3.1% Apartment Vacancy Rate - among lowest in nation (Portland: rent, townhouse)

[classicanne]

Well, yes and no; I have a small 9-year-old Chihuahua, and I work at home, so he's not left alone during the day. He is well behaved and I'll get a good reference from where I'm living now. Yes, I realize I'd have more opportunities without a dog, but that's not an option. It always amazes me that cats are allowed in many apartments but not dogs. In my experience, cats make far more mess and do far more damage. But I'll find a place for me and my little dog.

[Minervah]

I think one problem landlords may have with dogs is that some bark a lot and neighbors complain while cats are quiet. But as a cat owner I can tell you that things have been getting more and more tight for us too.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

From what I can see, the impediment is going to be the dog. That severely limits the options.

That it does, I have a dog and it took some serious hunting on my part to find my old place, then I stayed there about 8 years. I always thought it was odd that it is hard to find a place that accepts dogs in such a dog friendly city.

[oldtintype]

If you can afford high rents finding a place with a dog isn't that hard as most of the higher end buildings are dog friendly. It's the lower priced units where it's tough. I think the fact that almost everyone seems to have a dog in the Pearl's micro studios is due to that--they're obviously very small but they accept dogs and run $800-1000. You can definitely find larger studios for less but not that close in and not as easily with a dog. I noticed there seem to be a lot of big dogs there especially and of course finding places that accept big dogs is the hardest. I would personally hate to live in one but see the draw if you have a large dog. I also think units that are dog friendly have renters who stay longer--there is no shortage of dogs here in my NW neighborhood (among mostly apartment dwellers), so on one hand there are a lot of units that accept dogs, but not a lot of openings for these units...people just aren't leaving them.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by oldtintype

That's happening now! One way I've seen people get around it too is to leave one wall of an existing structure and then do whatever they want with the rebuild. I think it can count as a remodel that way?

I once did a "remodel" that preserved a 3' x 3' section of the living room floor. Everything else was new.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Minervah

The story I saw on the news awhile back showed areas in which it was not easy to get to a grocery store. They didn't mention Freddy's so I would think that it is not centrally located for everyone to get to. Also many of the people living in the neighborhoods have to deal with a lack of sidewalks and dangerous street crossings with no traffic lights so it's a difficult journey especially for those in wheelchairs and walkers. There are a lot of that type of residents because they can find inexpensive housing in that area.

Those neighborhoods are legacies of the era before land use planning, when developers could leave out amenities like sidewalks, street lights, and even fire hydrants, or build right up to the front property line because they buyer wanted a big back yard.

Originally Posted by Minervah

I have mixed feelings about upgrading neighborhoods. These certainly need upgrading but too much upgrading or the people already in the neighborhoods will have to move because they can no longer afford to live there. Like my neighborhood. But those folks are at the end of the line. Where do they go from where they are if that happens?

Yes, a retrofit of sidewalks and curbs, street lighting, hydrants and even new water mains would be impossible for many people to afford. That's why those areas don't have them. Plus, people have used the Right of Way as their front yard for decades, and many people don't realize they don't own all the way to the pavement. One street upgrade project I saw actually tore down people's front porches because they didn't own the property they were sitting on. A wheelchair bound person could get their sidewalk, only to discover they had to sacrifice the handicapped ramp that let them go in and out of their house. Avoiding disasters like that is the real argument for inflexible development standards.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

The basic issue about affordable housing, not only on Portland, but in many places, is that it costs a lot of money to build.

Not only the land and building, but fees, engineering, environmental studies, systems development fees, permits, cost of sidewalks and upgrading the sewer, and on and on.

No one can build a new apartment building where the mortgage payment on a unit is $1000 and then turn around and rent it out for $350 a month just to help out the low income people who need a place to live.

On most of my rentals, close to $200 a month goes just to pay the property taxes on it and another $60 a month just for the sewer connection.. Sorry, but I can not rent it out for the $250 that the low wage earner can afford.

My local government is always on the TV whining about how the area really needs more affordable housing, and yet they are charging $30,000 in systems development fees for just a single family dwelling. Kiss affordable housing goodbye when the local government sees real estate as their bottomless cash cow and a source of all the money they want.

[Minervah]

My neighborhood didn't need upgrading in the sense that any retrofitting like those you mentioned. These were already in place for decades and worked just fine. I was thinking about upgrading there as far as new people buying up apartment buildings and raising rent so that people had to move. A different story. While some of the buildings needed some fixing up, not that they were always made, the neighborhood "amenities" did not. Sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants were all there.

As far as retrofits, I can see what you are saying regarding upgrading in that sense but does that apply everywhere? In the neighborhood where the little five year old girl Morgan Maynard-Cook was struck by a car and killed trying to cross 136th st. where there was no sidewalk but people know there was a dangerous problem for years. Mayor Hale promised a sidewalk but rescinded the promise before the little girl was killed. The sidewalk apparently was doable but city hall decided to put its money elsewhere.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

The basic issue about affordable housing, not only on Portland, but in many places, is that it costs a lot of money to build.

Not only the land and building, but fees, engineering, environmental studies, systems development fees, permits, cost of sidewalks and upgrading the sewer, and on and on.

No one can build a new apartment building where the mortgage payment on a unit is $1000 and then turn around and rent it out for $350 a month just to help out the low income people who need a place to live.

On most of my rentals, close to $200 a month goes just to pay the property taxes on it and another $60 a month just for the sewer connection.. Sorry, but I can not rent it out for the $250 that the low wage earner can afford.

My local government is always on the TV whining about how the area really needs more affordable housing, and yet they are charging $30,000 in systems development fees for just a single family dwelling. Kiss affordable housing goodbye when the local government sees real estate as their bottomless cash cow and a source of all the money they want.

Affordable housing can only really be done when high priced units are used to offset the losses in the affordable housing units.

[oldtintype]

Or when they're tax credit buildings.