Real Estate and Housing (Residential)

More stories

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    High Housing Prices May Pose a Problem for Biden

    by

    Buying a home is a less attainable goal for many young people, and rents are expensive. Could that dog Democrats in the 2024 election?Cameron Ambrosy spent the first weekend of December going to 10 open houses — purely for research purposes. The 25-year-old in St. Paul, Minn., has a well-paying job and she and her husband are saving diligently, but she knows that it will be years before they can afford to buy.“It is much more of a long-term goal than for my parents or my grandparents, or even my peers who are slightly older,” said Ms. Ambrosy, adding that for many of her friends, homeownership is even farther away. “There’s a lot of nihilism around long-term goals like home buying.”As many people pay more for rent and some struggle to save for starter homes, political and economic analysts are warning that housing affordability may be adding to economic unhappiness — and is likely to be a more salient issue in the 2024 presidential election than in years past.Many Americans view the economy negatively even though unemployment is low and wage growth has been strong. Younger voters cite housing as a particular source of concern: Among respondents 18 to 34 in a recent Morning Consult survey, it placed second only to inflation overall.Wary of the issue and its political implications, President Biden has directed his economic aides to come up with new and expanded efforts for the federal government to help Americans who are struggling with the costs of buying or renting a home, aides say. The administration is using federal grants to prod local authorities to loosen zoning regulations, for instance, and is considering executive actions that focus on affordability. The White House has also dispatched top officials, including Lael Brainard, who leads the National Economic Council, to give speeches about the administration’s efforts to help people afford homes.“The president is very focused on the affordability of housing because it is the single most important monthly expense for so many families,” Ms. Brainard said in an interview.Housing is “the single most important monthly expense for so many families,” noted Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council. Erin Schaff/The New York TimesHousing has not traditionally been a big factor motivating voters, in part because key market drivers like zoning policies tend to be local. But some political strategists and economists say the rapid run-up in prices since the pandemic could change that.Rents have climbed about 22 percent since late 2019, and a key index of home prices is up by an even heftier 46 percent. Mortgages now hover around 7 percent as the Federal Reserve has raised rates to the highest level in 22 years in a bid to contain inflation. Those factors have combined to make both monthly rent and the dream of first-time homeownership increasingly unattainable for many young families.“This is the singular economic issue of our time, and they need to figure out how to talk about that with voters in a way that resonates,” said Tara Raghuveer, director of KC Tenants, a tenant union in Kansas City, Mo., referring to the White House. The housing affordability crush comes at a time when many consumers are facing higher prices in general. A bout of rapid inflation that started in 2021 has left households paying more for everyday necessities like milk, bread, gas and many services. Even though costs are no longer increasing so quickly, those higher prices continue to weigh on consumer sentiment, eroding Mr. Biden’s approval ratings.While incomes have recently kept up with price increases, that inflationary period has left many young households devoting a bigger chunk of their budgets to rental costs. That is making it more difficult for many to save toward now-heftier down payments. The situation has spurred a bout of viral social media content about the difficulty of buying a home, which has long been a steppingstone into the middle class and a key component of wealth-building in the United States.That’s why some analysts think that housing concerns could morph into an important political issue, particularly for hard-hit demographics like younger people. While about two-thirds of American adults overall are homeowners, that share drops to less than 40 percent for those under 35.“The housing market has been incredibly volatile over the last four years in a way that has made it very salient,” said Igor Popov, the chief economist at Apartment List. “I think housing is going to be a big topic in the 2024 election.”Yet there are reasons that presidential candidates have rarely emphasized housing as an election issue: It is both a long-term problem and a tough one for the White House to tackle on its own.“Housing is sort of the problem child in economic policy,” said Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and former Obama administration economic and housing adviser. America has a housing supply shortfall that has been years in the making. Builders pulled back on construction after the 2007 housing market meltdown, and years of insufficient building have left too few properties on the market to meet recent strong demand. The shortage has recently been exacerbated as higher interest rates deter home-owning families who locked in low mortgage rates from moving.Some analysts think concerns about housing affordability could morph into an important political issue, particularly for hard-hit demographics like younger people.Mikayla Whitmore for The New York TimesConditions could ease slightly in 2024. The Federal Reserve is expected to begin cutting borrowing costs next year as inflation eases, which could help to make mortgages slightly cheaper. A new supply of apartments are expected to be finished, which could keep a lid on rents.And even voters who feel bad about housing might still support Democrats for other reasons. Ms. Ambrosy, the would-be buyer in St. Paul, said that she had voted for President Biden in 2020 and she planned to vote for the Democratic nominee in this election purely on the basis of social issues, for instance.But housing affordability is enough of a pain point for young voters and renters — who tend to lean heavily Democrat — that it has left the Biden administration scrambling to emphasize possible solutions.After including emergency rental assistance in his 2021 economic stimulus bill, Mr. Biden has devoted less attention to housing than to other inflation-related issues, like reducing the cost of prescription drugs. His most aggressive housing proposals, like an expansion of federal housing vouchers, were dropped from last year’s Inflation Reduction Act.Still, his administration has pushed several efforts to liberalize local housing laws and expand affordable housing. It released a “Housing Supply Action” plan that aims to step up the pace of development by using federal grants and other funds to encourage state and local governments to liberalize their zoning and land use rules to make housing faster and easier to build. The plan also gives governments more leeway to use transportation and infrastructure funds to more directly produce housing (such as with a new program that supports the conversion of offices to apartments).The administration has also floated a number of ideas to help renters, such as a blueprint for future renters’ legislation and a new Federal Trade Commission proposal to prohibit “junk fees” for things like roommates, applications and utilities that hide the true cost of rent.Some affordable housing advocates say the administration could do more. One possibility they have raised in the past would be to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which help create a more robust market for mortgages by buying them from financial institutions, invest directly in moderately priced rental housing developments. Ms. Raghuveer, the tenant organizer, has argued that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could unilaterally impose a cap on annual rent increases for landlords whose mortgages are backed by the agencies.But several experts said that White House efforts would only help on the margins. “Without Congress, the administration is really limited in what they can do to reduce supply barriers,” said Emily Hamilton, an economist at the Mercatus Center who studies housing.Republicans control the House and have opposed nearly all of Mr. Biden’s plans to increase government spending, including for housing. But aides say Mr. Biden will press the case and seek new executive actions to help with housing costs.While it could be valuable to start talking about solutions, “nothing is going to solve the problem in one year,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics and a frequent adviser to Democrats.“This problem has been developing for 15 years, since the financial crisis, and it’s going to take another 15 years to get out of it.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    A 30-Year Trap: The Problem With America’s Weird Mortgages

