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.
Maybe people should work to buy a very low cost house in bad neighborhoods, then they would make all sorts of money when the neighborhood improves. All they need is a job and 3.5% down. Doesn't this sound like a better deal than just keeping the neighborhood crappy?
For years now I have been saying that very low cost houses should be available. Generally the only way this can be made possible is to allow the sale of tiny properties which is currently not allowed.
For years now I have been saying that very low cost houses should be available. Generally the only way this can be made possible is to allow the sale of tiny properties which is currently not allowed.
Very low costs housing is available in undesirable areas. They are building some super small properties (400 sq ft) in San Francisco, though they are not really affordable, because they are in San Francisco.
What do you mean? That the government should control the price of housing?
Under zoning rules, minimum lot sizes are pretty much ubiquitous in populated North America. People who cannot afford to buy the minimum lot size are thus forced to rent which as we have seen in this thread, leaves them vulnerable to displacement resulting from gentrification.
Government should control less, not more, and allow property owners to sell property in increments of their choosing, not of government's choosing.
Under zoning rules, minimum lot sizes are pretty much ubiquitous in populated North America. People who cannot afford to buy the minimum lot size are thus forced to rent which as we have seen in this thread, leaves them vulnerable to displacement resulting from gentrification.
Government should control less, not more, and allow property owners to sell property in increments of their choosing, not of government's choosing.
I don't know what part of the nation you live in, but here in the Bay Area the houses in each new development are not more than a couple feet apart. The majority of new developments are actually multi story condo complexes, which require very little actual land compared to total units.
Anyways, new developments like this are always going to be more expensive than bad neighborhoods because they are seen as desirable. The most affordable housing in major metropolitan areas are in these poor neighborhoods that are undesirable. 3.5% down (probably only a 2-3 thousand dollars) with a FHA loan people can afford to buy a house and reap all the benefits of gentrification, this is just not a priority to many. Instead people complain when someone else purchases property and rehabilitates run down neighborhoods.
Maybe people should work to buy a very low cost house in bad neighborhoods, then they would make all sorts of money when the neighborhood improves. All they need is a job and 3.5% down. Doesn't this sound like a better deal than just keeping the neighborhood crappy?
You are not understanding the fact that when a neighborhood improves and property value increases that those people who have low incomes who own their homes will have to pay a sh!tload more money in property taxes per year.
For instance, when we first bought our home our property was assessed at $250K erroneously and so our taxes for the year was $5500, which equates to roughly $458 a month. Luckily my husband and I made enough to cover that monthly portion of our mortgage (we pay taxes via escrow) until we got our home properly assessed to reflect the neighborhood and now we only pay $1200 a year, or $100 a month in property taxes.
Many of our residents are elderly and live on SS income of $1000 per month or less. If they have to pay such an outrageous amount for taxes on such a fixed income, they will lose their home. We would like to keep our seniors and disabled residents. They have been instrumental in helping to turn our neighborhood around. Luckily we have a good homestead exemption program here in Atlanta but if the value rises to much, even with the exemption, some households would not be able to afford more than a certain amount in taxes for their home.
When taxes go up, rental property owners will raise rents accordingly and this will price out many of our lower income families. I own income rental property so I am aware of how tight it can be at times to make sure that the rent covers any and all portions of a mortgage (if there is one) and especially taxes. Luckily the properties I own, I did what you suggested, purchased when prices were very low. We bought all of them within the past few years when the market tanked, wish I could have afforded more. But we still have to pay taxes on those properties and if the taxes increase substantially we will have to pass that increase onto our tenants.
In my neighborhood, rents are about $400-$600 a month for a an apartment and $600-$800 a month for a house, which is really cheap. If those properties get a drastic raise in tax assessments, those rents will go over $1000 and no I highly doubt many people living in those places now would be able to afford a $1000 or more rent. Only Section 8 tenants would be able to afford that because they are subsidized by the government and even though I work in the public housing/HCV (housing choice voucher) industry and do not hold any stereotypical view of those tenants, I still do not feel that neighborhoods should be completely full of those tenants and I certainly don't want my own neighborhood to become the Section 8 neighborhood.
