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 think you mean the new "micro" studio buildings.....well I believe the developers got permission to build these things by playing "humanitarian" and saying they were doing more to provide affordable housing.....but it is all just a smokescreen because they are effectively raising the rate *per square foot* by renting these micros....which all sets the stage for eventually getting more per square foot for all the other apts as well. So in reality it is not helping anything but their bank accounts. As long as other major cities price people out of their markets, people will be looking for alternative urban areas to migrate to......and let's face it, the show Portlandia probably had something to do with the increased popularity. Demand is all tied into population density. The issue of population control I won't expound on because that would likely be viewed as politically incorrect.
Back to the discussion about desirable places costing more....let's look at say Detroit. One can buy a house there for under 10 K I hear, maybe even less. Any takers? Anyone? Anyone???? No?, OK, so that is my point. People won't take an extremely bad place to live even when it is nearly free.
I moved to a median income apartment building in the Pearl for that very reason. Rents can only go up a small amount based on financing rules. As a grad student with kids I was able to qualify $ wise, bonus is once you're in you're in, regardless of increase in income. Having lived most of my life in a city with rent control, and seeing what a difference that makes--i.e. in San Francisco I had roommates and we lived in a five bedroom flat in Alamo Square (bad neighborhood when we moved in) that we paid $1300 for. Fast forward a few years during the dot com hysteria and Alamo Square becoming a hip area, our neighbors were paying over $4000 for the same unit. Due to rent control our rent had only gone up about $50. Having no rent control in Portland scares me so I found a really nice "workforce" housing building and grabbed a unit. My old apartment in NE went up at least $40 every single year and of course no way to prevent any increase they wanted to slap on me. Here at least I know it can't go up very much each year, even though it goes up some.
And this is the typical "I got mine" attitude of people who support rent control. Another poster in this thread lamented that tenants did not have more rights in Oregon. The fact is that these laws do have an impact on rent, and they are generally to restrict supply and increase rent prices as landlords have to increase rents for new tenants to make sure that renting makes economic sense for them. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/op...eah-right.html for what strong tenant protection laws have done to San Francisco. Despite rent being sky high, landlords are simply choosing not to rent because it takes tens of thousands of dollars and many months to evict someone.
And this is the typical "I got mine" attitude of people who support rent control. Another poster in this thread lamented that tenants did not have more rights in Oregon. The fact is that these laws do have an impact on rent, and they are generally to restrict supply and increase rent prices as landlords have to increase rents for new tenants to make sure that renting makes economic sense for them. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/op...eah-right.html for what strong tenant protection laws have done to San Francisco. Despite rent being sky high, landlords are simply choosing not to rent because it takes tens of thousands of dollars and many months to evict someone.
A great example to their being a good and a bad side for almost everything.
And this is the typical "I got mine" attitude of people who support rent control. Another poster in this thread lamented that tenants did not have more rights in Oregon. The fact is that these laws do have an impact on rent, and they are generally to restrict supply and increase rent prices as landlords have to increase rents for new tenants to make sure that renting makes economic sense for them. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/op...eah-right.html for what strong tenant protection laws have done to San Francisco. Despite rent being sky high, landlords are simply choosing not to rent because it takes tens of thousands of dollars and many months to evict someone.
Actually it's not a "I got mine" attitude, it's a way to deal with the fact that landlords can raise the rent to whatever rate they want at the drop of a hat. There are cases where it's taken advantage of but if cities want to remain healthy they need to have people who work in the city live in the city. San Francisco has become a playground for the wealthy even with rent control. Without it it would be a disaster. Perhaps there's an argument for increasing the amount rent can be raised each year, but to do away with it would be a disaster. How many average people can afford $2300 for a studio?
The people in your article weren't really what I'd call landlords--they owned one property, lived there and had an in-law unit--I agree that current laws can be difficult for that kind of landlord. But when you own hundreds of properties the way than many in SF do, it's different.
And SF landlords have been claiming they couldn't afford to rent long before things got to the way there are now. They also take advantage of things like the Ellis Act, owner move-ins, etc. It goes both ways. My neighbor's landlord kicked out a tenant paying $1000 for a two bedroom and did the obligatory move in (i.e. pretend to live there) for the minimum amount of time (supposedly three years but many a landlord has a new tenant within a year, just like he did), and then rented it for $4200. He'd owned the building since the 1970s and it was paid off. He owned multiple buildings. Wasn't a case of couldn't afford to rent, it was a case of how much can I make.