    by

    Buying a home was hard before the pandemic. Somehow, it keeps getting harder.Prices, already sky-high, have gotten even higher, up nearly 40 percent over the past three years. Available homes have gotten scarcer: Listings are down nearly 20 percent over the same period. And now interest rates have soared to a 20-year high, eroding buying power without — in defiance of normal economic logic — doing much to dent prices.None of which, of course, is a problem for people who already own homes. They have been insulated from rising interest rates and, to a degree, from rising consumer prices. Their homes are worth more than ever. Their monthly housing costs are, for the most part, locked in place.The reason for that divide — a big part of it, anyway — is a unique, ubiquitous feature of the U.S. housing market: the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.That mortgage has been so common for so long that it can be easy to forget how strange it is. Because the interest rate is fixed, homeowners get to freeze their monthly loan payments for as much as three decades, even if inflation picks up or interest rates rise. But because most U.S. mortgages can be paid off early with no penalty, homeowners can simply refinance if rates go down. Buyers get all of the benefits of a fixed rate, with none of the risks.“It’s a one-sided bet,” said John Y. Campbell, a Harvard economist who has argued that the 30-year mortgage contributes to inequality. “If inflation goes way up, the lenders lose and the borrowers win. Whereas if inflation goes down, the borrower just refinances.”This isn’t how things work elsewhere in the world. In Britain and Canada, among other places, interest rates are generally fixed for only a few years. That means the pain of higher rates is spread more evenly between buyers and existing owners.In other countries, such as Germany, fixed-rate mortgages are common but borrowers can’t easily refinance. That means new buyers are dealing with higher borrowing costs, but so are longtime owners who bought when rates were higher. (Denmark has a system comparable to the United States’, but down payments are generally larger and lending standards stricter.)Only the United States has such an extreme system of winners and losers, in which new buyers face borrowing costs of 7.5 percent or more while two-thirds of existing mortgage holders pay less than 4 percent. On a $400,000 home, that’s a difference of $1,000 in monthly housing costs.“It’s a bifurcated market,” said Selma Hepp, chief economist at the real estate site CoreLogic. “It’s a market of haves and have-nots.”It isn’t just that new buyers face higher interest rates than existing owners. It’s that the U.S. mortgage system is discouraging existing owners from putting their homes on the market — because if they move to another house, they’ll have to give up their low interest rates and get a much costlier mortgage. Many are choosing to stay put, deciding they can live without the extra bedroom or put up with the long commute a little while longer.The result is a housing market that is frozen in place. With few homes on the market — and fewer still at prices that buyers can afford — sales of existing homes have fallen more than 15 percent in the past year, to their lowest level in over a decade. Many in the millennial generation, who were already struggling to break into the housing market, are finding they have to wait yet longer to buy their first homes.“Affordability, no matter how you define it, is basically at its worst point since mortgage rates were in the teens” in the 1980s, said Richard K. Green, director of the Lusk Center for Real Estate at the University of Southern California. “We sort of implicitly give preference to incumbents over new people, and I don’t see any particular reason that should be the case.”A ‘Historical Accident’The story of the 30-year mortgage begins in the Great Depression. Many mortgages at the time had terms of 10 years or less and, unlike mortgages today, were not “self-amortizing” — meaning that rather than gradually paying down the loan’s principal along with the interest each month, borrowers owed the principal in full at the end of the term. In practice, that meant that borrowers would have to take out a new mortgage to pay off the old one.That system worked until it didn’t: When the financial system seized up and home values collapsed, borrowers couldn’t roll over their loans. At one point in the early 1930s, nearly 10 percent of U.S. homes were in foreclosure, according to research by Mr. Green and a co-author, Susan M. Wachter of the University of Pennsylvania.In response, the federal government created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which used government-backed bonds to buy up defaulted mortgages and reissue them as fixed-rate, long-term loans. (The corporation was also instrumental in creating the system of redlining that prevented many Black Americans from buying homes.) The government then sold off those mortgages to private investors, with the newly created Federal Housing Administration providing mortgage insurance so those investors knew the loans they were buying would be paid off.The mortgage system evolved over the decades: The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation gave way to Fannie Mae and, later, Freddie Mac — nominally private companies whose implicit backing by the federal government became explicit after the housing bubble burst in the mid-2000s. The G.I. Bill led to a huge expansion and liberalization of the mortgage insurance system. The savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s contributed to the rise of mortgage-backed securities as the primary funding source for home loans.By the 1960s, the 30-year mortgage had emerged as the dominant way to buy a house in the United States — and apart from a brief period in the 1980s, it has remained so ever since. Even during the height of the mid-2000s housing bubble, when millions of Americans were lured by adjustable-rate mortgages with low “teaser” rates, a large share of borrowers opted for mortgages with long terms and fixed rates.After the bubble burst, the adjustable-rate mortgage all but disappeared. Today, nearly 95 percent of existing U.S. mortgages have fixed interest rates; of those, more than three-quarters are for 30-year terms.No one set out to make the 30-year mortgage the standard. It is “a bit of a historical accident,” said Andra Ghent, an economist at the University of Utah who has studied the U.S. mortgage market. But intentionally or otherwise, the government played a central role: There is no way that most middle-class Americans could get a bank to lend them a multiple of their annual income at a fixed rate without some form of government guarantee.“In order to do 30-year lending, you need to have a government guarantee,” said Edward J. Pinto, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime conservative critic of the 30-year mortgage. “The private sector couldn’t have done that on their own.”For home buyers, the 30-year mortgage is an incredible deal. They get to borrow at what amounts to a subsidized rate — often while putting down relatively little of their own money.But Mr. Pinto and other critics on both the right and the left argue that while the 30-year mortgage may have been good for home buyers individually, it has not been nearly so good for American homeownership overall. By making it easier to buy, the government-subsidized mortgage system has stimulated demand, but without nearly as much attention on ensuring more supply. The result is an affordability crisis that long predates the recent spike in interest rates, and a homeownership rate that is unremarkable by international standards.“Over time, the 30-year fixed rate probably just erodes affordability,” said Skylar Olsen, chief economist for the real estate site Zillow.Research suggests that the U.S. mortgage system has also heightened racial and economic inequality. Wealthier borrowers tend to be more financially sophisticated and, therefore, likelier to refinance when doing so saves them money — meaning that even if borrowers start out with the same interest rate, gaps emerge over time.“Black and Hispanic borrowers in particular are less likely to refinance their loans,” said Vanessa Perry, a George Washington University professor who studies consumers in housing markets. “There’s an equity loss over time. They’re overpaying.”‘Who Feels the Pain?’Hillary Valdetero and Dan Frese are on opposite sides of the great mortgage divide.Ms. Valdetero, 37, bought her home in Boise, Idaho, in April 2022, just in time to lock in a 4.25 percent interest rate on her mortgage. By June, rates approached 6 percent.“If I had waited three weeks, because of the interest rate I would’ve been priced out,” she said. “I couldn’t touch a house with what it’s at now.”Mr. Frese, 28, moved back to Chicago, his hometown, in July 2022, as rates were continuing their upward march. A year and a half later, Mr. Frese is living with his parents, saving as much as he can in the hopes of buying his first home — and watching rising rates push that dream further away.“My timeline, I need to stretch at least another year,” Mr. Frese said. “I do think about it: Could I have done anything differently?”The diverging fortunes of Ms. Valdetero and Mr. Frese have implications beyond the housing market. Interest rates are the Federal Reserve’s primary tool for corralling inflation: When borrowing becomes more expensive, households are supposed to pull back their spending. But fixed-rate mortgages dampen the effect of those policies — meaning the Fed has to get even more aggressive.“When the Fed raises rates to control inflation, who feels the pain?” asked Mr. Campbell, the Harvard economist. “In a fixed-rate mortgage system, there’s this whole group of existing homeowners who don’t feel the pain and don’t take the hit, so it falls on new home buyers,” as well as renters and construction firms.Mr. Campbell argues that there are ways the system could be reformed, starting with encouraging more buyers to choose adjustable-rate mortgages. Higher interest rates are doing that, but very slowly: The share of buyers taking the adjustable option has edged up to about 10 percent, from 2.5 percent in late 2021.Other critics have suggested more extensive changes. Mr. Pinto has proposed a new type of mortgage with shorter durations, variable interest rates and minimal down payments — a structure that he argues would improve both affordability and financial stability.But in practice, hardly anyone expects the 30-year mortgage to disappear soon. Americans hold $12.5 trillion in mortgage debt, mostly in fixed-rate loans. The existing system has an enormous — and enormously wealthy — built-in constituency whose members are certain to fight any change that threatens the value of their biggest asset.What is more likely is that the frozen housing market will gradually thaw. Homeowners will decide they can’t put off selling any longer, even if it means a lower price. Buyers, too, will adjust. Many forecasters predict that even a small drop in rates could bring a big increase in activity — a 6 percent mortgage suddenly might not sound that bad.But that process could take years.“I feel very fortunate that I slid in at the right time,” Ms. Valdetero said. “I feel really bad for people that didn’t get in and now they can’t.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    How High Interest Rates Sting Bakers, Farmers and Consumers

    by

    Home buyers, entrepreneurs and public officials are confronting a new reality: If they want to hold off on big purchases or investments until borrowing is less expensive, it’s probably going to be a long wait.Governments are paying more to borrow money for new schools and parks. Developers are struggling to find loans to buy lots and build homes. Companies, forced to refinance debts at sharply higher interest rates, are more likely to lay off employees — especially if they were already operating with little or no profits.Over the past few weeks, investors have realized that even with the Federal Reserve nearing an end to its increases in short-term interest rates, market-based measures of long-term borrowing costs have continued rising. In short, the economy may no longer be able to avoid a sharper slowdown.“It’s a trickle-down effect for everyone,” said Mary Kay Bates, the chief executive of Bank Midwest in Spirit Lake, Iowa.Small banks like Ms. Bates’s are at the epicenter of America’s credit crunch for small businesses. During the pandemic, with the Fed’s benchmark interest rate near zero and consumers piling up savings in bank accounts, she could make loans at 3 to 4 percent. She also put money into safe securities, like government bonds.But when the Fed’s rate started rocketing up, the value of Bank Midwest’s securities portfolio fell — meaning that if Ms. Bates sold the bonds to fund more loans, she would have to take a steep loss. Deposits were also waning, as consumers spent down their savings and moved money into higher-yielding assets.Higher Interest Rates Are Here More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    A Higher Monthly Payment, but Less Square Footage

