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.
....They also don't build affordable rental housing anymore. Any place "affordable" is old and falling apart with no amenities really. ........
It's not possible to build new affordable housing. The costs of materials, labor, land, and permits is too high. High cost of building means no cheap houses and no cheap houses means no cheap rent, unless the whole building has been government subsidized.
Well, if you'd be happy to see a bunch of shipping containers piled 5 high, 6 feet apart, with really basic plumbing and no interior walls, those might be relatively inexpensive to rent, depending upon land costs.
There is a reason that nobody wants those in their backyard. There are genuine reasons why no one wants to live in poverty neighborhoods. If there was some magic way to convert low income renters into all being responsible, clean, neat, and honest, then there wouldn't be so much Resistance. I don't think that is any more possible than it is to build a $10,000 house.
The connection is indirect. Tax deductions and expenses affect supply and supply affects market rate for rents.
Someone thinks they might like to be a landlord. They look at the costs of the building, the repairs, the maintenance costs. They look at taxes and they look at the deductions they can use. If it all adds up and they can make a profit, they buy a rental and one more rental unit is available.
If the expenses are too high, and there is not enough tax benefit, they decide against and there is one less rental unit available.
The number of rental units available does affect market rate of rent.
On the whole - looking at the entire country - property taxes favor homeowners over landlords, because in most states owner-occupants pay lower taxes on the same property.
e.g. when a SFR comes on market, an owner-occupant will pay lower property taxes than a landlord will pay, giving owner-occupants a bidding advantage and impairing rental supply.
It's not possible to build new affordable housing. The costs of materials, labor, land, and permits is too high. High cost of building means no cheap houses and no cheap houses means no cheap rent, unless the whole building has been government subsidized.
Well, if you'd be happy to see a bunch of shipping containers piled 5 high, 6 feet apart, with really basic plumbing and no interior walls, those might be relatively inexpensive to rent, depending upon land costs.
There is a reason that nobody wants those in their backyard. There are genuine reasons why no one wants to live in poverty neighborhoods. If there was some magic way to convert low income renters into all being responsible, clean, neat, and honest, then there wouldn't be so much Resistance. I don't think that is any more possible than it is to build a $10,000 house.
Take the educated poor and put them into cheap housing. Low crime, no hood rats, clean and honest. The fair housing and welfare crowd would howl.
I once lived in a town that was successfully trying to price out poor people. I was on the board of my neighborhood association and they had no problem with me but the ultimate gatekeepers were the landlords and the only way for the homeowners to get what they wanted was to price out the non-owner non-professionals including me.
NOBODY builds affordable housing as long as there are more profitable market segments to build for.
Income inequality means an inexhaustible supply of market segments more profitable than the poor.
Good thing there's a way to build affordable housing which is also profitable. You might want to look into Section 42 LIHTC development. Provides millions of units across the country.
The Bay Area: Where you can find a 1,000 square foot ranch house house built in 1955 that sold for 10,000 dollars new sell for 1-2 million. The Baby Boomers and Silent Generation members were truly blessed.
You don't have to live in the Bay Area. Simple. Same with NYC.
Good thing there's a way to build affordable housing which is also profitable. You might want to look into Section 42 LIHTC development. Provides millions of units across the country.
I'm aware of it. Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) has said he owns some LIHTC properties. There are some scattered around this area.
It is fair, because you are benefiting from lower rent due to the owner deducting the mortgage interest on their loan. They also get deductions that homeowners do not, including maintenance costs, depreciation, utilities, and even travel costs.
The argument is flawed. The owner-occupier still has a tax advantage, because the housing dollars, after being earned by the inhabitant, are only taxed once (or zero times), while for the renter, all of the dollars are taxed at least once (rent is not deductible), and some of the dollars are taxed twice before they get to the owner's pocket (unless the owner has so many deductions that the taxable rental income is pushed all the way down to zero). The tax on the rental income, when positive, puts the renter at a net tax disadvantage.
Or, put simply, you aren't taking into account that implicit rent on owner-occupied homes isn't taxed.
It should also be about freedom, liberty, limited government, and property rights.
But the inconvenient truth is that homeowners want government to restrict property rights in order to prop up their property values.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The truth is that property owners vote to keep their neighborhoods the way they are when they purchase the property. They don't want to change anything, because they don't want to live in the slum situation you seem to dream of.
If landlords lost their tax breaks, there would be limited impact on rents.
Truth is, the only thing preventing rents from going through the roof is the inability or renters to pay more.
Renter median income is HALF median homeowner income. Renters pay twice as large a proportion of their income on housing as do homeowners.
in other words, renters are financially tapped out and at the limit of what they can afford to pay.
Where rents are soaring, it's largely due to higher-income outsiders moving into an area.
That has ZERO to do with the cost of renting, and EVERYTHING to do with the income of the folks that rent.
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.
