Have Portland Rental Prices Gone Up???! Think Its Time To Go! (condos, houses)

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by freemkt

I was in San Jose several years ago and discovered the innovative adaptation of building a second house in the back yard to rent out. Haven't seen that in Portland, probably needs a zoning change to do that.

It's been done in Portland, I know people who rent places like that.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by freemkt

The poor literally get to live in the worn out, cast-off "functionally obsolete" housing that others don't want because it lacks the modern amenities Americans ave come to expect.

What modern amenties are those? Plenty of homes in central Portland going for $400,000 plus to professionals are old 1910 Craftsmans that lack many sorts of modern amenities... Most of the places I've lived in Portland were built about 1900 to 1920 and was basically lucky to even have heat. A couple just had a fireplace.

So amenities like what? A dishwasher? I haven't lived in a house with a dishwasher since I was in high school. Air conditioning? Never had it either--nor is it needed that often in Portland...

You pay for location more than anything in a lot of urban areas.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Again, only a small minority of "the poor" actually get to live in that housing; half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income on housing according to Mortgage News Daily. Demand for low-income housing subsidies far exceeds supply. The poor literally get to live in the worn out, cast-off "functionally obsolete" housing that others don't want because it lacks the modern amenities Americans ave come to expect.

Low income housing either comes from the city through public housing or through zoning laws that require developments to have a percentage of low income housing to get certain perks.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Low income housing either comes from the city through public housing or through zoning laws that require developments to have a percentage of low income housing to get certain perks.

.
BZZT! So-called inclusionary zoning is prohibited under Oregon law. FAIL.

When liberals try to do something locally that conservatives don't like, conservatives run to the Legislature to prohibit local governments from doing it. As much as some in Portland would like a higher local minimum wage, citiies do not have authority to do that.

Both sides play the class warfare game when they can.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

.
BZZT! So-called inclusionary zoning is prohibited under Oregon law. FAIL.

When liberals try to do something locally that conservatives don't like, conservatives run to the Legislature to prohibit local governments from doing it. As much as some in Portland would like a higher local minimum wage, citiies do not have authority to do that.

Both sides play the class warfare game when they can.

Okay, well then you found your problem, you should petition that.

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? Again, only a small minority of "the poor" actually get to live in that housing; half of all low-income renters spend at least half their income on housing according to Mortgage News Daily. Demand for low-income housing subsidies far exceeds supply. The poor literally get to live in the worn out, cast-off "functionally obsolete" housing that others don't want because it lacks the modern amenities Americans ave come to expect.

So?

Those who have had some amount of success can only afford to subsidize so much at the bottom, and there's quite a lot of subsidizing going on already. There are neighborhoods that I could afford to live in only if I quit my job and slashed my income so that I could qualify for subsidized housing.

So you have to live in older housing. So what? You're not actually entitled to granite countertops and a W/D in unit at someone else's expense.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by Deezus

It's been done in Portland, I know people who rent places like that.

As do I - though they tend to be very small units.

It's viable, though to do it legally requires permits and building to code, etc. And it will almost certainly lead to a reassessment of your property. Likewise, a lot of existing lots are fairly small, and will be limited in what they can build.

Reassessment is significant if you're a longer time owner since you wouldn't just be paying for the value of the new space, but also the proper re-evaluation of the existing space which had been capped by Measure 50. So you'd really have to run the numbers to see if it would still be revenue positive after all that, and think about the impact on resale value. Some will be attracted to the revenue if the space is done well, but it may deter other buyers who want a yard/garden/etc.

I've heard internet rumors that in L.A. it's increasingly common for owners to convert garages and patios to rental space entirely under the table.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by bler144

I've heard internet rumors that in L.A. it's increasingly common for owners to convert garages and patios to rental space entirely under the table.

That's common in the Bay Area too. I knew a guy with rented his garage out as a separate unit, while renting out every room in his house as well--and then lived in a RV in his driveway--all to pay off a mortgage.

[topaz420]

Originally Posted by bler144

I've heard internet rumors that in L.A. it's increasingly common for owners to convert garages and patios to rental space entirely under the table.

It's become almost mandatory for suburban L.A. homes that want to be cash-positive.

The part I don't understand is, homes can be openly placed on the market with unpermited garage conversions, and the city doesn't step in during (or after) the real estate transaction.

The only time you can get burned is if you have an inspector come on your property for some other upgrade, it's at their discretion to bust you. (Most still don't)

[bler144]

Originally Posted by topaz420

The part I don't understand is, homes can be openly placed on the market with unpermited garage conversions, and the city doesn't step in during (or after) the real estate transaction.

Interesting question. I'd wager that the city views it largely as a pro/con situation. The real impact would seem to be on the state coffers since it allows owners to skirt a Prop 13 reassessment.

While it has downsides for the city (building may not be up to code, parking congestion on local streets, etc.) local politicians probably see it beating the alternative of squeezing out long-term residents who might see skyrocketing prop. tax bills, higher numbers of homeless, etc.