    by

    Homebuilders are responding to rising interest rates with an innovation: a small house in the traditionally spacious exurbs.The American home is shrinking.With interest rates rising and mortgage costs with them, homebuilders are pulling in yards, tightening living rooms and lopping off bedrooms in an attempt to keep the monthly payment in line with what families can afford. The result is that new home buyers are paying more and getting less, while far-flung developments where people move for size and space are now being reimagined as higher-density communities where single-family houses have apartment-size proportions.In a recent survey of architects, John Burns Research and Consulting found that about half expected their average house size to decline. New communities will have more duplexes or small-lot single-family homes that are just a few feet apart. Even in Texas, where land is abundant, builders are adding more homes per acre, the company found.“The monthly payment matters more than anything else and builders have responded with smaller, more efficient homes,” said John Burns, the company’s chief executive.Consider Hayden Homes, a Pacific Northwest builder that focuses on small towns and exurbs where middle-class families (its typical buyer has a household income of $90,000 a year) have historically traded more house for a longer commute.Two years ago, when interest rates were low, the average Hayden home was a 1,900 square-foot three-bedroom that cost $500,000, or about $2,000 a month, said Steve Klingman, the company’s president, in an interview. This assumed a 5 percent down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate.Now, as borrowing costs consume more of buyers’ mortgage payments, Hayden is lowering prices and square footage to keep customers’ payments stable. The average Hayden home is now 1,550 square feet and costs about $400,000, or $2,100 a month, Mr. Klingman said. To buy it, however, a customer has to produce a 10 percent down payment and, even with incentives, is paying a 6 percent rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.“We are reconfiguring our floor plans, our features and community design all to get to that payment buyers can afford,” Mr. Klingman said. “People want to own if we can make it attainable.”In dense areas like Southern California, the high cost of land has long led developers to focus on compact homes. Trade-offs like a side yard instead of a backyard, or a garage that opens to the street instead of a driveway, have compressed size and reduced cost. Now those kinds of urban designs are arriving in the exurbs.For instance, in Hayden’s hometown, Redmond, Ore., a city of 35,000 about 30 minutes from Bend, Ore., its Cinder Butte Village development now has homes as small as 400 square feet (a one-bedroom, one-bath with a garage on the back alley). The average is around 1,000 — half the typical home size in the community two years ago.Mr. Klingman expects smaller homes to drive the market in the coming years. Hayden shifted all of its floor plans down as mortgage rates started rising and has prototypes for new communities that are twice as dense as the ones it built during the pandemic.“I think this is for the long haul,” Mr. Klingman said.In Cinder Butte Village, new homes will be much closer together than those built a few years ago.Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesNew homes are a tiny slice of the U.S. housing stock — builders started about 1.5 million houses and apartments last year, while 142 million already existed — but since they are built in every market and bought almost entirely with mortgages, their size and cost are relatively sensitive to changes in the economy. This makes fresh construction a useful picture of how families are affected by higher borrowing costs.American families have for generations had more space than households elsewhere in the developed world, but their homes were shrinking even before interest rates rose. The median new U.S. home peaked around 2,500 square feet in 2015. Over the next five years, new homes shed about 200 square feet as costs rose, urban living boomed and smaller families became more common.The pandemic, with its rock-bottom interest rates, led to what seems poised to be a short-lived increase. As white-collar workers ditched their commutes, and home-based offices went from perk to necessity, builders added rooms and exurban subdivisions thrived.Today’s buyers are dealing with the hangover. The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has roughly doubled over the past two years, to 7.57 percent, according to Freddie Mac. This has all but frozen the market for existing homes by making buyers who locked in low rates reluctant to trade up or move, keeping home prices stable despite a huge increase in borrowing costs.The price that sellers will accept “is unusually high,” said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin, the real estate brokerage. “They need somebody to buy them out of their mortgage.”The decline in the inventory of existing homes for sale has made new homes a much bigger slice of the market. New home sales have consumed about a third of the market this year, or double the level in 2019, according to Redfin.Homeowners who can’t get their price can always sit out the market. But homebuilders have to sell to survive. And in a market where borrowing costs are consuming more of their buyers’ payments, and after years of rising material and labor costs, that means selling less house.The cuts will not be equal. In its survey, the John Burns consultancy found that dining and children’s rooms are being sacrificed to preserve bigger kitchens and primary bedrooms. To do this, builders are replacing tubs with showers. They’re expanding kitchen islands so they double as a dinner table. Outdoor spaces are being connected by covered patios and wall-size sliding doors that make a smaller living room seem open.Bigger is still better, even if it only feels like it. More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Rates Are Jumping on Wall Street. What Will It Do to Housing and the Economy?

    by

    A run-up in longer-term interest rates could help the Federal Reserve get the economic cool-down it wants — but it also risks a bumpy landing.Heather Mahmood-Corley, a real estate agent, was seeing decent demand for houses in the Phoenix area just a few weeks ago, with interested shoppers and multiple offers. But as mortgage rates pick up again, she is already watching would-be home buyers retrench.“You’ve got a lot of people on edge,” said Ms. Mahmood-Corley, a Redfin agent who has been selling houses for more than eight years, including more than five in the area.It’s an early sign of the economic fallout from a sharp rise in interest rates that has taken place in markets since the middle of the summer, when many home buyers and Wall Street traders thought that borrowing costs, which had risen rapidly, might be at or near their peak.Rates on longer-term government Treasury bonds have been climbing sharply, partly because investors are coming around to the belief that the Federal Reserve may keep its policy rate higher for longer. That adjustment is playing out in sophisticated financial markets, but the fallout could also spread throughout the economy.Higher interest rates make it more expensive to finance a car purchase, expand a business or borrow for a home. They have already prompted pain in the heavily indebted technology industry, and have sent jitters through commercial real estate markets.The increasing pressure is partly a sign that Fed policy is working: Officials have been lifting borrowing costs since March 2022 precisely because they want to slow the economy and curb inflation by discouraging borrowing and spending. Their policy adjustments sometimes take a while to push up borrowing costs for consumers and businesses — but are now clearly passing through.New homes for sale in Mesa, Ariz. Mortgage rates are flirting with 8 percent, up from less than 3 percent in 2021.Caitlin O’Hara for The New York TimesYet there is a threat that as rates ratchet higher across key parts of financial markets, they could accidentally wallop the economy instead of cooling it gently. So far, growth has been resilient to much higher borrowing costs: Consumers have continued to spend, the housing market has slowed without tanking, and businesses have kept investing. The risk is that rates will reach a tipping point where either a big chunk of that activity grinds to a halt or something breaks in financial markets.“At this point, the amount of increase in Treasury yields and the tightening itself is not enough to derail the economic expansion,” said Daleep Singh, chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. But he noted that higher bond yields — especially if they last — always bring a risk of financial instability.“You never know exactly what the threshold is at which you trigger these financial stability episodes,” he said.While the Fed has been raising the short-term interest rate it controls for some time, longer-dated interest rates — the sort that underpin borrowing costs paid by consumers and companies — have been slower to react. But at the start of August, the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond began a relentless march higher to levels last seen in 2007.The recent move is most likely the culmination of a number of factors: Growth has been surprisingly resilient, which has led investors to mark up their expectations for how long the Fed will keep rates high. Some strategists say the move reflects growing concerns about the sustainability of the national debt.“It’s everything under the sun, but also no single factor,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of interest rate strategy at TD Securities. “But it’s higher for longer that has everyone nervous.”Whatever the causes, the jump is likely to have consequences.Higher rates have already spurred some financial turmoil this year. Silicon Valley Bank and several other regional lenders imploded after they failed to protect their balance sheets against higher borrowing costs, causing customers to pull their money.Policymakers have continued to watch banks for signs of stress, especially tied to the commercial real estate market. Many regional lenders have exposure to offices, hotels and other commercial borrowers, and as rates rise, so do the costs to finance and maintain the properties and, in turn, how much they must earn to turn a profit. Higher rates make such properties less valuable.The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond in August began a relentless march higher to levels last seen in 2007.Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times“It does add to concerns around commercial real estate as the 10-year Treasury yield rises,” said Jill Cetina, an associate managing director at Moody’s Investors Service.Even if the move up in rates does not cause a bank or market blowup, it could cool demand. Higher rates could make it more expensive for everyone — home buyers, businesses, cities — to borrow money for purchases and expansions. Many companies have yet to refinance debt taken out when interest rates were much lower, meaning the impact of these higher interest rates is yet to fully be felt.“That 10-year Treasury, it’s a global borrowing benchmark,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst for Bankrate.com. “It’s relevant to U.S. homeowners, to be sure, but it’s also relevant to corporations, municipalities and other governments that look to borrow in the capital markets.”For the Fed, the shift in long-term rates could suggest that its policy setting is closer to — or even potentially at — a level high enough to ensure that the economy will slow further.Officials have raised rates to a range of 5 to 5.25 percent, and have signaled that they could approve one more quarter-point increase this year. But markets see less than a one-in-three chance that they will follow through with that final adjustment.Mary Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said markets were doing some of the Fed’s work for it: On Thursday, she said the recent move in longer-term rates was equivalent to “about” one additional interest rate increase from the Fed.Yet there are questions about whether the pop in rates will last. Some analysts suggest there could be more room to rise, because investors have yet to fully embrace the Fed’s own forecasts for how long they think rates will remain elevated. Others are less sure.“I think we’re near the end of this tantrum,” Mr. Singh said, noting that the jump in Treasury yields will worsen the growth outlook, causing the Fed itself to shift away from higher rates.“One of the reasons that I think this move has overshot is that it’s self-limiting,” he said.Plenty of people in the real economy are hoping that borrowing costs stabilize soon. That includes in the housing market, where mortgage rates are newly flirting with an 8 percent level, up from less than 3 percent in 2021.In Arizona, Ms. Mahmood-Corley is seeing some buyers push for two-year agreements that make their early mortgage payments more manageable — betting that after that, rates will be lower and they can refinance. Others are lingering on the sidelines, hoping that borrowing costs will ease.“People take forever now to make a decision,” she said. “They’re holding back.”” More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Has Been Easing Fast, but Wild Cards Lie Ahead

