Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [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 11-26-2013, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
298 posts, read 372,307 times
Reputation: 348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
I understand that, but I'm not sure $1400 a month for a one bedroom apartment is what most people had in mind when the Beltline's Affordable Housing Trust started passing out $2 million grants to developers.
Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe, but I'd like to see a source.

Also, all those buildings who have $1,400 units, also have affordable units. I know its not on the Beltline, but look at the Skyhouse South building for example. They have affordable units MUCH MUCH below the market value. Also, another thing to consider, is that new units on the market will drive down the prices of older units, which right now because a lack of supply, are very expensive for their quality. These units will become much more affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2013, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
298 posts, read 372,307 times
Reputation: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
if you consider the poor and minorities being priced out of their own neighbourhoods a good thing, yeah, it's frocking fantastic.
I completely disagree with this sentiment. No one has a claim to a neighborhood or an area of town. Certain demographics or certain races don't get to "claim" this "neighborhood" or that. If someone wants to move into a neighborhood, regardless of race or demographic, and they're a good citizen who can afford the rent / price of the home, then it's their right. If this means people are being displaced, then so be it, but this is the natural cycle of cities.

Cities, and their neighborhoods, are ever evolving. Look at Inman Park for example, which was a thriving in town neighborhood, then fell into decay with the flight from the urban core, and is now thriving again as one of the trendiest, most appealing in town neighborhoods. It is to the city and society's benefit to have all neighborhoods be safe, nice, and appealing - this naturally will increase property values. The key isn't to prevent the betterment of a community, because it might displace some citizens, but to help those that might be displaced through education, job training, etc.

And to act as if those who live in a neighborhood don't benefit from the increased property values is absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:24 AM
 
31,995 posts, read 36,572,943 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLJR View Post
Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe, but I'd like to see a source.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...57155469,d.cWc

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...57155469,d.cWc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
298 posts, read 372,307 times
Reputation: 348
Okay, so this is specifically for PCM. Are there similar documents for other developments or are they not getting money?

Regardless, they do have affordable units listed out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 08:41 AM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,816,726 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLJR View Post
Okay, so this is specifically for PCM. Are there similar documents for other developments or are they not getting money?
Yes, this is the "public housing" model that Atlanta has been switching to. Mixing in a small % of affordable housing in with new developments and tearing down projects. Most of the new apartments built in the area over the last several years have an affordable housing competent. You may even live in one an not realize it. It has been pretty successful.

Affordable housing is a main competent of the Beltline: Affordable Housing // Atlanta BeltLine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 09:06 AM
 
31,995 posts, read 36,572,943 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLJR View Post
Okay, so this is specifically for PCM. Are there similar documents for other developments or are they not getting money?

Regardless, they do have affordable units listed out.
Well, that's the point I've raised.

Does knocking $125 off the rent of a studio really make it affordable when still costs $1,000 a month? Is $1,400 a month for a 1BR/den affordable for most people?

As I say, you've got to pay those rents with after tax dollars. And that doesn't touch mandatory costs like utilities, food, transportation, insurance, healthcare, clothing, emergency savings, etc.

Seems to me that by definition these apartments are being built with an affluent demographic in mind. That is especially true when you take into account that amenities are very high end places like gourmet bakeries and food markets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 09:07 AM
 
564 posts, read 884,371 times
Reputation: 782
Quote:
No one has a claim to a neighborhood or an area of town. Certain demographics or certain races don't get to "claim" this "neighborhood" or that. If someone wants to move into a neighborhood, regardless of race or demographic, and they're a good citizen who can afford the rent / price of the home, then it's their right.
I agree with you 100% There shouldn't be a particular group that lays claim to a particular area. Therefore, more than ever, we need to build communities that permit all types of economic and social backgrounds to coexist. Does that mean if you are used to a high quality of life, that you should forfeit it for those that are not used to it... no. However, those people who are less fortunate should have the opportunity to work and live in those same areas. By mixing incomes, you give lower income individuals inspiration to strive for something better and the upper income individuals a sense of reality. That recognition that a struggle still exists in our country and an overall sense of humility.

