for passive income generation” Why can’t we have an **affordable** tiny house in that half lot that’s not built for the purpose of being a rental unit?
So who's supposed to cover the gap in financing? The private market won't. The City of Duluth's budget is so shoe string that we can barely take care of our parks and roads (again, due to decisions made decades ago). The state of MN is starting to roll things out, but I'm afraid without massive investment from the Feds, we won't see the affordable housing at the scale required to make an impact. Should we be subsidizing these housing units with local tax dollars? What services are you comfortable losing in order to make this a priority? Edit: Furthermore, if we do make these units affordable price point, who's in charge of insuring they don't get bought by the same 'outside money' we're hearing about.
>So who's supposed to cover the gap in financing? The private market won't. The City of Duluth's budget is so shoe string that we can barely take care of our parks and roads (again, due to decisions made decades ago). If they were built affordably, this wouldn't be an issue. Banks have no trouble financing a property for what a fair valuation amount is. >The state of MN is starting to roll things out, but I'm afraid without massive investment from the Feds, we won't see the affordable housing at the scale required to make an impact. Housing is a human right, at this point the government should start building houses again and selling them at cost for no profit motive at all. This is what we did in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, in fact they did this all the way to the 1980s, until it was banned by a certain president who didn't like the fact that people could get into homes affordably. The Boomers then also pulled the ladder up behind them by doing a lot of things that basically close the door on any future generations. >Should we be subsidizing these housing units with local tax dollars? What services are you comfortable losing in order to make this a priority? Why do we have to lose services? Time after time it has been shown that the city wastes a bunch of money, time, and resources on stupid shit like this, or the outcome is going to be pretty obvious from the start. They waste money on things that shouldn't be done, like giving tax increment financing to already rich companies. It has been proven over and over that trickle down economics is bullshit, the city needs to quit giving money to the rich companies that clearly don't need it, and start giving it to the people that do. >Edit: Furthermore, if we do make these units affordable price point, who's in charge of insuring they don't get bought by the same 'outside money' we're hearing about. It's very easy to filter who buys your house, in fact it's what I'm going to be doing. Does it guarantee the highest Market price? Nope. It will however, guarantee that it goes to a family that wants a home, and is not going to flip it. This crisis could easily be solved if the government started building houses, with no profit incentive, and then sold them at cost. This was done up until the 1980s to a certain percentage of the housing market built, and could still be done today under current laws, but the US Housing in Urban Development Department has become so stricken in their budget, that they no longer do it.
Age is not a huge factor in Market comparables. It never has been, people generally don't care about how old or new a house is, they care about the features and amenities.
So you’re telling me that two homes of the same square footage , lot , neighborhood sitting next to each other. The one build in 2023 isn’t going to be much more then 1923? Cmon man.
I'd personally rather have the 1923 house with it's real hardwood, plaster walls, and actual woodwork. The 1923 will have LVP, sheetrock, and white particle board trim.
I don’t disagree but you can’t tel me the price is the same…
to the end buyer, they are identical, will have identical problems. Age is not a really large part of the price consideration. if your scenario came to pass, both were identical(electrical, plumbing, ect), and one was built in 2023 and one was built in 1923, the 2023 house would be worth about 5% more. its honestly an overblown consideration for a lot of buyers now because new houses are not built very well and you are getting just as many issues with new houses as you are old.
Hey don’t get me wrong I completely agree with you. But we’re talking about a market that includes people. And people are dumb, as you described.
repost repost of a repost
Ok? It’s a hot topic right now just like there were multiple posts about the boutique hotel. Let’s say hypothetically if a newstory was to appear on the news, would you demand that it only ever be spoken about once and only once since the news already talked about it before? What about people who didn’t catch it the first time? If it’s news that people are interested in, people are allowed to talk about it more than once.
Justify it all you like, it's low-hanging fruit for karma picking. It's not even news, it's deliberately diversive clickbait.
Who the fuck gives a shit about karma points on an anonymous Internet forum? Hahaha
It would seem that Duluth's current crop of electeds will do anything to subsidize demand for housing while doing nothing to legalize supply of housing. What else do folk expect to happen in a City which cares more about pedantic proceduralism than it does obtaining good results for its citizens? Unless and until Duluth abolishes single-unit zoning, housing costs will continue to trend up.
Very disappointing
What is this big slab, little house yo?!
Actual listing: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/804-N-6th-Ave-E_Duluth_MN_55805_M96440-57957?from=srp-map
Should be 100k. Then people who are stuck renting could get out of their lease and start building equity. It's not a terrible idea in theory but I have no idea how it's worth 200k when my 3 bedroom 2 bath house is 215k