    by

    Will inflation continue to slow at a solid pace? Economists are warily watching a few key areas, like housing and cars.President Biden has openly celebrated recent inflation reports, and Federal Reserve officials have also breathed a sigh of relief as rapid price gains show signs of losing steam.But the pressing question now is whether that pace of progress toward slower price increases — one that was long-awaited and very welcome — can persist.The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, is expected to tick up to 4.2 or 4.3 percent in a report on Thursday, after volatile food and fuel costs are stripped out. That would be an increase from 4.1 percent for the core measure in June. And while it would still be down considerably from a peak of 5.4 percent last summer, such a reading would underscore that inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s 2 percent goal and that its path back to normal is proving bumpy.Most economists are not hugely concerned. They still expect inflation to ease later this year and into 2024 as pandemic disruptions fade and as consumers become less willing to accept ever-higher prices for goods and services. American shoppers are feeling the squeeze of both shrinking savings and higher Fed interest rates.But as price increases slow in fits and starts, they are keeping economic officials wary. Big uncertainties loom, including a few that could help inflation to fade faster and several that could keep it elevated.The Base Case: Inflation is Expected to Cool.Price increases have slowed across a range of measures this summer. The overall Consumer Price Index — which feeds into the P.C.E. numbers and is released earlier each month, making it a focal point for both analysts and the media — has slowed to 3.2 percent from a 9.1 percent peak in June 2022.And as consumers have experienced less dramatic price jumps, their expectations for future inflation have come down. That’s good news for the Fed. Inflation expectations can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: If consumers expect prices to climb, they may both accept cost increases more easily and demand higher pay, making inflation harder to stamp out.Still, the moderation has not been enough for policymakers to declare victory. Fed officials have been trying to slow the economy and contain inflation since early 2022. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, vowed during a speech last week at the Jackson Hole symposium that they will “keep at it” until they are positive inflation is coming under control.“Inflation is going the right way,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, a rates strategist at T.D. Securities. But it is like a fire, he said: “You want to kill its very last ember, because if you don’t, it can flare back up in an instant.”The Good News: Rents and China.There are reasons to believe that inflation is in the process of being sustainably doused.Slower rent increases should help to weigh down overall inflation for at least the next year, several economists said. Rents for newly leased apartments spiked in the pandemic as people moved cities and ditched their roommates. Market-based rents began to cool last year, a shift that is only now feeding its way into official inflation data as people renew their leases or move.The slowdown in inflation is also getting a helping hand from an unexpected source: China. The world’s second-largest economy is growing much more slowly than expected after reopening from pandemic lockdowns. That means that fewer people are competing globally for the same commodities, weighing on prices. And if Chinese officials respond to the slump by trying to ramp up exports, it could make for cheaper goods in the global marketplace.And more generally, Fed policy should help to pull down inflation in the months to come. The central bank has raised interest rates to a range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent over the past year and a half. Those higher borrowing costs are still trickling through the economy, reducing demand for big purchases made on credit and making it harder for companies to charge more.The Bad News: Gas, Travel Prices, Healthcare.Travelers at La Guardia Airport in New York. Rising fuel costs can feed into other prices, like airfares.Desiree Rios/The New York TimesBut a few key products could spell trouble for the inflation outlook. Gas is one.AAA data show gas prices have popped to more than $3.80 per gallon, up from about $3.70 a month ago, amid refinery shutdowns and global production cuts.Fed officials mostly ignore gas when they are thinking about inflation, because it jumps around thanks to factors that policymakers can’t do much about. But gas prices matter a lot to consumers, and their inflation expectations tend to increase when they pop — so central bankers can’t look past them entirely. Beyond that, gas prices can feed other prices, like airfares. Nor is it just gas and travel costs that could stop pulling inflation down so quickly. Economists at Goldman Sachs expect health care prices to pick up as hospitals try to make up for a recent pop in their labor costs, propping up services inflation.The Uncertain News: Cars and Growth.Used cars have also been helping to subtract from inflation, but it is increasingly uncertain how much they will help to pull it down going forward.Many economists think the trend toward cheaper used automobiles has more room to run. Dealers have been paying a lot less for used cars at auction this year, and that trend may have yet to fully reach consumers. Plus, some new car producers have rebuilt inventories after years of shortages, which could relieve pressure in the auto market as a whole (electric vehicles in particular are piling up on dealer lots).But, surprisingly, wholesale used car costs ticked up very slightly in the latest data.“The used car market is turning, and the reason for that is pretty simple: Demand has been way higher than dealers had expected,” said Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights. Add to that the possibility of a United Auto Workers strike — the union’s contract expires in mid-September — and risks lay ahead for car inventories and prices, he said.In fact, sustained demand in the used car market is symptomatic of a broader trend. The economy seems to be holding up even in the face of much-higher interest rates. Home prices have climbed since the start of the year in spite of hefty mortgage rates, and data released Thursday is expected to show that consumer spending remains strong.That more general risk — the possibility of an economic acceleration — is perhaps the biggest wild card facing policymakers. If Americans remain willing to open their wallets in spite of swollen price tags and higher borrowing costs, it could make it difficult to tamp down inflation completely.“We are attentive to signs that the economy may not be cooling as expected,” Mr. Powell said last week. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    A California Land Mystery Is Solved. Now the Political Fight Begins.

