Posted on 06/18/2015 4:31:18 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The poorest Americans, who can’t afford to buy property, are increasingly priced out of rentals.
There were only 28 adequate and available to rent homes for every 100 extremely low-income renters in 2013, down from 37 in 2000, according to the Urban Institute, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that focuses on social and economic policy. “This gap between supply and demand leaves 72% of the country’s poorest families burdened by the high cost of housing,” it found. Extremely low-income renters are households with incomes at or below 30% of the median income in that region.
Not one county in the U.S. has enough affordable housing for all these renters. Among the 100 largest counties, the number of affordable rental homes ranges from eight per 100 in Denton County, Texas, to 51 in Suffolk County, Mass. This regional disparity is partly due to federal assistance not keeping pace with population growth, says Erika Poethig, a director at the Urban Institute. Only nine of the 100 largest counties increased the number of affordable units for extremely low-income renters from 2000 to 2013....
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Let them eat cake. Obama knows best.
I know! Let’s raise taxes on the rental property so we can use the money to subsidize rental properties for the poor!
If the combined property taxes and owner’s income taxes on a rental property are $10,000 a year what is the monthly rent going to look like?
We’re seeing the same crap in Austin: “People are leaving East Austin because it’s too expensive to live there. Let’s raise taxes to subsidize them!”
So, their refusal to study and obtain knowlege/skills in school is now landlords and everyone else’s fault?
You didn’t know that?
You're not kiddin'! As far as I can see in Suffolk Co. MA the pattern has been since the 50's (when they took the old West End -- Italian immigrant neighborhood, but apparently as rumor has it without the protection of organized crime the North End had -- and replaced all that low- to moderate-housing with gov't building and a crappy "office park." Destroyed more to build that appalling Convention Center union boondoggle, took by eminent domain the currently named "Seaport District", once small businesses and low-income housing, now hotels (obviously the Convention Center needs hotels) insurance, financial services and law firms (to be near the new Federal Courthouse), raising housing and rental prices to stratospheric highs in nearby neighborhoods.
The unions get work, the developers make it hand over fist, the politicians stuff their pockets -- see Win-Win-Win! (I don't need the /s surely. . .)
And special bonus -- having destroyed lots of perfectly adequate low- to moderate-income housing, the politicians (such souls of honor and compassion) scream piteously for more money -- for low-income housing!
God help us all!
$1400 split about 10 ways is pretty affordable. Even if there are laws on the books against multiple unrelated people living in one unit, I’ve read that the authorities pretty much turn a blind eye to the practice.
It’s not the ability to pay the rent. It’s the bad credit reports that deny the prospective renter!
Therefore, it is not my problem, that these folks cannot get their butts out of the credit problem that THEY created.
Case in point:
Do you remember that we who survived Hurricane Katrina was presented with a $2000 check each, from the federal government?
I put mine in the bank, to pay for the next apartment that i was going to live in. A LOT of other folks squandered that money, while still in the shelter!! Couches, large screen TV’s, all sorts of crap. Again, not smart decisions made by not smart folks. Not my problem.
When I moved in, the rent was $375/mo. You folks are smart enough to figure out the rest.
That’s what I’m saying. The idiots on the city council are trying to remake a blue collar town into a little Ann Arbor. They’re finding any reason they can to shut down rental properties and if at all possible, tear them down. That forces the renters to go elsewhere and drives housing costs up. It also brings a call for section 8 housing.
Its not just rentals either.
There is a case in Jackson where a family bought an abandoned home from the city, paid the back taxes, and fixed it up enough to live in while they work on it. The city then shut off the water and condemned it as uninhabitable due to a lack of water and is going to tear it down at the family’s expense. The city also says they can’t sell the property as residential because the area is zoned industrial but a single lot is utterly useless as industrial property.
The neighbors are also in a precarious situation. Their properties have also been zoned industrial. Those who rent rooms or apartments out can’t rent them again if the current renters leave and they can’t sell the homes.
Its a combination of social engineering and “greening”. They don’t want anything built there, they just want people to own and pay taxes on the properties.
I never even got the $2,000. I guess Mississippians weren’t included or something. The only help I got was reduced rent when I relocated to a USDA apartment building in Ferris, Texas.
The press is SOOOOOOO conditioning the low-infos to vote for Socialism.
Dear 2nd,
I did not know that. I lived in the Greater New Orleans Area.
The key here is the definition of “adequate”.
You nailed it. When I was growing up the normal house had three bedrooms, one bathroom, single car garage and kids shared bedrooms. Now homes have to have at least four bedrooms and two and one-half baths plus a media room. The older homes had a lot of personality and charm but they have all been torn down and replaced with the cooky cutter look complete with no yard and higher property tax bills. Makes me sad.
-- and they totally trash them.
Then, they want to declare their neighborhoods, "blighted" -- and demand to move in with the folks who paid for that which they trashed -- AND still demand "Section 8 subsidies".
~~~~~~~~~~~~
They can't afford housing? As we say here in Texas,
"Sorry -- my 'giveadamn' is plumb wore out..."
The West End was raised to increase the tax base. The make-up of that neighborhood was 1/3 Italian, 1/3 Jewish and 1/3 Irish. Leonard Nemoy, a West Ender, did a documentary about the neighborhood. The Seaport District was mostly empty lots, parking lots and empty warehouses. Virtually no housing in that area what so ever. Prior to being empty lots and parking it was a vast rail yard going back decades. Truth be told rents have increased in South Boston but the vast housing projects on the west side still exist and the rents have not increased.
Yeah, all this stuff is done to increase the tax base.
I agree with you that the West End was raised to increase the tax base but I was just pointing out that it was not a predominantly Italian neighborhood. Full disclosure, I am a 50 year resident of Boston and have witnessed the gentrification up close. The West End is comparable to the North End. One neighborhood was raised to make room for government buildings and luxury housing, the other was left alone. 60 years later both neighborhoods are home to the wealthy.
The seaport district never contained housing or at least none for the last 100 years. The convention center was built on an empty lot. The hotels have replace either empty warehouses or parking lots. The federal courthouse was built on top of a dormant rail yard. One can argue that it is a shame that the rail yard and warehouses are gone with the jobs they created but that took place decades ago.
The North End Italians have been replaced by the yuppies. Prior to that, the North End Italians replaced the North End Jews. The North End Jews replaced the North End Irish. The North End Irish replaced the English. And the English replaced the Indians. Change takes place in the North End every 75 years going back centuries.
If you want to go back in time why stop at 50 years ago? What about 100 years ago or 300 years ago? Where does it end?
By the way I am glad that the Boston of the 60’s and 70’s is long gone. We were headed in the same direction as Detroit. A stones throw from my neighborhood could have been a WWII film set.
The West End destruction was a bad idea and I think the lesson has been learned. But that does not discount all the other positive growth that has taken place in Boston.
>>As of 2008, there were nearly 5 million people on Section 8 rental vouchers, the program costing $46 billion. I’d imagine that this number will do nothing but increase.
The requirements for what qualifies as a Section 8 housing get more luxurious every year too.
Sounds like “the poor” shouldn’t be living in such a high rent area.
A nice little rural 2 bedroom home or apartment would be < $500 in some areas.
He wants to culturally rape the suburbs, more accurately.
This will more than double when Obama finishes his defacto Amnesty. Ditto for SNAP, WICs, ObamaPhones, EITC and all the rest. Expect each of your school districts to raise their portion of your property tax assessments accordingly also. When he’s finished we will be a nation where 30-40% supports the other 60-70%. Even this will become more lopsided until we finally devolve into a third world banana ‘republic’ sh!thole.
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.