Average Metro ATL Rents passed $1,000.00 (Atlanta, Sandy Springs: renters, credit score, student loan)

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by AfternoonCoffee

Sure they could, depending on the size of their student loan payments.

Anyone know average monthly student loan payments these days? The few people I've discussed this with are paying $100-300 a month. Unless they have a lot of other debt, they could definitely afford $1200 a month on a $50,000 salary.

After tax that leaves them with $1400 a month. After expenses that doesn't leave much.

[cwkimbro]

The other thing that is going to hit the millennial generation hard (and to some generation X'rs) is company pensions and retirement benefits are not that good these days. Older generations got some generous pensions. The pushes the financial burden of retirement planning on your salary. People really need to elect to take out a large chunk every year.

On the good side there are more tax advantage loopholes. On the bad side, it is hard to really plan the best use of resources when you don't know how long you will live and how much it will cost you to grow old and die. Slowly dying of old age can be extremely expensive.

[rselah25]

My $.02 is that you could always buy a place, and have your mortgage easily around the $500-$700 mark which is essentially stable (aside from minor fluctuations in taxes, HOA, etc) for the life of the contract until its paid in full..

Just saying, throwing $1000 at rent every month, extrapolate over 30 years, and you got a cost of = $360K for a dinky apartment. Whereas you could probably own something similar for half that price...

Society always wants instant gratification, without looking at the longterm effects.. Sure, it could be a burden upfront to own, but over time, if you did your homework correctly, it surely will pay off...

Cheers..

[AfternoonCoffee]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

After tax that leaves them with $1400 a month. After expenses that doesn't leave much.

I plugged in it and got $2800 a month after taxes. Less $1200 rent is $1600 a month for everything else. Either way, no, it's not a lot. But can it be done? Sure. Probably not a good idea if your trying to support more than just yourself, but if we're taking about a young single person who is just starting out, it's a perfectly legitimate choice. They probably aren't socking away a lot of savings, but, clearly, you can't have it all.

[Atlmike]

Seems the real issue is there is a smaller amount of safer places to live around metro atl. Crime is getting out of hand in some of these areas thus people are all wanting to live in the safer areas. The landlords/owners are awear of this.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Atlmike

Seems the real issue is there is a smaller amount of safer places to live around metro atl. Crime is getting out of hand in some of these areas thus people are all wanting to live in the safer areas. The landlords/owners are awear of this.

But wouldn't rents drop in areas where crime is bad, while rents rise in areas where crime is low, thus creating an equilibrium anyway?

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

The problem is living in a walkable area shouldn't be some sort of privilege or something someone has to "deserve". It should be easily available to everyone the same way clean water and basic healthcare should be. It cost society as a whole MORE to force everyone to live in low density environments. Every city or community should strive for that type of development where everyone can live in it.

Plenty of other countries have high density living for the lower and middle class. Especially Asia.

We can do it too. Especially if we were able to build the interstate highway system.

It's not so much people think they "deserve" it , we all have to pay for low density car-centric living even if we don't live in it. Be it our pockets via tax and prices of goods or our air quality.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you on something!

Only in a place that is car-centric where the areas with the most walkability are also the wealthiest do the people who live in those areas view a sidewalk as an amenity that only people with money are entitled to. People in Atlanta who think like this don't realize that having sidewalks everywhere is normal in other places. These type of comments and this type of mentality will leave one to believe that the people who make such statements have never traveled to other places.

Some cities in America have high-density walkable areas as well for ALL residents. Not having a sidewalk to walk on was completely unheard of to me until I moved to Atlanta.

A sidewalk isn't an "amenity" so people who live in hip and trendy areas can be able to walk to restaurants and bars. It's basic and should be a part of any city's infrastructure for no other reason than pedestrian safety. The fact that Atlanta lacks sidewalks is the reason why there's an utter disregard for pedestrians and that the city has a high pedestrian death rate.

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I disagree. Why does everybody deserve to be in a walkable area? It's an amenity.

But the truth is, anybody can afford a walkable area in Atlanta. It just may not be the kind of walkable you want. For example, if you live off Buford Highway in Norcorss or Chamblee, you should be within a mile of absolutely everything you need to survive. It's not a beautiful walk and the retail isn't great, but you have to pay for the great stuff.

