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.
This time telling what most already knew; lower the household income less chances of scoring an "affordable"
lottery unit. There simply aren't enough units for low to poverty households to remotely meet demand.
As article makes clear everyone knows reason why; rents from higher income apartments subsidize lower; so there is a natural limit to how low rents can go with lottery units unless or until city kicks in deeper subsidies.
On a brighter note city says that their new lottery system stops people from applying for units they cannot afford/qualify. That should make things easier on everyone else.
I have always been careful to only apply for projects I qualify for income-wise, although often they are at higher rents than I feel I can pay - some of those I won't apply for, but some I will in case I get a new job that pays more (but still within the bracket, since I usually fall in the mid to lower end of the 130% range, there is room). But now I really only apply for projects that will make my commute even better.
Last edited by popartist; 06-29-2020 at 03:52 PM..
I usually fall into the upper brackets (I believe 130% or 165%) and as the article describes, I’ve been contacted for a few units and declined to interview. We went through the whole process for one apartment and then were told at the last steps that our income was too high for the unit (after previously being told we were fine)—but we qualified for the highest bracket, where the rent was about $1,000 more than the unit we originally interviewed for. Having two small children, there’s no way we could come up with that additional amount after childcare etc. I completely understand that the higher income units subsidize the lower income units but I’ve personally found the rents for the units I qualify for to be much higher than what could be considered affordable, and much higher than what I pay now. While I’d love to live in a newer building and have long term stability, it just doesn’t make sense to increase our rent burden even more, when the goal of this program is supposed to be the opposite.
I usually fall into the upper brackets (I believe 130% or 165%) and as the article describes, I’ve been contacted for a few units and declined to interview. We went through the whole process for one apartment and then were told at the last steps that our income was too high for the unit (after previously being told we were fine)—but we qualified for the highest bracket, where the rent was about $1,000 more than the unit we originally interviewed for. Having two small children, there’s no way we could come up with that additional amount after childcare etc. I completely understand that the higher income units subsidize the lower income units but I’ve personally found the rents for the units I qualify for to be much higher than what could be considered affordable, and much higher than what I pay now. While I’d love to live in a newer building and have long term stability, it just doesn’t make sense to increase our rent burden even more, when the goal of this program is supposed to be the opposite.
Yep, in the same income bracket and I can't tell you how many projects I turned down, even though the lure of a modern apartment with amenities is strong - either the rent was still too high and/or it did not really improve my commute. However, there was one at a rent I felt OK about even though it was higher than my previous place and it made my commute better- and I am living here now so eventually it paid off.
Yep, I turned down, I don't know, five or six interviews with 165%s (there's such a long time between application and getting interviewed that I feel it's reasonable to allow for my salary to have potentially gone up) because I couldn't justify the rent. But eventually I did land an outlier. It was still a few hundred more than my old place (which was under market) but at least I qualified under the 40x rule! 40x the bottom of the salary range should be the rent for it to make any sense at all.
I feel sorry for the first woman in the article, but I'm not sure why she keeps applying to buildings she clearly doesn't and has no real hope to qualify for by income. The ranges are right there in the ads; save yourself the heartache. It's for people like her that we need decent public housing, not lotteries.
(And the last woman--at least based on what she said, I think she got screwed! One-time, non-recurring gifts are not supposed to be included in the income calculation, according to the marketing handbook. God, the incompetence of some of these agents drives me nuts.)
I have turned down so many as well. In fact, when I accepted one lottery, I actually winded Up paying a good 500 bucks more than what I had been paying. I took it cause it’s new construction.
Can understand what some are saying about paying more, but as also duly noted people are moving into brand new construction with buildings full of amenities. With the city at their back people are moving into places they otherwise never would get foot past front door.
Icing on cake is these units are RS, so long as tenants behave themselves and pay rent on time they can't be touched. Sometimes not even then given pro tenant laws and courts.
Of course downside is RS rents only go one way; up. Household incomes must continue to outpace rent or problems will begin.
Can understand what some are saying about paying more, but as also duly noted people are moving into brand new construction with buildings full of amenities. With the city at their back people are moving into places they otherwise never would get foot past front door.
Icing on cake is these units are RS, so long as tenants behave themselves and pay rent on time they can't be touched. Sometimes not even then given pro tenant laws and courts.
Of course downside is RS rents only go one way; up. Household incomes must continue to outpace rent or problems will begin.
This is true. But if you remain employed, it's not that difficult since RS rents have only been going up by less than 2%.
Yep, I turned down, I don't know, five or six interviews with 165%s (there's such a long time between application and getting interviewed that I feel it's reasonable to allow for my salary to have potentially gone up) because I couldn't justify the rent. But eventually I did land an outlier. It was still a few hundred more than my old place (which was under market) but at least I qualified under the 40x rule! 40x the bottom of the salary range should be the rent for it to make any sense at all.
Yes, it seems like that on a lot of these listings the rent is set at 40x/30% of the top of the range, not the bottom or even the middle, so that is why it takes so long to get some of these leased out even with below market rents. Even then I have always felt rent at 30% of gross is too high, used to be the standard was 25% of gross...think that is a more manageable rate too. My rent now is $600 more than the last rent at my old place, but it was offset by a little over $200 a month in savings in transportation costs and fitness membership, so the net increase was around $400, with my rent now around 26% of my gross.
Mine was an increase of ~$400, but I did save half that on the fitness membership. So not terrible.
But it doesn't matter how nice and new and how many amenities if an *affordable* apartment isn't *affordable*. Heck, I turned down ST, where I lived and liked it before, twice because the rents were absurd, and I have basic common sense. It's definitely true that 165%s will always fill more slowly because many low-to-mid-middle-class people aren't interested in subjecting themselves to an uncertain and intrusive process, but the ridiculousness of the rents contributes a great deal. Cap it the way I suggested, and I bet those apartments would've found takers.
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.
