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.
In my experience, prime neighborhoods for attracting Section 8 properties are those BELOW the metro area median. This is because landlords were able to charge median or near-median rents in subpar neighborhoods by going Section 8.
Example, area median rent is $1000 and you own a property that would rent unsubsidized for $700...you could go Section 8 and ask $900 and someone with a voucher would rent it because many voucher holders have difficulty finding a landlord who will accept their voucher.
I think some recent changes were made to curtail this type of abuse, but I don't know the details. The housing bubble and crash has created a number of property owners desperate to sell or at least rent out their houses, so they agree to accept Section 8, some of these houses are in better above-median neighborhoods.
You have experience with prime neighborhoods and section 8 housing?
Really, and how did you garner this experience?
Get over it.
Zoning is a protection to the people who live somewhere.
In your example, do you have ingress/egress where it doesn't cross any one else's property?
If not, that's a deal breaking issue from the start.
You do know that you can petition to have an exemption.
But that would require more than whining.
I think you're entitled to whatever local laws and affordability you meet.
Obviously, this is not the case.
Yes ma'am, i am quite familiar with variances and nonconforming uses, I was on the board of my neighborhood association and the association contested a number of variance applications.
The hardest variance cases tend to come from individuals with an appealing personal story and proposal, but the problem is that a variance goes with the property and not the owner. while this specific owner might want a variance for a very noble and even heart-wrenching purpose, ypu always have to be concerned with what a future, not-so-benevolent owner might do, armed with said variance.
On the other hand, nonconforming uses tend to evoke my sympathy for the property owner, because the owner is in a precarious position where an adverse event (say, a fire) can prompt a substantial rehab causing the nonconforming use to go POOF.
So I tended to be cautious in supporting variances to properties where the variance could be used by a malevolent future owner to harm the neighborhood, and also cautious in supporting zoning changes which put owners at rick by downgrading their property to nonconforming use.
At the same time, I was generally unwilling to support 'regressive' zoning changes which reduced options and increased costs for the town's poorest residents while increasing the wealth of residents who were already wealthy.
You have experience with prime neighborhoods and section 8 housing?
Really, and how did you garner this experience?
If you must know I was allied with a number of local landlords for several years in attempting to stop increasing local regulations which were crippling the ability of landlords to acquire new properties and to rent them out profitably. Because the increased regulations were making rental ownership - and thus rents - more expensive, my fragile ability to avoid displacement was decidedly at risk hence I had a stake in the outcome.
While we ultimately were pretty much steamrolled, we did at least slow down the process.
In the process, ironically, many of the larger local landlords - who were mostly the ones objecting to the tighter regulations - ended up much better off than before they started, because many of the smallest landlords (owners of one or two houses) threw in the towel and sold out to the bigger landlords. Expansion of the rental supply was brought down to a trickle, and the increasing concentration of local rental ownership boosted rents considerably.
And I got to hear a lot of landlord stories - good, bad, and ugly - along the way.
Who forced you to move?
You cannot move "into" - that's your beef.
You can't meet basic qualifications therefore everyone, especially those homeowners and "government" are the source of all of your problems.
Just like a drunk blaming everyone around them for them being drunk.
Actually, that's not entirely true. In the scenario I describe, I could and did more in as a renter but not as an owner where the incumbent owner was willing to sell me the guest house I was renting.
I was already renting when the owners put the property on the market, and were unable to sell me only the house I was renting and the land on which it was situated.
It clearly was not an issue of "health and safety" since I had already moved in and had been renting the house quite lawfully.
it's normally not government zoning that force the poor out of their homes, it's liberals. look at the gentrification of places like san fran, and washington DC. liberals moved into the city and kicked out the blacks.
Lot of homes like that in the area I live and some of them are decent, just small with small yards.
How small is a small yard? In Portland, most lots are at least 10,000 sq ft. There is some minimal zoning for 5,000 dq ft lots; developers took advantage of the zoning to build narrow "skinny houses" which neighborhood activists (organizers?) generally detest. (I think these houses are perfectly fine, but they are way too large and expensive for me, as they were intended and built for families.)
Actually, that's not entirely true. In the scenario I describe, I could and did more in as a renter but not as an owner where the incumbent owner was willing to sell me the guest house I was renting.
I was already renting when the owners put the property on the market, and were unable to sell me only the house I was renting and the land on which it was situated.
It clearly was not an issue of "health and safety" since I had already moved in and had been renting the house quite lawfully.
So the property was on the market.
Interesting how the story changes as you get asked more questions.
It's quite valid that the owner wouldn't/couldn't sell part of the property when the entire property was for sale.
Maybe he sold because he couldn't stand the nagging and whining?
Last edited by chielgirl; 06-09-2013 at 06:54 AM..
it's normally not government zoning that force the poor out of their homes, it's liberals. look at the gentrification of places like san fran, and washington DC. liberals moved into the city and kicked out the blacks.
But gentrification did not happen in a vacuum. Zoning which does not allow for (affordable) tiny properties facilitates the eventual displacement of the poor once the hipsters move in.
Poor people who own homes generally do not get displaced by gentricfication.
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.
I was allied with a number of local landlords for several years in attempting to stop increasing local regulations which were crippling the ability of landlords to acquire new properties and to rent them out profitably. Because the increased regulations were making rental ownership - and thus rents - more expensive, my fragile ability to avoid displacement was decidedly at risk hence I had a stake in the outcome.
