Flagstaff Aspen Sawmill Project Not Fair To NAU Students (Phoenix: sales, city hall)

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by smarty

The only way to lower the price is to increase supply. Build more... in areas closer....

Building more in areas closer is more expensive. Except for more college housing closer to NAU, Flagstaff needs to spread out, with more housing in the national forest, and on state, city, and county owned lands.

The smart growth concept, which The City uses, equates to huge insane impact fees on new construction. It's an authoritarian concept, in my view, enacted by The Rich, and raising the prices of housing on The Poor, as this report now confirms:

New Report Confirms Smart Growth Raises Housing Prices - by Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, PhD - Heartland Perspectives

Albuquerque is apparently NOT using Smart Growth, as another article discussed how Mayor Marty Chavez allowed sprawal on the west side of town while a smart growth candidate who wanted impact fees ran against him and lost.

Quotes:

" Over the past several years studies by Harvard University and Tufts University professors and researchers at The Heritage Foundation have found that many common smart-growth strategies raise home prices by increasing the cost of land and/or by adding impact fees. As if such policies didn’t cause enough problems for American households, smart growth now has been shown to increase the “bricks and mortar” construction costs of both residential and non-residential construction. "

" None of this is good news for the household aspiring to home ownership or seeking to buy the best house possible on a limited family budget. The higher housing costs identified in the Good First Jobs report, combined with the additional impact fees and higher land prices, all conspire to deny home ownership to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of moderate-income households. " (end of quotes from link above)

[Greatday]

Frankly, if I am going to build a multi housing project, I am going to build, and charge, so that I can get the highest rate of return on my investment.

"Low Cost" housing may not get me that return. And, the "Government" is not in the housing business - and they are not going to build socialized housing.

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Frankly, if I am going to build a multi housing project, I am going to build, and charge, so that I can get the highest rate of return on my investment.

"Low Cost" housing may not get me that return. And, the "Government" is not in the housing business - and they are not going to build socialized housing.

Charging the highest rate will not fill your housing and you'll be left with vacant rooms.

[CCCVDUR]

Great Day Wrote:

"Frankly, if I am going to build a multi housing project, I am going to build, and charge, so that I can get the highest rate of return on my investment.

"Low Cost" housing may not get me that return. And, the "Government" is not in the housing business - and they are not going to build socialized
housing."

What you describe is a 100% free market Libertarian approach that works in many markets. However, as karmaphx points out:

"Charging the highest rate will not fill your housing and you'll be left with vacant rooms."

In respect to Flagstaff, there are office buildings and homes for sale all over town for $400K+ that aren't selling. If there was a demand for higher cost housing, then the Free Market Approach that greatday presented, would be successful here. However, there is a shortage of supply (due to "Smart Growth" policies), combined with stagnant wages and increasing unemployment here. Therefore, prices will have to come down in order for things to start selling (and renting). Look at Craigs List/Flagstaff/Sedona/Cottonwood. The amount of rentals per day has tripled since about 6 months ago, since people are not lowering their prices and many are exiting Flagstaff. I have noticed that Bashas (grocery chain) has been lowering its prices in Flagstaff, and I've heard Johnny Basha's commercials about this! -T

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by KarmaPhx

Charging the highest rate will not fill your housing and you'll be left with vacant rooms.

If they rent at $$$, great. If they do not, then a landlord will reduce the price to a level they will rent - what the market will bear. There is NO REASON however, to rent for less than what the market will bear. NONE. That is silly and bad business

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

In respect to Flagstaff, there are office buildings and homes for sale all over town for $400K+ that aren't selling.

Properties for sale and properties for rent are two, totally different markets.

Frankly, the decline in the housing sale market, has been a boom for the housing rental market. Those who have lost their home due to foreclosure, have to live somewhere - they end up, in most cases, renting a home / apartment.

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by Greatday

If they rent at $$$, great. If they do not, then a landlord will reduce the price to a level they will rent - what the market will bear. There is NO REASON however, to rent for less than what the market will bear. NONE. That is silly and bad business

Moderator cut: personal attack
My point was that charging ABOVE the market rates will not fill your rooms, if you want to have no vacancy then you need to have reasonable rates.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by KarmaPhx

My point was that charging ABOVE the market rates will not fill your rooms, if you want to have no vacancy then you need to have reasonable rates.

I never said any different.

However, another poster is suggesting that apartment rents should be lowered just so students can rent them.

Why on earth should a landlord LOWER rents when he can rent them at the higher rates.

I recently purchase a property (SFR) for investment. Paid cash. I offered it for rent @$1200 a month. No takers. Offered it at $1100 a month - loads of prospects. So, that is what I rented it for. BUT, the OP was suggesting that instead of getting (and this is just an example) $1100 a month - I should be a nice guy and offer it for $800 a month so college students can rent it.

That kind of concept don't fly

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I never said any different.

However, another poster is suggesting that apartment rents should be lowered just so students can rent them.

Why on earth should a landlord LOWER rents when he can rent them at the higher rates.

I recently purchase a property (SFR) for investment. Paid cash. I offered it for rent @$1200 a month. No takers. Offered it at $1100 a month - loads of prospects. So, that is what I rented it for. BUT, the OP was suggesting that instead of getting (and this is just an example) $1100 a month - I should be a nice guy and offer it for $800 a month so college students can rent it.

That kind of concept don't fly

What I AM SUGGESTING is that NAU build MORE AFFORDABLE housing for the students, so that they do not have to pay huge rates from companies like MC, DAL, RCI, and LEV.

NAU can control its own rates much lower than what occurs in the private sector in this town.

I am suggesting that the Socialists in The City start allocating more land for apartments instead of for stores catering to The Rich like w/ their New Frontiers / Sawmill project.

At SFeR, they do not charge that much for rents, neither does TGG, FPM, POL, or the ARB leasing office.

Furthermore, if The City of Flagstaff would cancel the Impact Fees, as Morgan Hagaman campaigned on, new apartments would be build, and rents would decline, due to an increase in supply.

Unfortunately, these Impact Fees are a cornerstone of the "Smart Growth" national movement.

To have a cost of living index of 120 is horrible, especially when our twin city, Boulder, has a COL index of just 103 (and only 4% unemployment as of last October, '09).

However, there is undoubtedly some price gauging going on for properties in the vicinity of NAU (the university), as propertly manager "Billybob" poined out. i.e. cabins in Kachina Village, Mountainnaire for only $700/month vs. apartments near the Riordan mansion behind "the new" Wells Fargo going for over $1000.

Anyway ... Morgan Hagaman in 2010 if he runs for Ciy Council again ! Allen Ginsberg should run, too. Let's cancel the "smart growth" policies, and bring back the middle class in Flagstaff !

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

What I AM SUGGESTING is that NAU build MORE AFFORDABLE housing for the students,

While an interesting suggestion, I doubt very seriously - VERY SERIOUSLY, that any suggestion like this would not be met favorably - ESPECIALLY right now with the Universities taking millions of dollars of hits from their budgets. Subsidized housing ain't in the cards I'm afraid.