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.
I didn't know you were renting one room in a four adult house.
I would say that the case for buying then would be quite awkward in your situation.
In regards to my suggestion that people leave the region they are in or from, sometimes I do suggest that. However, in most areas the housing and wages are not so horribly mismatched. I selected OKC because I wanted to use the lowest minimum wages possible.
One of the most upscale areas is Lake Oswego.
Here is a condo for $70,000. Two bed, one bath. This is within reason for someone making minimum wage there.
I can't make minimum wage work in the following areas:
New York, San Fran, LA, or the state of New Jersey or CT.
Prefer the valley of the sun?http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...20-42714?row=9
two bed / two bath for 70k. It was actually much harder to find a good bargain when I browsed the phoenix listings compared to several of the other cities.
The point is: Ownership opportunities do exist for people with lower income. Freemkt, if you want me to tailor this for you, just post your hourly wages and city/state and remind me to return to the thread--because I am terrible about remembering.
If you're spending less than 30% of your income on rent, that's great. I assume 30% towards housing as a standard figure. It is true that some cities simply don't have cheap housing available, but living in those areas is not a divine right.
As I've pointed out, Iowa sucks. However, if you look at the cheaper part of Iowa (Des Moines), you can find this fairly nice 3 bed/2bath for 75k. Unfortunately, the buyer may find they are stuck in Iowa. http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...2-63239?row=58
Thanks, but I really need first to earn more money and clear a couple old judgments before I have any hope of buying a home.
Please show me, specifically, where that wording is in the grant language.
Why do you hate old people so much? They've spent their lives giving back to their community, and now could use a helping hand. As opposed to, say, those that have never given back and do nothing but complain.
Not sure what you mean, CDBG funds are distributed directly by Washington to local governments. The spending is determined locally. I lived in a college town where the funds were spent on homeowner repairs, homebuying assistance in student neighborhoods (can you say gentrification?), and street repaving in student neighborhoods.
In general, a lot of the money is aimed at helping homeowners and seniors, while local governments also like to use the money to subsidize pay for staff and consultants, for things like running a community senior center or updating the local comprehensive plan.
I don't hate old people so much, I am close too being one. But my tax dollars will be used to improve other people's property values while driving up rents. That's government once again picking winners and losers.
But you are effectively kicking them out of their homes if they cannot receive this help. Then they must join the ranks of the poor renters. So no one wins.
Who are you to determine what is and what isn't a "favored group?" I suspect your main concern is simply how to obtain more of these tax dollars for yourself and therefore you feel that anyone else who is given them is given them unfairly. Why not move to a city where the COL is within your means or work harder to earn more to stay where you are? Stop waiting for the government to fix your problems.
No need to kick anyone out - give them a loan, not a freebie. Make it interest free and payable when the home changes ownership. This isn't rocket science.
Obviously, governments are to determine what is and what isn't a "favored grou" - follow the tax dollars! As a member of an unfavored group, I'm just noise in the wilderness.
No need to kick anyone out - give them a loan, not a freebie. Make it interest free and payable when the home changes ownership. This isn't rocket science.
Obviously, governments are to determine what is and what isn't a "favored grou" - follow the tax dollars! As a member of an unfavored group, I'm just noise in the wilderness.
Unfavored group? What group is that? There are many who would like to live above their means but cannot. There are many who would like to live in high COL cities such as Portland but cannot. That is why I relocated to a lower COL city after living in Portland for decades. I could no longer afford the price tag of living there. No whining, I just took stock of my situation and moved to where I could live more comfortably financially. I certainly did not expect the government to keep me in a city where I could no longer afford the COL. BTW I am in one of those alleged groups of whom you speak; the elderly.
Yes, the government will determine who gets the dollars because they are the ones who distribute the money and use the stats to make their determination as to who gets what. Hopefully they will choose the right groups of people. Whatever the reasons various groups get what they do if you have issues with those reasons, you could campaign to change them. Make your noise where it counts not just on various Internet forums.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
So what would you do? Kick people out of homes they worked hard to pay for just because their children grew up and left home? Maybe these homeowners will decide to rent out the empty rooms or maybe their kids and grandkids will use the rooms to visit from out of town. What kind of police state are you talking about where you would take property away from people because there weren't enough people to room ratio and who gets to decide that?
Kick out people from their homes just because they become old and their homes become too big for them in your twisted opinion. Nice.
We will be staying in our 5 bedroom 3,000 sf empty nest home until we retire, for several reasons. First, I like it here and despite making more than I ever have before the mortgage is based on the price we paid 21 years ago, so we are able to enjoy a nice lifestyle and save. Then on the holidays we get family coming from other cities/states that stay over and for several weeks all of those rooms are filled. No one else in the family has that kind of space. I also like having elbow room. My first apartment when in college was 2 bedrooms, just for me. Ah, 1974, 2 bedrooms for $150/month.
Here in our state, whether working or retired, at age 61+ if they have trouble making the property taxes on a limited income, they do have the option of deferring the tax until the home is sold.
We will be staying in our 5 bedroom 3,000 sf empty nest home until we retire, for several reasons. First, I like it here and despite making more than I ever have before the mortgage is based on the price we paid 21 years ago, so we are able to enjoy a nice lifestyle and save. Then on the holidays we get family coming from other cities/states that stay over and for several weeks all of those rooms are filled. No one else in the family has that kind of space. I also like having elbow room. My first apartment when in college was 2 bedrooms, just for me. Ah, 1974, 2 bedrooms for $150/month.
Here in our state, whether working or retired, at age 61+ if they have trouble making the property taxes on a limited income, they do have the option of deferring the tax until the home is sold.
so government protects low-income homewners while giving the finger to low-income renters. seems fair.
so government protects low-income homewners while giving the finger to low-income renters. seems fair.
Yes, that is yet another incentive for owning. You however, cannot get over the fact that renters do not own, thus are not afforded the same authority over the home they live in? You are too caught up in "they live in this place" rather than "they own this place"; to you, ownership is secondary to the renter.
There are numerous programs available for low income renters, ever hear of Section 8?
There are numerous programs available for low income renters, ever hear of Section 8?
Ever actually look at section 8? It's a nice enough program, if you can get on, much less sit through, the waitlist. Bringing up Section 8 is not a strong rebuttal.
Ever actually look at section 8? It's a nice enough program, if you can get on, much less sit through, the waitlist. Bringing up Section 8 is not a strong rebuttal.
Likewise with ownership; it can be a great program, depending on location, if a person can manage to own.
The poster I responded to acts like there is no assistance for renters, I merely pointed out one program that is available for renters.
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.
