Low income housing possibly developing in Katy and Richmond? (Howe: 2013, mortgage)

[NigerianNightmare]

Originally Posted by Ghost Town

So eventually South Katy will look like North Katy?

No, it won't. BTW as someone who has lived on both sides North Katy especially west of The Grand Parkway has lots of middle class and upper middle class areas. All though North Katy has declined since 2007, crime wise since 2011-2012 it has been stable and murder wise North and South Katy have next to equal rates. Both suffer from murder suicides and gang related murders are almost nonexistent on either side. Although I will say Armed Robbery and Home Invasions are definitely higher on the North Side. I currently live on the South side and the main difference that deters the south side from going downhill. Is the house I currently live in was bought around $850,000. The house I lived in the North side, a starter home was bought at around $250,000. That is a 600,000 dollar difference in general although both sides have lower middle class areas the south has way to many affluent and solid middle class neighborhoods for prices to ever decline enough to be affordable for criminals. Even now very few criminals on the north side live in Houses. They either live in an apartment or come from a poor area of West Houston. Richmond has the same thing except they all come from Alief and the others come from apartments in and around Mission Bend.

[curbur]

Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare

No, it won't. BTW as someone who has lived on both sides North Katy especially west of The Grand Parkway has lots of middle class and upper middle class areas. All though North Katy has declined since 2007, crime wise since 2011-2012 it has been stable and murder wise North and South Katy have next to equal rates. Both suffer from murder suicides and gang related murders are almost nonexistent on either side. Although I will say Armed Robbery and Home Invasions are definitely higher on the North Side. I currently live on the South side and the main difference that deters the south side from going downhill. Is the house I currently live in was bought around $850,000. The house I lived in the North side, a starter home was bought at around $250,000. That is a 600,000 dollar difference in general although both sides have lower middle class areas the south has way to many affluent and solid middle class neighborhoods for prices to ever decline enough to be affordable for criminals. Even now very few criminals on the north side live in Houses. They either live in an apartment or come from a poor area of West Houston. Richmond has the same thing except they all come from Alief and the others come from apartments in and around Mission Bend.

I agree with some of your points, but looking out far enough you can't ever be too certain. What if oil goes by the wayside in 50 years and Houston never diversifies enough? Then you have a number of homes in Katy/Cinco Ranch that are 50-100 years old, meanwhile newer nicer suburbs continue to get built elsewhere in the metro near employment centers that had better long term staying power than the energy corridor.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by chris_ut

I do not think it is, or has ever been, true about America that neighborhoods have not been stratified by income. The quality of America has always been that it had a middle class, and a broad one at that so whereas in many countries you had a few rich neighborhoods and then the slums here we had a few rich neighborhoods a few slums and mostly people lived together in middle class area but the middle class has never welcomed the poor into their neighborhoods.

Its also unfair to try and shame someone for being upset if they invest a large amount of their income into propertyonly to have a 3rd party come in and drive down the value of that property. That is literally taking money out of their pocket. If you make $80,000 a year and some program reduces your property value by $40,000 that's like saying work the next 6 months for free because you are just doing it to make up what I took from you. That's a thing people have a right to want to avoid and get mad about when they can not.

No doubt income stratification has been typical. And I hold no grudge against those who get upset if their investment loses value.

But those who would try to use government power to keep out those of lower income from sharing their neighborhood or school? They have no business living in this country, as they clearly do not understand the principles which underlie it, related to property rights and civil rights.

I've heard from public school officials that residents zoned to a school serving $275,000 homes demanded a new subdivision of $140,000 homes not be allowed to be zoned to that school, due in part to fear for their property values. Now, would there have been a negative impact on their values, that's certainly possible or even likely. But in no way should that impact the zoning policies of the school district. If you think it should, consider moving to China or Russia or some place that better fits your philosophy. You have no business using government policy to lower your personal investment risk solely because you have more wealth than someone else. You should have known the risks when you purchased, and if you didn't, then you have only yourself to blame.

[Glossa]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

No doubt income stratification has been typical. And I hold no grudge against those who get upset if their investment loses value.

But those who would try to use government power to keep out those of lower income from sharing their neighborhood or school? They have no business living in this country, as they clearly do not understand the principles which underlie it, related to property rights and civil rights.

I've heard from public school officials that residents zoned to a school serving $275,000 homes demanded a new subdivision of $140,000 homes not be allowed to be zoned to that school, due in part to fear for their property values. Now, would there have been a negative impact on their values, that's certainly possible or even likely. But in no way should that impact the zoning policies of the school district. If you think it should, consider moving to China or Russia or some place that better fits your philosophy. You have no business using government policy to lower your personal investment risk solely because you have more wealth than someone else. You should have known the risks when you purchased, and if you didn't, then you have only yourself to blame.

Spoken like a true raging lib. How about let's just keep government OUT of it altogether?

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Glossa

Spoken like a true raging lib. How about let's just keep government OUT of it altogether?

More like spoken like a libertarian. Government involvement in the housing market, from affordable housing to the mortgage interest deduction, should end. As should traditional land use zoning, which is already thankfully absent from the City of Houston and all counties in Texas. A travesty of big governtmentism.

[CountryCowboy]

The mortgage interest tax deduction is one of the last income tax shelters still available, and encourages homeownership, which has numerous positive effects on society. Homeowners purchase durable goods and numerous services which have positive economic benefits. Numerous economists would argue that home ownership is a major driver of economic growth and stability.

I do not understand why anyone would want to eliminate a tax policy that encourages investment in local communities, businesses, schools, and employment of others. It makes very little sense to me and judging from the number of service providers that strive to tap into homeowners as a customer base that is stable, productive and a source of revenue and income for others is misguided, in my view. A rising tide floats all boats, as the old saying goes.

Government will always be involved in housing because it is a major tax base, and that is how local, state and federal governments build that tax base. Housing drives America's economy. Tax policies which favor investment by citizens in their community is both wise and sound social policy.

If people stop buying houses and investing in properties, the economy grinds to stagnation.

The tax deduction policy encourages capital that is held out of the market to be spent and invested.

You don't have to agree - but look at Detroit for what happens when it starts going the wrong way.

[LocalPlanner]

No, the government does not have a legitimate reason to skew the market in favor of home ownership. You sound like an NAR / NHBA shill, engaging in the usual rent-seeking behavior under the guise of public welfare.

[Mr. Football]

Let's get government interference and social engineering out of the real estate market.

[Zoo2000]

Originally Posted by Mr. Football

Let's get government interference and social engineering out of the real estate market.

If you do this it will be a free-for-all and we will end up looking like Rio de Janiero--pockets of affluence surrounded by miles and miles of favelas, with broken infrastructure and an ungovernable and manageable populace. This laissez faire approach sounds good...it's very 'Texas'...but doesn't work in reality.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Zoo2000

If you do this it will be a free-for-all and we will end up looking like Rio de Janiero--pockets of affluence surrounded by miles and miles of favelas, with broken infrastructure and an ungovernable and manageable populace. This laissez faire approach sounds good...it's very 'Texas'...but doesn't work in reality.

Government can have basic infrastructure standards without trying to bias or restrict the market toward one type or price of housing. Generally these standards are oriented around basic health and safety.