• abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m okay with house flippers because they’ll buy undervalued run down houses nobody wants and turn them into desirable homes.

    House flippers are arguably responsible for a housing-quality crisis. Flippers often fewer lower code requirements than new builders. You end up with a lot of houses with nothing but cosmetic remediation and fairly substantial issues otherwise.

    • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, but I think those are still the shitty flippers, but maybe the flippers I’m imagining don’t exist in appreciable number.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The problem is the lack of business-reason to spend money on things that do not raise the property value. Unfortunately “fixing things” usually carries a negative value return.

        The common things flippers do (and I know this from some friends who did real-estate for flippers) is buy houses that mostly need the most efficient changes - new tile, paint, etc, with minimal inexpensive fixes to make the house saleable. And honestly, that’s obvious when you say it. The extension of that is that if you can cover up an issue or the issue is not outside margins of being saleable (old septic, safe-but-near-EOL electrical, less ideal insulation, intentionally avoiding discovering asbestos where it probably exists, etc), you should.

        Then, depending on local laws, flippers have more limited disclosure requirements than builders. Which means anything that isn’t “gross negligence” that cannot show up on a home inspection… you. just. don’t. do.

        Here’s an interesting article on the risk.