I had great landlords in SF but I knew many people who experienced otherwise. Rent control isn't perfect but when rents get that high and housing that scarce things get out of hand quickly without it. I don't think SF can be compared to here exactly the same way anyway, because Portland still has lots of room to build with urban fill in, etc. San Francisco has no more land to build on. It's almost impossible to increase the number of units.
Last edited by oldtintype; 06-14-2013 at 03:32 PM..
Damage from Katrina itself was minimal. The damage from Katrina was due to the city being below sea level and getting flooded out due to broken dikes. The buildings still would have been torn down despite whatever code they were built too.
At the moment, I've managed to find something I can afford in a location I can justify, but what I'm worried about is further increases. As the OP mentioned, I know my payrate won't keep up with another round of increases like we've seen in the last 2-3 years. I consider myself lucky to have been able to survive so far, but I'm not sure what I'll do if it continues.
You should see the handwriting on the wall. Buy a house and lock in your housing costs at current rates, with the added advantage that if you actually pay for the place your housing costs will drop. Of course, Portland property taxes are outrageous, but you are paying those taxes in your rent anyway, without the tax deduction.
You should see the handwriting on the wall. Buy a house and lock in your housing costs at current rates, with the added advantage that if you actually pay for the place your housing costs will drop. Of course, Portland property taxes are outrageous, but you are paying those taxes in your rent anyway, without the tax deduction.
Well said Larry. I was certainly thinking it.
I bought a home here in Houston mainly because it made no sense to pay more to rent than to own. I get the standard deductions now as well.
The reason I originally bought in Portland was to make sure I knew my costs and that I had some control over them. I was evicted because my landlord was supposed to be living in the home I was renting. He ending up having to sell it. I found a place and bought it (I was saving for that). Paid more than rent at the time. A few years down the road I was paying half of what a lot of people were paying for rent.
Yes, I know not everyone wants to or has the cash to buy. But do the math.
You should see the handwriting on the wall. Buy a house and lock in your housing costs at current rates, with the added advantage that if you actually pay for the place your housing costs will drop. Of course, Portland property taxes are outrageous, but you are paying those taxes in your rent anyway, without the tax deduction.
I actually have thought about that. I have the credit rating and enough for a reasonable down payment. Chronic job insecurity keeps me from pulling the trigger though. I've been working as a temp for 3 of the last 4 years, and my industry in general is known for booms and busts. No way I'm getting saddled with a mortgage under those circumstances. Moreover, the way business is run these days, you pretty much need to be able to go where the jobs are, wherever that might be. Any pretense of long-term job stability has been thrown out this past decade.
Also, don't forget lack of rent control and tenant protection laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprightly
Thank you all for your replies. Most of all I agree with Turquoise that there needs to be more tenant protection laws and some limit to how much a landlord can raise rent at one time. There are laws like these in other states.
Supply and demand is all very well, but I'm just surprised that since the economy is still depressed that rents have risen so dramatically. I mean really are there that many people coming in with extremely well paying jobs at Nike and Intel to support that many overpriced rental complexes? Places that are nothing special and used to charge $500-ish for a one bedroom only five years ago and now are charging 900+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtintype
Actually it's not a "I got mine" attitude, it's a way to deal with the fact that landlords can raise the rent to whatever rate they want at the drop of a hat. There are cases where it's taken advantage of but if cities want to remain healthy they need to have people who work in the city live in the city. San Francisco has become a playground for the wealthy even with rent control. Without it it would be a disaster. Perhaps there's an argument for increasing the amount rent can be raised each year, but to do away with it would be a disaster. How many average people can afford $2300 for a studio?
The people in your article weren't really what I'd call landlords--they owned one property, lived there and had an in-law unit--I agree that current laws can be difficult for that kind of landlord. But when you own hundreds of properties the way than many in SF do, it's different.
And SF landlords have been claiming they couldn't afford to rent long before things got to the way there are now. They also take advantage of things like the Ellis Act, owner move-ins, etc. It goes both ways. My neighbor's landlord kicked out a tenant paying $1000 for a two bedroom and did the obligatory move in (i.e. pretend to live there) for the minimum amount of time (supposedly three years but many a landlord has a new tenant within a year, just like he did), and then rented it for $4200. He'd owned the building since the 1970s and it was paid off. He owned multiple buildings. Wasn't a case of couldn't afford to rent, it was a case of how much can I make.
