Pittsburgh rents might be rising, but they're still the cheapest in the country! (Wilkinsburg: lower-class, rent)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

Check the recent census records. Not the ones from 2010.

Census estimates are just that - estimates. In 2009 the Census projected that Atlanta would see significant growth from the American Community Survey, but the 2010 Census showed an essentially stagnant population.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Pittsburgh did actually shrink from 2000 to 2010 by 8.6%. IIRC, the 2014 estimates show the city shrinking by like 0.1%. Yes, it's thought that during the 2000s the City was shrinking up until 2007 or so, and then grew at the end of the decade. But it's still clear that even if the city population is essentially stagnant for the 2010s, it will be the best decade for the city in terms of population since the 1940s. The number of households is certainly continuing to rise at least, which is much more important when it comes to things like housing prices.

Nonetheless, I am sure people are underestimating the continuing population hemorrhaging in places like Homewood, Sheraden, and Knoxville that they seldom if ever travel. I agree there are "two Pittsburghs" these days. But having roughly half of the city seeing growth in number of households, rinsing incomes, and rising real estate prices is better than we have seen in generations.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lettert

this is so far from a possible reality though. but now I understand your "feel the bern" status. you do know there are people that don't work and probably have a higher standard of living than you right? How do you feel about that?

Personally speaking, I wish my household could make roughly the same income today without anyone working. I'll fight as hard as I can politically for a future where we can all not work and enjoy a decent standard of living.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Don't we all went she that SCR, but just like many other cities, that's not how things work. The best to hope for is that the haves live at least somewhere in the city so that the city gets the tax benefit.

I don't want this city to exceed 20% "haves" if it means less opportunity for the other 80% in the lower four classes in my example to live within and love the city. I realize many on here want a Pittsburgh that is someday 100% "have". I don't. We'll just end up like "The Capital" from The Hunger Games---a central urban core of aloof elite hedonists who sustain themselves on the backs of the other 80% who toil in various states of socioeconomic turmoil in the outer rings. We shouldn't keep striving to be "the next big thing". If you're affluent and want Pittsburgh to be something it isn't, then why not take your resources and move to San Francisco or Manhattan or Monaco or Vancouver or Fox Chapel or whatever other place you want this city to be emulating? The other 80% don't have that same luxury you (not you in particular) do.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If and when I buy a home and eventually look to resell that home I'm not going to list it for any higher than thrice the city's median household income at the time so the typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary can afford to buy into the same neighborhood I was able to when I was also a typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary. If I'm making the city's median household income of $50,000 (just tossing that out there) in 2016 and a buy a house for $150,000 in 2016, following the guideline of buying a house not to exceed three times your annual salary, then if the median household income in the city is $70,000 in 2046 I'm not selling for anything above $210,000, even if the real market value has appreciated to $250,000+, for example, so someone who was in the exact same situation as I was in socioeconomically in 2016 could buy the same house in 2046.

I guess this makes me a socialist, and, if so, then I honestly don't care after seeing what unchecked capitalism did to this country in 2007-2008.

Originally Posted by lettert

this is so far from a possible reality though. but now I understand your "feel the bern" status. you do know there are people that don't work and probably have a higher standard of living than you right? How do you feel about that?

You're right. There are people receiving handouts and generous tax breaks without working for them---the impoverished and corporations alike. I can't control either of those two polar externalities. Not to get too political, but one of the primary reasons I'm voting for Bernie is because I'm one of the nearly 30,000,000 uninsured Americans "caught in the middle" because I make just a tad too much to qualify for an ACA subsidy yet enough to comfortably afford a few hundred dollars per month on my own for insurance, despite working full-time. Hillary has no plan for people like me. Bernie does. If my tax dollars went to bail out Wall Street due to their own avarice in 2007-2008, then why can't Wall Street return the favor and pay higher taxes on speculation so I don't have an anxiety attack every time I have a chest pain or toothache as being a resident of the only major first-world country without universal health care?

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

No, prices are going up because there is a limited amount of desirable neighborhoods to choose from. That is why we now have a city developing a wider gap between the haves and have nots. Pittsburgh is city of rich and poor neighborhoods.

The data doesn't appear to support this claim. If the mean price is rising but the median is stagnant or falling, that would indicate support for what you are saying. But that is not the case. The median prices are rising significantly. For example, here is sales data from Trulia for the past 5 years. I didn't spend a lot of time looking for the data, there are probably better sites to use.