For years now I have been saying that very low cost houses should be available. Generally the only way this can be made possible is to allow the sale of tiny properties which is currently not allowed.
Only to individuals. Developers do buy swaths of land and plop homes on zero lot lines with no problem.
Yet the prices are still sky high.
You are not understanding the fact that when a neighborhood improves and property value increases that those people who have low incomes who own their homes will have to pay a sh!tload more money in property taxes per year.
For instance, when we first bought our home our property was assessed at $250K erroneously and so our taxes for the year was $5500, which equates to roughly $458 a month. Luckily my husband and I made enough to cover that monthly portion of our mortgage (we pay taxes via escrow) until we got our home properly assessed to reflect the neighborhood and now we only pay $1200 a year, or $100 a month in property taxes.
Many of our residents are elderly and live on SS income of $1000 per month or less. If they have to pay such an outrageous amount for taxes on such a fixed income, they will lose their home. We would like to keep our seniors and disabled residents. They have been instrumental in helping to turn our neighborhood around. Luckily we have a good homestead exemption program here in Atlanta but if the value rises to much, even with the exemption, some households would not be able to afford more than a certain amount in taxes for their home.
When taxes go up, rental property owners will raise rents accordingly and this will price out many of our lower income families. I own income rental property so I am aware of how tight it can be at times to make sure that the rent covers any and all portions of a mortgage (if there is one) and especially taxes. Luckily the properties I own, I did what you suggested, purchased when prices were very low. We bought all of them within the past few years when the market tanked, wish I could have afforded more. But we still have to pay taxes on those properties and if the taxes increase substantially we will have to pass that increase onto our tenants.
In my neighborhood, rents are about $400-$600 a month for a an apartment and $600-$800 a month for a house, which is really cheap. If those properties get a drastic raise in tax assessments, those rents will go over $1000 and no I highly doubt many people living in those places now would be able to afford a $1000 or more rent. Only Section 8 tenants would be able to afford that because they are subsidized by the government and even though I work in the public housing/HCV (housing choice voucher) industry and do not hold any stereotypical view of those tenants, I still do not feel that neighborhoods should be completely full of those tenants and I certainly don't want my own neighborhood to become the Section 8 neighborhood.
If that happens that means the value of your house has drastically improved and you can either A. Sell and make a very nice profit in the range of 100k or more or B. (This is more for seniors) Reverse finance your home and be taken care of for the rest of your life and have money left over.
The only people gentrification is bad for is renters, and that is my whole point. People should be encouraged to be home owners, not renters. A white person is 30% more likely to own their own home than a black person. Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Householder | Infoplease.com
For years now I have been saying that very low cost houses should be available. Generally the only way this can be made possible is to allow the sale of tiny properties which is currently not allowed.
Generally, the only way........ is to buy property of any size, the majority of people don't want to own.
I don't know what part of the nation you live in, but here in the Bay Area the houses in each new development are not more than a couple feet apart. The majority of new developments are actually multi story condo complexes, which require very little actual land compared to total units.
Anyways, new developments like this are always going to be more expensive than bad neighborhoods because they are seen as desirable. The most affordable housing in major metropolitan areas are in these poor neighborhoods that are undesirable. 3.5% down (probably only a 2-3 thousand dollars) with a FHA loan people can afford to buy a house and reap all the benefits of gentrification, this is just not a priority to many. Instead people complain when someone else purchases property and rehabilitates run down neighborhoods.
Yes I am familiar with the houses you describe, I stayed in one when I was visiting in San Jose.
But I'm not aware of similar houses anywhere in this country outside the Bay Area.
WTF use is an FHA mortgage to a poor person who cannot get a mortgage?
You bet I am going to complain, since I can't get a mortgage and therefore gentrification only screws me.
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.
