Posted on 08/18/2016 12:26:55 PM PDT by nickcarraway
City living can be fun, glamourous and expensive - but mostly expensive.
If you were thinking about moving to a city soon, you might want to take a look at Smart Asset's 2016 report that breaks down just how much money you really need to make it in the big city.
The personal-finance company gathered data on the average cost of renting available two-bedroom apartments in in each major city and calculated the gross income required by setting the rent-toincome ratio at 28%.
Check out the cost of these major cities!
San Francisco, California
Income needed to pay rent: $216,129
Average cost of renting a two-bedrom in 2016: $5,043
Percent change from 2015: 7.4%
New York, New York
Income needed to pay rent: $158,229
Average cost of renting a two-bedroom in 2016: $3,692
Percent change from 2015: -0.1%
Los Angeles, California
Income needed to pay rent: $145,629
Average cost of renting a two-bedroom in 2016: $3,398
Percent change from 2015: 17.1%
Boston, Massachusetts
Income needed to pay rent: $120,900
Average cost of renting a two-bedroom in 2016: $2,821
Percent change from 2015: -0.2%
All because of stupid regulations. CA state had forced apartments to adopt environment standards. All modification had increased price.
Kinda looks like SF tops the income-inequality list for major US cities.
By the way, Democrat mayor, Democrat mayor, Democrat mayor, Democrat mayor.
During a taxi cab ride in 1972, while crossing the Golden Gate the cabbie pointed out some nice homes that had a view of the bridge and said “those will run you 40-50 grand”.
these stories are always made up of vapor. if nobody could afford the rent (whatever it is), then nobody would be renting, and rents would drop on their own accord.
I live and rent in Los Angeles. $3,300 for a 2 bedroom ? Poppy cock! My wife and I have a very nice 2 bedroom home that we rent. It is not rent controlled. We pay $2000 a month. It’s a damn nice place.
Prior to that for 20 years I lived in a rent controlled good siz ed single apartment in Encino. When I left there I was paying $900 a month. That same apartment now is around $1575. It’s a good deal more expensive in 2016, for new move -ins. But it sure ain’t impossible.
It’s not the only reason. Houses are selling like hotcakes. I sold mine a few months ago in Julyfor a nice profit after owning it for 5 years. It went the first day.
I bought my house I’m in now when a GF told me there was a house that was going on the market in a couple of weeks time. No sign, unfinished. I bought it the next day, made the offer 3 hours after walking through it.
Rentals are had to find and they are expensive, very expensive. If you can rustle up a down payment for a purchase it is more economical. The alternative is to move further and further away from the city center ... Pasadena and further out.
Now, LA is like a boom town ....buildings going up like crazy ... lots of apartments. and lots of businesses.
It is not all stupid regulations. There is only so much vacant buildable land available in a city and it is expensive. Supply and demand.
Good grief everyone, including the dog and cat, would have to have full time jobs to cover those prices and have part time jobs to put food on the table.
It is a good time to own rental property in the Bay Area.
And you have to rent in a safe area! Makes it even worse. OF COURSE millennials live at home. It is not possible to afford to live anywhere else, especially if you have a starter job or are attending school.
In 1962 and ‘63 I went to a Navy electronics class “A” school on Treasure Island. There were a couple of sailors in that school who rented a two bedroom apartment in Frisco together so they could have a place to party on weekends! These guys couldn’t have had a combined monthly income of more than two hundred and fifty dollars back then. That is how much things have changed in San Francisco.
I rented a nice 4 bedroom 2 bath in North San Antonio for $1275.
Back then, there was no arguments by left-wing peaceniks about holding "Fleet Week". Happy to see that it is still scheduled but there have been rumblings about it being 'too militaristic' for the SF Bay Area.
Democrat everything, in SF, and for that matter the Democrats are seen as “conservatives”.
At various times property in San Francisco was quite cheap.
People were moving out to the suburbs and a lot of the old industries were relocating, the piers were going out of business because of the port of Oakland taking over, etc.
This was mostly true in the late 50’s-late 1970’s.
This one reason SF had the hippie thing - it was cheap.
Then prices started going up.
There was a story yesterday about Eve Plumb, the actress who played Jan on The Brady Bunch.
She had bought a small beach bungalow in Malibu in the 70’s for $55,000.
It sold the other day for $3.9 million.
It is and it's going to get worse thank's to Obama's Affirmatively Further Housing crap that allows thugs and illegals to get housing next to suburban families. CA has a law that tenants must get their first month's rent free, for example. There are numerous environmental, water, sewage, and building permits and codes to comply with. NYC has rent-control, which is the root cause of high apt rent prices there.
There is only so much vacant buildable land available in a city and it is expensive.
Ever hear of skyscrapers? Condos?
Supply and demand.
If there's tons of regulations that landlords must follow, then it's distorted.
True. Ordinary homes in SF were going for $20 grand in 1972. The ordinary homes are now 1 to 2 million. The ones you mentioned are probably 5 to 10 million if not more. 1972 was not that long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.