I had great landlords in SF but I knew many people who experienced otherwise. Rent control isn't perfect but when rents get that high and housing that scarce things get out of hand quickly without it. I don't think SF can be compared to here exactly the same way anyway, because Portland still has lots of room to build with urban fill in, etc. San Francisco has no more land to build on. It's almost impossible to increase the number of units.
So if rent prices increased and people couldn't afford it, it would be a disaster? Would it not be a disaster for the landlord as well? If nobody could afford it or willingly to pay it, the property wouldn't be rented out, would it? Then prices would naturally fall to level the market could bare. I'm not a expert but that seems like common sense to me. Does it not?
As for the second part in bold
Quote:
He'd owned the building since the 1970s and it was paid off. He owned multiple buildings. Wasn't a case of couldn't afford to rent, it was a case of how much can I make.
He paid it off a long time ago so he is just greedy, that is basically what you are stating. It's easy to target those who you beleive have more than you but often times you completely misunderstand or have zero knowledge of what it took to achieve what they have.
Let me tell you something. My family sacrificed a great deal, worked extremely hard to pay off a couple of properties in the seventies. My parents went without for the future of their children and grandchildren.
In the seventies they often couldn't pay for electricity or had the water turned off. We dumpster dived for food and struggled to survive some years. They came from nothing. My parents mentality, if you wanted a better life you needed to work hard and sacrifice if you wanted something better. They bought land and built every square inch of our homes. While other kids had nicer clothes and their parents drove their entire net worth down the street they were focused on the future. As our lives improved they were in a position to buy more property.
That's a extremely short snapshot of 50 years of hard work of a old man and woman that paid off their properties in the 70's. I know what it is like to struggle but really it is easy to peg landlords as uncaring rich people when you absolutely no nothing of what it took for them to own their property. Their property is the key words. You can talk about big corporations and pretend all you want but it really does come down to those that resent those that do "have".
The simple fact is if I have property, It's my property! If I agree to let you spend some time on my property, we sign a lease, and contract that gives you permission to use my property for a set price for a set amount of time. It's pretty simple isn't it? If you don't like my terms, don't agree to use my property! Go somewhere else. Buy your own property and do what you will with it.
Instead - Let's us tell you what to do with your property.
No, No we can't have that. I think it is unfair. I mean this person has something that is theirs, they paid for it, hmm, they may have worked all their lives for it but probably don't deserve it, but, but, I want to use their property for a lower price. I know, I know! I'll get someone in authority to tell them they can't charge what they want! They really are just greedy. I mean they paid for the property already they don't have any other bills, obligation, heath costs, insurance or anything else that is going up in prices. They just want to stick bigger wads of cash in their pockets. And really, golly gee, it just isn't fair that I haven't done anything to buy a home or property, I just want to tell others that may have that darn it, I'm just entitled to more.
Yeah, I know this going to go over well in the Portland forum. I'll stop while I'm behind.
Hey homeless advocate, Yes, 10,000 for property is practically free. It was ten, fifteen, twenty years ago too. In the seventies the properties my family purchased were 30-40 thousand each. Today they are all over a million. But we didn't earn that. Somebody should tells us what do with it, what to chage because free people shouldn't be allowed to draw up contracts and negotiate terms on their own.
Your ignorance is showing. State law mandates a 20 year inventory of buildable land within the UGB. Land use planning has minimal effect on the price of housing, though it does put a leash on the fly-by-night developers who were fond of putting a suburb in a swamp in other states.
Building codes have a much bigger influence on building costs. The trade-off is cheaper long term utility and maintenance costs, plus a big durability boost. States with no building codes have cheaper housing, at a cost. Louisiana had no building code until Katrina blew away thousands of houses that would have stood just fine if built to modern codes. It didn't take them long to adopt a building code after they added up the cost of going barefoot.
actually the inability of the average acreage holder to build a second house next to theirs, for the next generation or as a rental, for instance,is a problem in oregon. since that is how communities naturally evolve over time, with extended family using the assets of parents and grandparents for cheap housing expansion. etc there are any number of other scenarios where the land use restrictions need to be eased so that the average person can at least have a modicum of value from their acreage and allow people to have a good place to live that's affordable. without the developers taking huge tracts of land out of farm production. etc............ yes the current restrictions make a big difference. when it really could be finessed to keep the farmland AND let people use their own land for small development one unit at a time, once per decade or whatever. that could give people needed income and other people, needed housing in a decent environment. Many people would love to become rural dwellers or small farmers rather than urban farmers or renters... but the rural housing is not allowed .
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.