Real Estate Market Trends for Pittsburgh, PA - Trulia

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Personally speaking, I wish my household could make roughly the same income today without anyone working. I'll fight as hard as I can politically for a future where we can all not work and enjoy a decent standard of living.

Unfortunately, many feel this way and 50%+/- are supporting them.

A "something for nothing attitude" is why many problems exist.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I don't want this city to exceed 20% "haves" if it means less opportunity for the other 80% in the lower four classes in my example to live within and love the city. I realize many on here want a Pittsburgh that is someday 100% "have". I don't. We'll just end up like "The Capital" from The Hunger Games---a central urban core of aloof elite hedonists who sustain themselves on the backs of the other 80% who toil in various states of socioeconomic turmoil in the outer rings. We shouldn't keep striving to be "the next big thing". If you're affluent and want Pittsburgh to be something it isn't, then why not take your resources and move to San Francisco or Manhattan or Monaco or Vancouver or Fox Chapel or whatever other place you want this city to be emulating? The other 80% don't have that same luxury you (not you in particular) do.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If and when I buy a home and eventually look to resell that home I'm not going to list it for any higher than thrice the city's median household income at the time so the typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary can afford to buy into the same neighborhood I was able to when I was also a typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary. If I'm making the city's median household income of $50,000 (just tossing that out there) in 2016 and a buy a house for $150,000 in 2016, following the guideline of buying a house not to exceed three times your annual salary, then if the median household income in the city is $70,000 in 2046 I'm not selling for anything above $210,000, even if the real market value has appreciated to $250,000+, for example, so someone who was in the exact same situation as I was in socioeconomically in 2016 could buy the same house in 2046.

I guess this makes me a socialist, and, if so, then I honestly don't care after seeing what unchecked capitalism did to this country in 2007-2008.



You're right. There are people receiving handouts and generous tax breaks without working for them---the impoverished and corporations alike. I can't control either of those two polar externalities. Not to get too political, but one of the primary reasons I'm voting for Bernie is because I'm one of the nearly 30,000,000 uninsured Americans "caught in the middle" because I make just a tad too much to qualify for an ACA subsidy yet enough to comfortably afford a few hundred dollars per month on my own for insurance, despite working full-time. Hillary has no plan for people like me. Bernie does. If my tax dollars went to bail out Wall Street due to their own avarice in 2007-2008, then why can't Wall Street return the favor and pay higher taxes on speculation so I don't have an anxiety attack every time I have a chest pain or toothache as being a resident of the only major first-world country without universal health care?

You chose to leave an area for a better area rather than staying and making that area better. The better area is getting even better so more $$$ is coming in and prices are going up. Nothing new in regards to every area that goes through this kind of transformation.

When you resell your home way too cheap, the buyer is going to sell it and reap the benefits that you chose not to get.

The world, city, state, etc..., isn't going back. Things are changing the opposite that you want them to. It's just the way of the world and its not going to revolve the other way. Make things better for yourself and you'll see that things aren't as bad as you personally see them.

[aw_now_what]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If and when I buy a home and eventually look to resell that home I'm not going to list it for any higher than thrice the city's median household income at the time so the typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary can afford to buy into the same neighborhood I was able to when I was also a typical Pittsburgher earning a typical Pittsburgh salary. If I'm making the city's median household income of $50,000 (just tossing that out there) in 2016 and a buy a house for $150,000 in 2016, following the guideline of buying a house not to exceed three times your annual salary, then if the median household income in the city is $70,000 in 2046 I'm not selling for anything above $210,000, even if the real market value has appreciated to $250,000+, for example, so someone who was in the exact same situation as I was in socioeconomically in 2016 could buy the same house in 2046.

Investors are a significant percentage of single-family home buyers in many neighborhoods, particularly the more affordable ones. Your resale plan is likely to give a $40,000+ subsidy to some suburbanite's investment portfolio.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by aw_now_what

Investors are a significant percentage of single-family home buyers in many neighborhoods, particularly the more affordable ones. Your resale plan is likely to give a $40,000+ subsidy to some suburbanite's investment portfolio.

Bingo.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by aw_now_what

Investors are a significant percentage of single-family home buyers in many neighborhoods, particularly the more affordable ones. Your resale plan is likely to give a $40,000+ subsidy to some suburbanite's investment portfolio.

Which is why transfer fees should be at least doubled for those who are not selling owner-occupied homes.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Merge

Which is why transfer fees should be at least doubled for those who are not selling owner-occupied homes.

Makes no sense, other than for your disdain of most everything outside the city..and most nobody is leaving $$$ on the table like what SCR is describing.