Skip to comments.
30 low-income rent units cost city $7 million
Baltimore Sun ^
| March 20, 2004
| Eric Siegel
Posted on 03/20/2004 8:04:03 AM PST by staytrue
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
"I think we're getting value for our money." If this is value, I would hate to see what they thought was a ripoff.
1
posted on
03/20/2004 8:04:04 AM PST
by
staytrue
To: sauropod
ping
2
posted on
03/20/2004 8:04:36 AM PST
by
staytrue
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: staytrue
The purchase and renovations, done by a nonprofit housing group and paid for with federal and state funds, average out to $231,583 per house - more than twice last year's average sale price of a city home.
This is the cost
before you account for plunging property values in the
rest of the neighborhood as home owners flee to the safety of exurbs and edge cities.
4
posted on
03/20/2004 8:11:18 AM PST
by
Asclepius
(karma vigilante)
To: staytrue
As a landlord and real estate investor for over 20 years, I can tell you definitively that managing or doing anything related to real estate is way beyond the scope of bureaucratic talent.
To: staytrue
"I think we're getting value for our money."The value is, the left has once again screwed the white tax payers. And they'll do it again and again all over America. This is just a trial run.
6
posted on
03/20/2004 8:13:39 AM PST
by
swampfox98
(Beyond 2004 - Chaos! 200 million illegals waiting in the wings)
To: staytrue
The city I live in has been doing this for a real long time in order to force diversity down everyone's throats. (Never mind that the community was already diverse to begin with.)
Over the past ten years alone, I have seen local neighborhoods literally destroyed by this practice.
Beaurocracy at its finest.
7
posted on
03/20/2004 8:16:25 AM PST
by
tomball
To: staytrue
average out to $231,583 per house >>>>>>>>>>
Yikes !! *these* are for "low income rentals".....???
8
posted on
03/20/2004 8:18:08 AM PST
by
txdoda
("Navy Brat")
To: staytrue
Here is where I am confused. $231,000 is more than twice what an average house goes for in Baltimore?
$115,000 median price seems a wee bit low? Any freepers from Baltimore around.
An aside, another reason I am glad to leave California. On my way to work, I pass through a neighborhood that is gang ridden, with alot of grafitti. They just put up some "luxury condos" there next to the 7-11, on a 4 lane major strip. The 2,400 sq foot models are advertised at "starting at $580,000". Makes me wanna puke.
9
posted on
03/20/2004 8:18:13 AM PST
by
dogbyte12
To: staytrue
Business friends are re-habing a half dupex in Baltimore. Black neighborhood. When finished it will sell for less than $100,000. They would love to work for the city.
10
posted on
03/20/2004 8:26:53 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: staytrue
What do you bet that all work must be done by union members, and that the contracting companies are well-connected to City Hall?
11
posted on
03/20/2004 8:29:02 AM PST
by
Montfort
To: dogbyte12
$115,000 median price seems a wee bit low? Any freepers from Baltimore around. I'd guess that it's a bit high, not a wee bit low.
All Maryland house assessments are on the Internet. MD assesses at 100% of "fair market value". I just checked the house that I lived in the 1950's (NE Baltimore), and the neighboring homes. They are all single family homes, on about 1/6 of an acre of land.
The assessments range from about $75K to $90K.
Most of the row homes in the more densely populated parts of the city would assess at a much lower value.
Obviously there are more valuable properties, but we're talking median price.
12
posted on
03/20/2004 8:48:06 AM PST
by
jackbill
To: Jack Wilson
As a landlord and real estate investor for over 20 years, I can tell you definitively that managing or doing anything related to real estate is way beyond the scope of bureaucratic talent. It's not that they're stupid -- it's that too many of them use the project as an opportunity to steer business to their buddies and relatives in the building trades. As far as making money thru discreet kickbacks, they can be absolute GENIUSES
13
posted on
03/20/2004 8:48:39 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
To: staytrue
"I think we're getting value for our money"OUR MONEY ?
YOU MEAN MY MONEY !!
14
posted on
03/20/2004 8:55:48 AM PST
by
SENTINEL
(USMC GWI (MY GOD IS GOD, ROCKCHUCKER !!))
To: dogbyte12
$115,000 median price seems a wee bit low? Baltimore City has lost about 200,000 people over the last 20 years. The suburbs are vibrant and healthy. City real estate is low because of the population flight.
15
posted on
03/20/2004 9:14:23 AM PST
by
staytrue
To: staytrue
"It's fairly expensive but I don't think it's exorbitant," he said of the program This kind of mindless blather can only make sense to a loser who has never held a real job.
The notion that taxpayer money is not real is infuriating. I would be campaigning to get this loser fired ASAP and as far away from my pocket as possible.
16
posted on
03/20/2004 9:18:55 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(50.3% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks (subject to a final count).)
To: staytrue
More neo-communist Rat bureaucrats ripping my tax dollars off. For $231,000 I could build a new six bedroom house, with sauna, fireplace, workshop, rec room, library and a pen in back along with a pair of hunting dogs. I'd probably throw in a free rod and reel and Evinrude, too.
I hate liberal east coast cities. They attract the worse scum walking on two legs.
17
posted on
03/20/2004 9:49:37 AM PST
by
sergeantdave
(Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
To: Montfort
What do you bet that all work must be done by union members, and that the contracting companies are well-connected to City Hall?
Nothing. B/c you are almost probaby 100% right.
18
posted on
03/20/2004 10:17:17 AM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: Asclepius
This is the cost before you account for plunging property values in the rest of the neighborhood as home owners flee to the safety of exurbs and edge cities. In threads like this I like to tell the story of the two towers in San Francisco. One was built in a normal area, and the other was built in an area badly in (perceived) need of "upgrading". This was the direct result of the social engineers insisting on the latter as a condition of allowing the normal units. The towers were identical in every respect except location.
The units in the "funny" area would not sell (D'OH!) and eventually were bought by the City of San Francisco and converted to "subsidized low cost housing". I know all the details because I knew both the developer (a biggie at the time in the entire bay area) and the specific superintendent on both projects.
The ultimate result? The "low cost" tower was dynamited a number of years ago. The other? thriving, and all units worth at least $1 million.
19
posted on
03/20/2004 11:03:54 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(50.3% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks (subject to a final count).)
To: Publius6961
I forgot the punch line:
The winners? Nobody.
The losers? the buyers of the rationally located units and the San Francisco taxpayers.
The cause? Liberal, brainless, criminal bureaucrats, both in and out of government.
20
posted on
03/20/2004 11:07:55 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(50.3% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks (subject to a final count).)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson