U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:58 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,850,038 times
Reputation: 8928

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I would make a ballpark guess (how's that for vague uncertainty) that approx half the single family rental houses are occupied by families and half are occupied by roommates living together. Families tend to strongly prefer houses over apartments, and would rather rent a house than an apartment.

So out of 38 million rental units, I'd ballpark estimate about 21 million are apartments in buildings of three or more units.

Gee, if only I had bothered to read the whole link I cited (sigh)...


According to NMHC, there are approx 34% of renter households and 39 million people in single family rental houses...the other 66% and 58 million people live in apartments and mobile homes. (also 328,000 people in 'other' rental housing)

So about 40% of renters live in single family houses, and the average household living in houses is larger than the average household living in apartments, which makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
33,984 posts, read 32,515,357 times
Reputation: 50017
When my modern apartment complex was built many seniors in town sold their homes and moved into ground floor apartments according to one of the city honchos. They just wanted to be free of house maintenance is my guess. With an aging population maybe this is not just happening in my town. Their income may be low but they have the bucks from selling their house. Just a guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: PA
5,518 posts, read 4,832,438 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
The days of living alone in an apartment are over. The 18-26 crowd are going to have to find a roomie or get married.

Excuse me, renting is an option because the cost of keeping up a home and cost to buy a home with the taxes are insane. Your friendship and marriage status have nothing to do with how you want to live your life.
Thou it find it funny that homeowners who complain about taxes, then get huge tax write offs for the interest on their mortgage and or any other homestead rebates.
Renters have a place to live temporarly with ****ty landlords and the threat of evicitions, landlords who don't pay their mortagages and foreclose always looming in these economic times.
Atleast banks want you to say in your home even if you miss 6 months or so of payments, renters are tossed out into the street one they miss 1 months rent. This why we dont have local taxes and we do have taxes they are called income taxes and state taxes. Thou more and more townships are taxing people just for the privlegde of living in their town. I can assure you the apartment complex also has PROPERTY TAXES and many other taxes since governments solution to everything comes taxation.

Nobody should base their op on age groups and life situations because you think they are getting a "free ride" Nothing is FREE if anything less taxes should be the goal not finding new ways to tax anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Jersey
2,165 posts, read 3,251,738 times
Reputation: 1689
lol I know people who pay $2k+ a month to live in what are practically closets in NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,761,444 times
Reputation: 24555
I was "sharing a house" with a buddy back in the day and my rent cost about half of my income. Luckily I met my lady and moved in with her otherwise I probably would have destroyed that drunken fool. It seems to me that the rents are relatively constant but the incomes range for a pittance to prosperity. The pittance is what I worry about.

A friend works at a retail store and rents, with a Sec 8 support, a very small apartment for her and her son. Without the subsidy she would be homeless because there are no low rent apartments available and the housing she utilized would have never been built. She is one of the full time residents that provide services for the part time wealthy that infest the place during the summer.

I wonder why so many posters are so damn willing to make living even tougher for the poor than it already is? Why do they pick on the least provided?

Why don't they pick on the plutocrat that spends less than 1% of his income on his extravagant dwellings and hides his bonuses in secret offshore accounts to avoid income taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:14 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,850,038 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
The days of living alone in an apartment are over. The 18-26 crowd are going to have to find a roomie or get married.

Well, this is going to get mighty interesting. I predict another problem on the horizon.

All across the country, there are a lot of largely-forgotten local restrictions on unrelated dwelling occupancy. For example, a house might be restricted to two or three unrelated, regardless of house size or carrying capacity. (I lived in a town which had an unrelated max of 2, and the owner of a big 8BR house had to convert it into a duplex (KA-CHING!) to increase the occupancy.)

There are a LOT of houses which are unlawfully overoccupied under current ordinances. All it takes is a few NIMBYs to rock the boat.

This is getting some attention in Washington state, and if it catches on around the country, more than two roomies will be illegal in a lot of places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:17 AM
 
Location: North America
18,478 posts, read 11,703,795 times
Reputation: 7687
Miami rents skyrocketed in the middle of the housing bubble. When it exploded, vacancies went way up and rents stabilized. They're still really high ($900. for a one-bedroom, over a thousand for 2-bedrooms) in decent neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Location: PA
5,518 posts, read 4,832,438 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I was "sharing a house" with a buddy back in the day and my rent cost about half of my income. Luckily I met my lady and moved in with her otherwise I probably would have destroyed that drunken fool. It seems to me that the rents are relatively constant but the incomes range for a pittance to prosperity. The pittance is what I worry about.

A friend works at a retail store and rents, with a Sec 8 support, a very small apartment for her and her son. Without the subsidy she would be homeless because there are no low rent apartments available and the housing she utilized would have never been built. She is one of the full time residents that provide services for the part time wealthy that infest the place during the summer.

I wonder why so many posters are so damn willing to make living even tougher for the poor than it already is? Why do they pick on the least provided?

Why don't they pick on the plutocrat that spends less than 1% of his income on his extravagant dwellings and hides his bonuses in secret offshore accounts to avoid income taxes?

When I look at this post i have some points to make.
Government taxes, pretends to support the lower incomes, creates this housing situation, government creates the housing bubble, government with banks credit malinvestiment. The government borrows money lessing the value of the dollar and then everyone wonders why everything is so expensive. People don't pay taxes, people with high incomes and or middle class and poor find ways to get government money, tax credits and government is broke.

Government along with those in power and elected idiots pretending to promote liberty destory a free market, the freedom of the individual for the collective illusion of security and safety. The only safety is to the few elite a few bankers and progressives who control washington and the laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:29 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,062,224 times
Reputation: 5443
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I was "sharing a house" with a buddy back in the day and my rent cost about half of my income. Luckily I met my lady and moved in with her otherwise I probably would have destroyed that drunken fool. It seems to me that the rents are relatively constant but the incomes range for a pittance to prosperity. The pittance is what I worry about.

A friend works at a retail store and rents, with a Sec 8 support, a very small apartment for her and her son. Without the subsidy she would be homeless because there are no low rent apartments available and the housing she utilized would have never been built. She is one of the full time residents that provide services for the part time wealthy that infest the place during the summer.

I wonder why so many posters are so damn willing to make living even tougher for the poor than it already is? Why do they pick on the least provided?

Why don't they pick on the plutocrat that spends less than 1% of his income on his extravagant dwellings and hides his bonuses in secret offshore accounts to avoid income taxes?
So essentially she only has a job thanks to the wealthy part time residents?

Shouldn't she be thanking the wealthy each and every day that she even has a job to begin with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,426,318 times
Reputation: 1613
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I just heard a short news item:

26% of (US) renters are paying more than half their pre-tax income for housing (rent plus utilities). This is the highest in over 50 years.

I have been predicting an "affordable housing crisis" of unprecedented proportions, although I thought that was about 3-5 years out from today, so it's getting worse faster than I expected.

Renters tend to be lower income; median renter income is about 40% of median homeowner income.
When I bought a house in 2006 I was paying way more than 50% of my income in mortgage, property taxes, and insurance so waht is your point? I am well above the median income level. Housing is expensive. That's not news. House prices were so high in 2006 that by 2007-2008 owners were renting them out at a great loss just to have some income coming in. Housing prices have dropped by more than 50% since then. In comparison to those times I think house prices are very cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top