    by

    Tech industry investors spent roughly $900 million buying land to build a dream city in a rural part of the Bay Area. It could be years, though, before they can do anything with it.Jan Sramek was 15 years old the first time he tried to get a government to do something he wanted. Back then, he was an internet- and science fiction-obsessed teenager growing up in Drevohostice, in the Czech Republic.The problem was his town of 1,400 people had only dial-up internet service. He persuaded the local government to pay an internet service provider to bring the town a broadband connection. He was even paid a commission for it, Mr. Sramek wrote in “Racing Towards Excellence,” a sort of self-help book for ambitious young adults he co-wrote in 2009.The next campaign for Mr. Sramek could be more profitable. It could also be longer, harder and, in all likelihood, nastier.The revelation last week that Mr. Sramek is leading a group of Silicon Valley moguls in an audacious plan to build a new city on a rolling patch of farms and windmills in Northern California was the unofficial beginning of what promises to become a protracted and expensive political campaign. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Can Affluence and Affordable Housing Coexist in Colorado’s Rockies?

    by

    In the recreation-fueled, amenity-rich economy of Colorado’s Rocky Mountain region, there are two peak seasons: summer, with its rafting, hiking, fishing and biking, and the cold months filled with skiing and other winter activities.And then there is “mud season” — a liminal moment in spring when the alpine environment, slowly then suddenly, begins to thaw and only a trickle of tourists linger.It’s a period that workers in other places might bemoan. But for much of the financially stretched work force serving the assemblage of idyllic mountain towns across the state, a brief drop-off in business this spring was a respite.During a slow shift on a 51-degree day at the Blue Stag Saloon — a nook on Main Street in the vacation hub of Breckenridge — Michelle Badger, a veteran server, half-joked with her co-workers that “this winter was hell.”Crowds were larger than ever. And workers in the old Gold Rush town still enjoy the highs of the easy camaraderie and solid tips that come with service jobs in the area. But it was all sobered by the related headaches of soaring rents and acute understaffing, which left employees, managers and demanding customers feeling strained.Working in mountain towns like Breckenridge and others in Summit County — including Silverthorne, Dillon and Frisco — would feel like a fairer bargain, Ms. Badger and her colleagues said, if they could better afford living close by. Long commutes are common throughout America. But rental prices in hamlets among the wilderness on the outskirts of town are becoming burdensome too.Job growth has severely outpaced the stock of shelter throughout Colorado. Median rent in Frisco — which a decade ago was considered a modest “bedroom community” for commuting employees — is about $4,000 a month, according to Zillow, and 90 percent above the national median. Residential property prices in Summit County are up 63 percent in just the past year, even amid higher interest rates. Cash buyers buttressed by family money abound.The wage floor for most jobs in and around the county — from line cook to ski lift operator — is at least $18 an hour, or roughly $37,000 a year. Yet for those not lucky enough to land a rare slot in subsidized local employee housing, it’s not uncommon to live an hour or more away to attain a livable budget.As that happens, the contingent displaced by the rich ripples outward down rural highway corridors and, in turn, displaces the farther-flung working poor.Inequality has always been rampant within the orbit of popular destinations. But the financial knock-on effects of those ritzy spheres have expanded as the pandemic-induced surge in remote work has supercharged divides.Wanderlust-filled white-collar workers abruptly discovered that multiweek visits or even permanent relocations were possible for them and their families. Those seeking investment properties saw the opportunities of this hybrid-driven land rush as well, and pounced.Longtime residents have had a front-row seat.Matt Scheer — a 48-year-old musician who grew up on a ranch eastward in El Paso County, where “as soon as we could carry the milk bucket we were milking the cow” — is the sort of extroverted jack-of-all-trades who typifies the spirit (and the wistful brand) of Summit County.Matt Scheer feels lucky to have bought a house 11 years ago when homes were more affordable and mortgage rates lower. But he feels unable to move.Having moved near Breckenridge in the early 2000s to ski, hike, fly fish and work around town, he’s relieved that he managed to pick up his place in 2012 for $240,000 with a fixed-rate mortgage. Prices in his tucked-away French Creek neighborhood — a hilly, unincorporated patch with modest double-wide manufactured homes — have more than tripled.Though he’s a loyal resident with little interest in ever moving, Mr. Scheer said he “can’t really leave.”For a payout of tens of thousands of dollars from the local government, he recently signed onto a hefty “deed restriction” for his property, banning its use for Airbnb stays, limiting any potential renter or buyer to the work force of Summit, and limiting any potential resale price. And he did it with pride.It’s part of a growing program led by Breckenridge and other local governments to limit gentrification without licensing a large buildup of new developments. (Deed restrictions in destination areas got off to a quieter start in the 2010s but have ticked up.)Incumbent property owners willing to sacrifice lucrative short-term vacation rental income see it as a fair trade-off, key to keeping long-term residents and the dashing contours of their towns’ terrain. Policy critics, and frustrated local renters fighting over limited spots, say it is an inadequate tool for the scale and source of the problem: a lack of units.Those critics include the governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, who is skeptical that lump-sum payments to owners in exchange for deed restrictions will be a sufficient incentive to broadly move the needle on affordability.“There is no silver bullet,” he said in an interview. “But one of the areas that we have focused on is removing the barriers to additional home construction.” He added that “housing is not a problem that you can solve by throwing more money at the existing housing stock.”His sweeping legislation to ensure “a home for every Colorado budget” by pre-empting local land-use laws and directly loosening zoning rules statewide died in the State Senate in May, after some initial momentum. All but one of the mayors in the state’s Metro Mayors Caucus issued a letter opposing the plan.‘It’s Either Five Mil or Five Jobs’As politicians jockey, many resourceful Coloradans find ways to make do.Mr. Scheer, for instance, has picked up over 30 music gigs through the end of summer, paying about $100 an hour — though he acknowledges it’s his locked-in, lower housing costs that make his lifestyle workable.During a practice jam session and impromptu afternoon party of 20- to 40-somethings at Mr. Scheer’s place in the spring, his pal and fellow guitarist, Bud Hallock (the other half of their occasional duo band, Know Good People), explained the grind people face by echoing the playfully hard-nosed aphorism uttered around town: “It’s either five mil or five jobs.”