Good question. For me, I decided that 'owning' a couple acres with a poorly built house included made sense. (The house kept the price affordable.) The front lawn is gone, and the backyard will be gone by spring. I'll build a new house someday, even if I have to do it myself.

I've thought about this a lot myself. I think you need to own outright where you live. Make sure it is a place you would want to live for the long haul; you have to live
somewhere and if it is owned outright and can keep up the taxes you can't be
put out on the street.
People comment a lot about being close to work, etc., this is true but there is no guarantee there would be a job to get to. Same with living close to a grocery store, no guarantee there would be groceries there to buy. I would rather have a place with a big yard to plant a garden than someplace where I would have to depend on others totally to live.

You mean 'residence' as just Owner Occupied, right?

We are, I think in the best position we could be in, with our 3-unit house in a walkable city, close to farmland, Seaport and rail(to some extent) Our two rentals pay the (Not ARM) mortgage completely, leaving us to pay for Heating (!), and our own food, utilities, insurance, daycare, etc..

The threat could be that if housing prices crash, then many renters would look to buy, and the rental market would thin out.. but our apts are decently priced, and well kept up.. unlike so many others in this town.

I'm working to offset heating with solar heat, and always chasing down more insulation, leaks and old windows to replace, but just the fact that our three 'households' share considerable wallspace makes our energy use a good bit more efficient. (In the coldest part of winter, we're burning some 10-12 gallons of oil a day.. divide by three households. I still want to bring it way down from that.)

Bob

The answer is are you willing to live there to live in your home for quality of life or do you intend to flip it to make more money when you sell.

It's all about quality of life, and what your desires are,
most people in America are willing to loose value in a car when they buy it, same goes with a computers, TV’s, etc., are so why they not willing to loose value in a house too?

Yet in the town I live at I raise the question why is Pushy Bully Builders are still coming to the table saying the need to build more houses, they seem to be blind to that we still have 600+ home vacant lots, about 100 vacant homes, 40 +/- retail spots, and not to forget 150 condos vacant too.

I saw a quote someone posted I like.

The market will adjust it's self, but not in a nice way.

Cheers
Jon

If your future vision concludes that cities will remain as centers of commerce, then yes, as there will still be jobs. If your vision is opposite, then no. History shows, however, that cities will continue to exist based upon their geographic assets. London was a huge metropolis long before fossil fuel use started, for example. Same with New York, Boston, Moscow, Oslo, Paris, etc. Will changes occur to these cities as a result of Peak Energy and Climate Change? Yes. In precisely what manner is impossible to tell currently.

Personally, I greatly prefer the Oregon countryside to any urban area. But cities have long been the seats of high culture, which is why I occasionaly visit Portland.

Right now I would say emphatically NO, with the exception of property that is grandfathered into property tax freezes like prop 13 in CA and in small cities with private police forces even if they are part of a major metro area.

A little cabin on a large plot of land that's hard to find, away from major population centers in states that have very low population seems relatively safe.

Then again, if they can change contracts in the middle of the game, who knows what else they may want to change. Once government develops this Zimbabwe attitude it's probably better to look for greener pastures.

If you have a friend in the area, you might look into something like the Tumbleweed Homes teeny houses on a trailer approach. Maybe you could park in their backyard and pay them $150 a month or something like that for rent. (Cheaper than property taxes.)

The Tumbleweed Homes are sort of like a trailer really, about the same size, and more expensive. I bet you could think of something better for less $$. In any case, if you got into some kind of home for an outlay of $15,000 up front and $150 a month, that's not bad. You would also be paying much less in utilities, maybe less than your "rent", so there's more savings/independence from money income there.

I think that having enough room for a good garden is important. Generally this means at least a half acre of land if you can get it. If you plan on being a farmer then figure out how to make money at it. Be a real one.

Next owing outright is probably the second most important variable. This may mean a trailer on a acre of land within walking distance of a small town. You can always build a nice home if you have the money.

Finally a pond or at least a well is important.

On the money side I'd always consider that you may be reduced to say 10 dollars a day of income. So think hard about what you could do with 300 a month. How would you live. Can you reduce expenses to the point that this is doable ? Are you diabetic ?

If you do have a medical condition and can still work you may want to think about entering the medical field so you can work in a hospital.

For me at least I like to think about how I'd live in abject poverty and still enjoy life.

I'd garden and fish and I love working with stone.

Now the big issue taxes and more important living in a area where the state and local governments are probably bankrupt.
Just about everywhere in America is in trouble given this but the western states which had bigger housing bubbles are going to have serious problems. Maintaining ownership of anything when your state is bankrupt is a serious concern unless your part of the in crowed. One reason I've personally not rushed off to buy a place even though I'm a admitted doomer is I've very interested in watching how the various states handle the coming financial crunch. The smart move is to downsize until the government can be supported by a depressed local economy. The government has to practice ELP also. I question if states like California and Oregon are going to responsibly downsize the government.

The underlying problem is you can make a lot of money taking over properties for back taxes so even during a depression if your only paying pennies on the dollar for a piece of property you can make money say selling the home for scrap logging the trees and absorbing the land into a larger farm.
Or if its in town converting the property to a rental.
So a government can easily fall into the trap of destroying the community to support itself and a few wealthy insiders.

So I'm waiting to see how various regions will move. So far I'm concerned that Oregon and California will revert to destructive taxation in order to try and keep their governments running. Texas and Florida and most of the East coast are also of concern. I suspect that a lot of people that thought they had everything worked out will find out that everything they have will be lost to the government.

So I'm going to stay a happy renter and try and save money and probably move it to safer accounts soon. And wait till I see a state make a decision to aggressively reduce its government before I buy.

I can answer you some of that from personal experience, having been an apartment dwelling mass transit-er in Portland for six years. Mostly I have the usual caveats about MT - schlupping eight grocery bags in the rain and waiting half an hour. A company I worked for wanted me at a site in Gresham (east of Portland, satellite community). It was a 3/4 mile trek from the nearest line. Another place I was to work at was close to downtown, about a half mile North across the Willamette River - but it was simply impossible for me to get there by bus by 8 AM - and I lived on the east side on 23rd Ave two blocks from one of the primary E/W arteries!

Regarding prices, admittedly I saved a heap over the years, don't know what the monthly passes averaged out to - $50? So perhaps $600/year = $3600 for the duration. You'd spend that much per year on a car.

These are my caveats about MT, you really need to be very close to work and have real job stability, or the system needs to expand a great deal, even from Portland's pretty high standard. I'm also in favor of whatever solution can be implemented in the most simple and fast manner, as I think this will be all we'll have when crunch time happens. Much as I like the idea of a tram line every mile watching the MAX lines being built here was like watching a geriatric snail 10k.

User eastbay has posted some horror stories about the bus and MAX lines at po.com, too. Recently a 71 year old man was beaten with a baseball bat at one of the MAX stops. Time for the formation of community posses.