Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First and foremost this isn't rent control, plus with the city subsidy along with whatever tax credits are available for project like this will off set much of the upfront investment this owner makes & they still likely make a decent profit while providing much needed housing inventory
The city can only use the bond money voters approved towards affordable housing programs like this.
I respect the rights of the voters, and submit to their wishes for better or worse. But I'm concerned about the extent to which it helps the city.
The supply and demand of the housing market function to dictate how affordable housing is. Subverting those forces doesn't really help anyone the city, wastes money, but everyone gives themselves a pat on their back for a job well done.
People talk about teachers or fire/police not having the salaries to allow them to live close enough to the city center. Those salaries are so low because, people want to be teachers or fireman...to a lesser extent police. The supply for those jobs is roughly equivalent to demand at those wages. If we need more teachers we raise the salary nominally. It seems silly to lower the housing cost for some when the market effectively deals with it...especially if that housing isn't specifically assigned to those desired occupations.
I respect the rights of the voters, and submit to their wishes for better or worse. But I'm concerned about the extent to which it helps the city.
The supply and demand of the housing market function to dictate how affordable housing is. Subverting those forces doesn't really help anyone the city, wastes money, but everyone gives themselves a pat on their back for a job well done.
People talk about teachers or fire/police not having the salaries to allow them to live close enough to the city center. Those salaries are so low because, people want to be teachers or fireman...to a lesser extent police. The supply for those jobs is roughly equivalent to demand at those wages. If we need more teachers we raise the salary nominally. It seems silly to lower the housing cost for some when the market effectively deals with it...especially if that housing isn't specifically assigned to those desired occupations.
You mistakenly think there is a free market for teachers, fire fighters and police. Thats not the case. Traditional models of supply and demand don't exist.
Additionally, your statement "It seems silly to lower the housing cost for some when the market effectively deals with it..." is simply wrong. Not to mention the housing market is greatly subverted in many ways via things like government mortgage guarantees, deductibility of interest and taxes, etc. You are no doubt the willing beneficiary of market "subversion" yourself.
You mistakenly think there is a free market for teachers, fire fighters and police. Thats not the case. Traditional models of supply and demand don't exist.
Additionally, your statement "It seems silly to lower the housing cost for some when the market effectively deals with it..." is simply wrong. Not to mention the housing market is greatly subverted in many ways via things like government mortgage guarantees, deductibility of interest and taxes, etc. You are no doubt the willing beneficiary of market "subversion" yourself.
I'm very simple-minded, but are you saying that if there is a need, and the market doesn't provide it, the government should?
I believe the OP is referring to the city council's recent resolution regarding Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing program (NOAH). Apparently, the brilliant city council has decided to renovate old housing and make it available to low income renters. This could be a good idea if the title holders get to retain title and management responsibility. If the city takes charge of management, it'll just be more housing projects in already distressed areas. What I heard on the radio yesterday was that North Sharon Amity has been targeted, an area that already has too many apartments and the city considers to be an area of distressed businesses. It'll mess up any planned development that is proceeding down Central Avenue to where dilapidated apartments and commercial buildings are being torn down and rebuilt as upscale apartments.
There is a lot of renovation occurring there and it is proceeding down Central at a pretty fast rate. At some point, developers will stop building on Central as it approaches N. Sharon Amity. I don't know who the city councilman for that area is, but there seems to be a history of electing brainless idiots pushing for losing causes for the area (e.g. the Eastland Mall Mexican theme park, the film school, among them. Remember those turkeys?).
A better idea would be to rehabilitate apartments on Park Road and one of the strip malls that has been abandoned near Kenilworth. There are some pretty shabby areas on the fringes of Myers Park that could stand to be rehabbed, and some in Dilworth as well. I say spread the joy. There's lots of room for improvement on Eastway. JC Smith University area could use some NOAH affordable housing. That would help out students at Johnson and Wales as well as students at JC Smith.
The University and the Sugar Creek areas have some apartment complexes and "hoe tells" that can't keep tenants or have a history of crime. And then there's North Tryon. Those areas could be rehabbed too.
But not on my dime.
Sorry.
Last edited by Langerhans; 02-27-2019 at 07:16 AM..
You mistakenly think there is a free market for teachers, fire fighters and police. Thats not the case. Traditional models of supply and demand don't exist.
Additionally, your statement "It seems silly to lower the housing cost for some when the market effectively deals with it..." is simply wrong. Not to mention the housing market is greatly subverted in many ways via things like government mortgage guarantees, deductibility of interest and taxes, etc. You are no doubt the willing beneficiary of market "subversion" yourself.
Unfortunately, in our current political climate many choose to think and speak in absolutes when it's neither appropriate or helpful.
You're right, the market for teachers/housing is not a perfect market. But that doesn't remotely counter the idea that it is a market...a well functioning market, even if not 100% perfect. Because it's a market that works, supply and demand work to dictate wages.
Teacher salary is low because so many people want to do it, and the licensing demands are rather easily dealt with, so there are few barriers to entry beyond a college degree which is trivially easy to acquire and something we have a glut of if anything.
If someone believes that the quality of teachers needs to be improved, that isn't accomplished by raising salaries or providing subsidized housing. It should be done by making the job more difficult in some respect, preventing the poor teachers from acquiring or keeping the job. Whether that requirement is mandating a graduate degree, or some demonstrated excellence in classroom instruction, is up for debate.
What isn't up for debate is that artificially raising salary, or increasing benefits (subsidized housing) will draw more people to the job..people who we would expect would be overwhelmingly underqualified and/or undercapable.
Unfortunately, in our current political climate many choose to think and speak in absolutes when it's neither appropriate or helpful.
You're right, the market for teachers/housing is not a perfect market. But that doesn't remotely counter the idea that it is a market...a well functioning market, even if not 100% perfect. Because it's a market that works, supply and demand work to dictate wages.
Teacher salary is low because so many people want to do it, and the licensing demands are rather easily dealt with, so there are few barriers to entry beyond a college degree which is trivially easy to acquire and something we have a glut of if anything.
If someone believes that the quality of teachers needs to be improved, that isn't accomplished by raising salaries or providing subsidized housing. It should be done by making the job more difficult in some respect, preventing the poor teachers from acquiring or keeping the job. Whether that requirement is mandating a graduate degree, or some demonstrated excellence in classroom instruction, is up for debate.
What isn't up for debate is that artificially raising salary, or increasing benefits (subsidized housing) will draw more people to the job..people who we would expect would be overwhelmingly underqualified and/or undercapable.
You do know it is possible to both pay teachers more AND hire better teachers don't you? In fact, market economics tells us that in order to achieve the latter its necessary to do the former.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