“If you’re willing to put in the work, you’ll be able to,” argues Mr. Hallock, who moved out West shortly after graduating from St. Lawrence University in 2015. Mr. Hallock has three jobs, he said, adding, “I don’t think it’s the God-given right of anyone to come to a ski town and have it easy.”For many longtime residents and transplants alike, it has become harder to finesse: Even as Summit County adds waves of remote workers, it has experienced net negative migration since 2020. It’s a trend mirrored in the larger urban areas of Denver and Boulder, where the share of people working remotely is among the highest in the country, as homelessness rises.Breckenridge and other local governments are offering payments to some homeowners who agree to restrictions on how their property can be used and sold.Summit County is a draw for residents that enjoy outdoor activities like hiking, skiing and water sports.Seventy percent of residences in the county are second homes that sit vacant most of the year or serve as short-term rentals.Tamara Pogue, a member of Summit County’s governing board, said the mountain towns and valley cities of the Front Range near Fort Collins and Colorado Springs as well as those out by the Western Slope struggled with an “affordability issue” similar to the nation’s big cities for the same reason: “We’re supply-constrained.”“The problem is the average cost of a single-family home in Summit County so far this year is $2.14 million,” Ms. Pogue said. “Not one job makes that affordable.”The stock available is limited: 70 percent of homes in the county are second homes that sit vacant most of the year or serve as short-term rentals, she said, typically Airbnbs.As a single mother of three, Ms. Pogue bought a 1,400-square-foot duplex for $525,000 in 2018 — a rarity, if not an impossibility, now. She said a determination to prevent “mountain communities” from becoming “towns without townspeople” had driven her to become a staunch YIMBY, or a “yes in my backyard” supporter of home-building efforts, against the wishes of perceived NIMBYs, or the “not in my backyard” voices.Ms. Pogue and her allies argue that the relatively slow pace of building in the Rockies, despite the area’s popularity and rising prices, is a subtle form of denial.“Everyone wants to be here, whether they work here or not,” she added, “and so we have this spiral.”If, When, Where and How to Build MoreA few affordable-housing projects visibly chug along in Summit near the airport service road, not far from Kingdom Park Court, one of a handful of mobile home parks in the county with pricey lot rents. But getting middle-income developments greenlit can be a slog. Many proponents of limiting development note that about 80 percent of the county is restricted federal public land, putting a ceiling on what can be done. (There’s a nascent pilot program with the U.S. Forest Service to approve some apartments on leased land.) In the meantime, the well-off are gobbling up much of what’s left.Just north of downtown Silverthorne sits Summit Sky Ranch — a sprawling development with homes starting around $1 million, with a pledge of “bringing modern mountain living to over 400 acres of pristine natural beauty” in the valley. It quickly sold out and many have moved in, lured by a private observatory and private access to a river bend.Laurie Best, the longtime planning manager for housing in the community development department for the Town of Breckenridge, said she had emphasized deed-restriction policies and more generally trying to preserve existing units to reduce the need for new ones.Ms. Best and her backers have acceded to some construction at a slow and steady pace, but they staunchly oppose taller, dense multifamily buildings, which are not, as she put it, “consistent with the character of the town.”In several counties, there has been a swell in “conservation easements” — legal agreements between private landowners and local governments to guard wildlife and scenic open space by permanently banning development. The trend led the state to create a Division of Conservation in 2018 with an oversight commission to authenticate the contracts.A construction site in Silverthorne, Colo. Some officials and residents in the area have acceded to limited construction but are wary of adding taller, dense multifamily buildings.Eric Budd, a leader of a movement in Colorado called Bedrooms Are for People — which favors expanding land use and more widely permitting apartments, duplexes and triplexes — scoffs at the uptick in easements. He contends that what he tartly calls a “xenophobic attitude of ‘there’s only so much to go around’” is self-defeating.Trying to restrict access to a hot commodity — in this case, half of a state — won’t end well for anyone, he said, and a California-level, cost-of-living crisis is only five or 10 years away.Down in the foothills of the Rockies in Boulder, where Mr. Budd lives, school enrollment and the overall population have declined along with affordability, as remote-worker migration has picked up.In some sense, the arguments against restrictionism amount to a water-balloon analogy: squeezing leads to odd bulges in random places.Before the pandemic, Leadville, an old mining town 15 minutes from the trailhead of the highest peak in the Rockies, was an affordable harbor for working-class Hispanic employees of the nearby vacation economies: just out of reach of the affluence around Aspen to the west and resorts near Vail to the north.Since 2020, though, Leadville has become engulfed as those realms of wealth expand and overlap, causing rents and home prices to spike beyond what many can feasibly afford over time, with few other places to go.Second-home owners constituted half of all home sales in 2020 and 2021.The Downside of Good IntentionsKimberly Kreissig, a real estate agent, at a home she was selling in Steamboat Springs. She says an effort to build affordable homes yielded house flippers.Half of Colorado renters are officially defined as cost-burdened — spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. And local economists suggest that the rate has ticked even higher in mountain locales.For Kimberly Kreissig, a real estate agent in Steamboat Springs, a year-round recreation hub with natural hot springs near Wyoming, the affordability crisis in “the high country” has no simple villain. For years, her practice in Steamboat — where the average home price is above $1 million, compared with $580,000 in early 2019 — included both upper-middle-class, first-time home buyers and luxury-market sellers.In 2018, she and her husband, a developer, broke ground on a dense, 50-unit multifamily project in Steamboat designed for people “in that $75,000 range,” she said — “for instance, my office manager here.”