I don't want to sound like Ayn Rand, but why does everybody have to have access to the same stuff the successful people do? Further, there are more important things in life to strive for.

I generally agree that rents are too high in Atlanta, but it's a free market. What do you want to do, institute rent control? They system will always exist at equilibrium, whatever that happens to be at the moment.

This mentality right here is why Atlanta has one of the highest income disparities in the nation between blacks and whites. This whole haves-versus-the-have-nots mentality. The mentality that only people with money should have sidewalks to walk on. And for what? So you can easily walk to bars and restaurants but then drive to work? I guess to hell with someone who doesn't have a car and needs to get to work, right?

A sidewalk is not an "amenity." Any person who lives in any city or suburb for that matter should have a sidewalk to walk on. Referring to a sidewalk as an amenity is the most ridiculous thing I've heard on here so far.

How is a sidewalk any more of an amenity than a street to drive on?

Either an area is walkable or it isn't, and the more affordable areas in the Atlanta metro don't have sidewalks, or have poor transit or lack transit altogether, which was also one of the main reasons Atlanta is cited is having the worst upward mobility in the country, along with sprawl. Having safe places to walk (and also transit) means people can get to work. When people can't get to work, they can't make any money. When people can't make any money, they can't move up and they remain poor. What you are saying is, things should not be made easier for people who don't have money to get ahead. People can't get ahead when the infrastructure is not present for them to be able to move about freely to get where the job opportunities are.

Have you lived any place other than Atlanta? Should cities like Chicago and NYC where even low-income neighborhoods are high-density, highly walkable and full of transit options and bike paths remove these so-called "amenities" and force the poor to earn them?

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you on something!

Only in a place that is car-centric where the areas with the most walkability are also the wealthiest do the people who live in those areas view a sidewalk as an amenity that only people with money are entitled to. People in Atlanta who think like this don't realize that having sidewalks everywhere is normal in other places. These type of comments and this type of mentality will leave one to believe that the people who make such statements have never traveled to other places.

Some cities in America have high-density walkable areas as well for ALL residents. Not having a sidewalk to walk on was completely unheard of to me until I moved to Atlanta.

A sidewalk isn't an "amenity" so people who live in hip and trendy areas can be able to walk to restaurants and bars. It's basic and should be a part of any city's infrastructure for no other reason than pedestrian safety. The fact that Atlanta lacks sidewalks is the reason why there's an utter disregard for pedestrians and that the city has a high pedestrian death rate.

No we don't agree. You are silly if you think adding a sidewalk would fix a dense development issue or that this is a phenomna exclusive to Atlanta when it is happening in every major or semi major city in this nation. Don't try skew my words so you can carry out grinding you Atlanta ax please. This is about our nation as a whole.

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

This mentality right here is why Atlanta has one of the highest income disparities in the nation between blacks and whites. This whole haves-versus-the-have-nots mentality. The mentality that only people with money should have sidewalks to walk on. And for what? So you can easily walk to bars and restaurants but then drive to work? I guess to hell with someone who doesn't have a car and needs to get to work, right?

A sidewalk is not an "amenity." Any person who lives in any city or suburb for that matter should have a sidewalk to walk on. Referring to a sidewalk as an amenity is the most ridiculous thing I've heard on here so far.

How is a sidewalk any more of an amenity than a street to drive on?

Either an area is walkable or it isn't, and the more affordable areas in the Atlanta metro don't have sidewalks, or have poor transit or lack transit altogether, which was also one of the main reasons Atlanta is cited is having the worst upward mobility in the country, along with sprawl. Having safe places to walk (and also transit) means people can get to work. When people can't get to work, they can't make any money. When people can't make any money, they can't move up and they remain poor. What you are saying is, things should not be made easier for people who don't have money to get ahead. People can't get ahead when the infrastructure is not present for them to be able to move about freely to get where the job opportunities are.

Have you lived any place other than Atlanta? Should cities like Chicago and NYC where even low-income neighborhoods are high-density, highly walkable and full of transit options and bike paths remove these so-called "amenities" and force the poor to earn them?

Again, adding "sidewalks" doesn't mean the amenities and development are developed densely. What good is a sidewalk if you still have to walk nearly mile just to get groceries? Every city is having the issues of the wealthy pushing the poor and middle class to lower density areas. Even NYC which is becoming the worst at this.