The article said the rent on the land was more than the total rents currently being taken in from the low capacity. Apparently that’s a thing in NYC — sort of like trailer parks in Kansas. You own the “house” but not the land. Stupid imo for the homeowner. Great for the land owner.
The article said the rent on the land was more than the total rents currently being taken in from the low capacity. Apparently that’s a thing in NYC — sort of like trailer parks in Kansas. You own the “house” but not the land. Stupid imo for the homeowner. Great for the land owner.
Owned my ''mobile home'' but not the lot it was on. Paid mortgage and rent!
Still it appreciated so much in value that I had equity of $18K on a '70s double wide, after living in it for 5 years. It's called ''affordable housing'' in CA...
The article said the rent on the land was more than the total rents currently being taken in from the low capacity. Apparently that’s a thing in NYC — sort of like trailer parks in Kansas. You own the “house” but not the land. Stupid imo for the homeowner. Great for the land owner.
I had the same thing in California.
Owned my ''mobile home'' but not the lot it was on. Paid mortgage and rent!
Still it appreciated so much in value that I had equity of $18K on a '70s double wide, after living in it for 5 years. It's called ''affordable housing'' in CA...