“We had grandiose plans that we were going to be able to sell these things for $300,000,” Ms. Kreissig said, but they were foiled by several factors.Even before Covid-19 struck, “the demand was just so through the roof that people were offering us more than list price right out of the chutes,” she said, with precontract bids coming in “twice as high as we anticipated.”Then, once lockdowns in early 2020 ended, the remote-working cohort swooped in — just as labor and material costs shot up for the contractors still finishing some units. Before long, many families she sold units to in 2019 for around $400,000 realized that because of the housing boom they had “over $300,000 in equity” in their homes — and with interest rates so low, they could parlay a different (or additional) purchase. Many apartment owners began independently flipping their units to investors and buyers of second homes who were willing to pay well above the list prices.The Yampa River flows through Steamboat Springs. With the pandemic’s onset, the area became a magnet for remote workers.Diners at a restaurant in Steamboat Springs, a year-round recreation hub with natural hot springs.“For the people that are already ‘in,’ there’s a fair share of folks that are saying, you know, ‘I’m in, we don’t we don’t need any more growth,’” Ms. Kreissig said. “But you can’t stop growth.”“One flip near the end for one of the units was for $800,000,” Ms. Kreissig said. “We tried to be the good guys.”One way to respond to house flippers is through greater deed restriction, which Steamboat has enforced in a few neighborhoods, along with some short-term rental restrictions, not unlike other hot spots. The area has also benefited from the state’s Middle Income Housing Authority pilot program, which has put up a few buildings in town. But Steamboat still has a shortage of 1,400 units, according to a report from local authorities.A big break came when an anonymous donor recently purchased a 534-acre farm property, Brown Ranch, and turned it over to the Yampa Valley Housing Authority, with instructions that it be used for long-term affordable housing for local workers.It came as welcome news to the area’s middle class. And yet the sheer surprise, and luck, of the donation is indicative of broader, underlying tensions that typically drive community-level and state debates: Is more supply a threat to both cultural vibes and property price appreciation, or a win-win opportunity to flourish?Ms. Kreissig thinks it all comes back to “the kind of ‘not in my backyard’ mentality” that a silent majority holds.“For the people that are already ‘in,’ there’s a fair share of folks that are saying, ‘You know, ‘I’m in, we don’t we don’t need any more growth,’” she said. “But you can’t stop growth.”Adrift Between Uphill and DownNancy Leatham and her husband got back on their feet after lean times early in the pandemic. But when looking for a new house, she found that the booming housing market had far outpaced the good labor market. In March 2020, Nancy Leatham, 34, was making just above the minimum wage, living with her husband and their baby daughter in Idaho Springs — a little city above 7,000 feet wedged between a steep crag and an I-70 exit, far downhill from chic resort land.They struggled to get by “right during the height of the pandemic, when everything was shut down,” wiping out their income, she said. It felt like a repeat of her teenage years during the mortgage-induced financial crisis when her family’s business as excavation contractors — preparing sites for home construction — went belly-up, and their house was foreclosed upon.In spring 2020, “I had to start going to food banks and stuff to get food,” she said. “And we had to sell a car, and just stuff like that to, like, to make ends meet.”By 2021, her husband, Austin, had found a job at Walmart making $19 an hour, while she was promoted at Starbucks, becoming a manager at $18 an hour, plus bonus — and “we had our child tax credit,” she added.“I started looking for a house because we had really great income,” roughly $80,000 before taxes, she said. “I grew up in poverty, since 2008 especially, and we’d been living with food insecurity and stuff, so I was like ‘Look at us, we made it!’”But almost as soon as she started house hunting, she realized that, within months, the booming housing market had far outpaced the good labor market. They had been priced out of their sleepy, snowy town, after merely a few bidding wars. The average home price — $340,000 at the start of 2019 — is up 66 percent. Higher mortgage rates hurt, too.The Gold Mountain Village Apartments, where Ms. Leatham and her husband live, about 10 miles outside Idaho Springs, Colo.The Historic Argo Mill and Tunnel, a former gold mining and milling property, in Idaho Springs.Lower-income workers are being priced out of the area and face the prospect of “having to move downhill.”The average home price in Idaho Springs is up 66 percent since the start of 2019.Many of the Starbucks employees Ms. Leatham managed owned their homes rather than rented, she said, and “half left because they were able to sell their house off for considerably more than they were when they bought.”Hoping to buy or rent something bigger than what she called a “closet” apartment, Ms. Leatham, who now has a second child, is preparing for the cold reality of “having to move downhill” — though where exactly is unclear: 15 miles down the corridor, renters and buyers run into coveted areas near Golden and Denver.Recently, a woman visited the Starbucks Ms. Leatham works at, she said, and was dressed very much like an out-of-towner. They chit-chatted at the register, and the woman mentioned she was in town to check on a recent property purchase.Getting her hopes up for a nicer place, Ms. Leatham pried a bit:“I was like, ‘Oh, nice, what are you going to do with it?’ And she’s like, ‘Oh, it’s for rental.’”“And I’m like, ‘Oh, cool.’ And then she goes, ‘Short-term rental.’”“And then, I went ‘Dang it!’ But really loud, and I made her feel awful — I didn’t mean to make her feel that way.”Irresistible Allure, Harsh RealityBack up the I-70 corridor in Frisco, a sprawling Walmart parking lot often occupied by unhoused people living out of their cars and campers is tucked in front of a commercial complex with a high-end furniture store, a Whole Foods and a craft microbrewery.It’s one of the few places for the growing homeless population to go, since overnight parking is widely banned in Summit County, even in sparse hamlets like Blue River, perched just beyond Breckenridge above 10,000 feet.The effects of the global and national wealth parked in the Rockies often cascade downstream like the snow melt that carves the rivers. But it’s a force that can be identified in any direction.For many, if not most, homeowners in high-country counties like Summit, the hard truth is that only so much can be done if the very idea of mountain living — experiencing nature, removed from the bustling downhill hassles of the outside world — is to be maintained.“It’s funny, on our little block, there’s probably, you know, 10 homes — and on a beautiful day, which we have a lot of, you’ll see all of us standing out in our driveway, taking pictures,” said Ms. Best of Breckenridge’s community development department. “I must have the same picture 100 times because it’s so stunning when you go out there, and you’re still in awe of where we live. So I totally get the folks that want to be here.” More