Quote:
If this means people are being displaced, then so be it, but this is the natural cycle of cities.
Cities, and their neighborhoods, are ever evolving. Look at Inman Park for example, which was a thriving in town neighborhood, then fell into decay with the flight from the urban core, and is now thriving again as one of the trendiest, most appealing in town neighborhoods. It is to the city and society's benefit to have all neighborhoods be safe, nice, and appealing - this naturally will increase property values. The key isn't to prevent the betterment of a community, because it might displace some citizens, but to help those that might be displaced through education, job training, etc.
This is where I don't agree with you, but then later agree with you haha

I understand where you are coming from, but we are in an interesting position in history where we understand that this cycle exists. And now, more than ever, we have the capability to break from these cycles and create something new. I'm sick of this American mentality of pick yourself up by your bootstraps, a concept which was conceived in the late 19th century and for the most part held true well into the 20th century. However, now we are in the 21st and experiencing worse social mobility than generations prior. And unfortunately, our city of ATL sits as the capital of social immobility. With the beltline we have a chance to do something revolutionary in terms of actually creating housing affordability and living options. (knocking $125 from $1,400 rent is cute.. but not affordable) If we keep a mentality of "if people are displaced/priced out cause they can't hang economically so be it" (not an indictment on you ATLJR) then we will reproduce the status quo which will not end well. Why does displacement and gentrification have to be conjoined? Why can't we work to create a model that incorporates new and existing residents?... If we don't, a huge divide would grow between suburban dwellers and city dwellers and as more people are priced out of the areas of opportunity, we would see a huge increase in crimes of desperation. Lower education, due to poor school districts not equipped to properly educate hopeless youth would mean social unrest. I mean it seems really apocalyptic or far out but this is the type of future we are creating if you look at development patterns. Therefore, I just want to hold projects like the beltline accountable when they say they will produce affordability. The story not done so we will see... There is wisdom in our old motto: United we stand divided we fall

Links and stuff
To learn about Bootstrapping
The Myth of Bootstrapping | TIME.com

To learn more about Social Mobility
Map: Social Mobility in America, City By City | Mother Jones

Social immobility erodes the American dream - Washington Post

Learn more about Mixed Income Housing
Mixed-Income Community Dynamics: Five Insights From Ethnography | HUD USER

Last edited by Listennow32; 11-26-2013 at 09:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 09:27 AM
 
989 posts, read 1,737,205 times
Reputation: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLJR View Post
I completely disagree with this sentiment. No one has a claim to a neighborhood or an area of town. Certain demographics or certain races don't get to "claim" this "neighborhood" or that. If someone wants to move into a neighborhood, regardless of race or demographic, and they're a good citizen who can afford the rent / price of the home, then it's their right. If this means people are being displaced, then so be it, but this is the natural cycle of cities.

Cities, and their neighborhoods, are ever evolving. Look at Inman Park for example, which was a thriving in town neighborhood, then fell into decay with the flight from the urban core, and is now thriving again as one of the trendiest, most appealing in town neighborhoods. It is to the city and society's benefit to have all neighborhoods be safe, nice, and appealing - this naturally will increase property values. The key isn't to prevent the betterment of a community, because it might displace some citizens, but to help those that might be displaced through education, job training, etc.

And to act as if those who live in a neighborhood don't benefit from the increased property values is absurd.
I agree with some of your points, however there is a big elephant that you are avoiding. Your argument reads like, if rich people want to move into poor areas and displace them, that is the natural cycle of cities. Never was there a case, where poor people moved into rich areas and displaced them.

I'm all for improving neighborhoods, but it is quite different. In the past rich, middle class, and poor black folks lived in the same neighborhoods, due to segregation. This dynamic was the only one in recent American history that showed that all socioeconomics can work on a macro level, I don't think rich people of any race want to live amongst the poor anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 10:23 AM
Box
 
382 posts, read 659,151 times
Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
What do you mean "settle"? If their house is worth more, why shouldn't they "cash out" if they want? Neighborhoods are always changing. People should be allowed to live where they choose.
Yeah, you're not taking into account people who move because they can't afford to keep up with the taxes, people who get priced out due to the cost of living increasing, the general character of the neighborhood changing, etc. Nobody said people shouldn't be able to live where they want, it's about the character of the neighborhood and maintaining stability for current residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 11:01 AM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,816,726 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box View Post
Yeah, you're not taking into account people who move because they can't afford to keep up with the taxes, people who get priced out due to the cost of living increasing, the general character of the neighborhood changing, etc. Nobody said people shouldn't be able to live where they want, it's about the character of the neighborhood and maintaining stability for current residents.
We already have provisions that keep your property tax low if it is your homestead and lock it in once you reach a certain age. So no one that spent most of their life in a neighborhood is getting kicked out if they don't want to. Also, everything changes. Even neighborhoods' character. You can't stop it. That does not mean it is a bad thing.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top