My cousin owns a mansion in Capitol Hill. Because she was a broke-ass student at UW and couldn't afford rent. Back in the 1980s, buying a house there was seen as a crazy, insanely risky thing to do and likely to end up in death.
The modern equivalent is the area around 105th and Euclid in Cleveland, near Case Western and the Cleveland Clinic. 150 years ago, that was the wealthiest neighborhood in the entire United States, now you are though to be insane to want to buy a house there. But if you did, would you end up with Capitol-Hill like appreciation in 40 years???
> But if you did, would you end up with Capitol-Hill like appreciation in 40 years???
My friend recently applied this same concept in a very rough area of South Bend, Indiana buying a house with bullet holes in the side using the same general logic ("it'll get gentrified someday").
The issue he's running into is that it turns out a city doesn't have to charge you property taxes on the actual sale price (which was only $3k) but can charge you property taxes on a higher amount of their choosing ($40k I think he said) in order to encourage revitalization and not just hoarding of slum houses, probably.
He's trying to fight that property tax assessment, but I'm not a lawyer and neither is he and he'll probably lose. In which case the holding costs defeat his whole plan.
My cousin owns a mansion in Capitol Hill. Because she was a broke-ass student at UW and couldn't afford rent. Back in the 1980s, buying a house there was seen as a crazy, insanely risky thing to do and likely to end up in death.
The modern equivalent is the area around 105th and Euclid in Cleveland, near Case Western and the Cleveland Clinic. 150 years ago, that was the wealthiest neighborhood in the entire United States, now you are though to be insane to want to buy a house there. But if you did, would you end up with Capitol-Hill like appreciation in 40 years???