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 am 100% against affordable housing in high income areas. Even if you promised only the best of the best of the tenants would be placed in it. People work their rear end off to be able to afford an area and a complex - it is entirely unfair to reward those who have not earned it with the amenities and luxuries that someone who has worked harder or smarter can not get at the same price. It is anti-capitalism and I would not buy a house next to one of these complexes.
It makes no sense. Put affordable housing among other affordable houses. Get the most bang for your buck. Do not bring the nice areas down to the affordable housing levels. It is never just about money though, cultures, morals, ethics, work habits - these things are very different among various groups with various income levels - mixing them does not produce good results...for every one that you lift up through these programs, you drag 2 or 3 down a little bit. If you do it perpetually, you will eventually even everyone out - but that average will be well below what it is now.
I understand your premise on this but I don't think it is totally accurate. Oregon does not have mandates for affordable housing to be mixed in, but it happens anyway because of our Urban Growth Boundaries. It doesn't impact resale since the whole state is this way. Oregonians are also, generally speaking, less flashy with their wealth. For example, we have 46, 422 single family homes in Salem. 1,427 (3.1%) are larger than 3500 sq feet, and 72 (0.2%) are more than 6,000 sq feet. People from other states where wealth is more segregated comment all the time about how our cities are more "block by block" in terms of nice homes. It isn't quite block by block, but we do have upscale subdivisions that back to mobile home parks. It doesn't impact the value of the homes, except the ones that view it from their backyard (if they haven't grown privacy plants yet), but that is true for busy streets, etc.
It doesn't have to drag anything down, but it does require a different way of thinking about homes and our land. We do have a couple of exclusive neighborhoods that don't have any affordable housing near them, but they are the exception.
Oregon's ban on blanket "No section 8" policies will start July of 2014. Landlords can turn down renters for other reasons, but won't be allowed to turn them down because they are paying via section 8.
ok, a lot going on here. i understand each state and each type of housing is different, so let me clarify, not sure if i've done so already. affordable housing (in NJ) is different from subsidized housing and low income housing. most towns now demand that any new condo, rental, or town home community have a % of the development be affordable housing. They will not allow a builder to build if he cannot agree to create some kind of affordable option. each town, especially the wealthy towns, have been putting it off for years and they can no longer do so. in my area affordable housing means you pay a % of regular rent, with no help from the gov't . you usually have to earn a certain amount less than average mean of the town. in this situation it is 20%. so the regular rent for a one bedroom luxury rental is $1700 per month, a 2 bedroom is $2,000 + per month (as high as $2,275). you are restricted to the amount of people living in the unit. and you must go thru an astringent application process. so based on this model, there are 250 units going up, 50 are designated affordable with rents about $1,000 per month for a 1 bedroom. you have to be approved. if this was a town home you have to apply for a mortgage, you are restricted in how many people live in the unit, and when you sell you have to go thru the state agency to do it so that you adhere to the criteria of affordable housing selection. the units in the town home community are not the same as the people buying a regular full price town home. in both cases, rental and purchase, these are supposed to appeal to young professionals, that do not have that kind of income, and are not ready to buy a home, some of these dwellers are blue collar workers, teachers, police etc. they have to have steady income, and good credit.
there are so many great responses here and i can see the many points, but the bottom line is people need to know the difference in their town between low income, subsidized housing, and affordable housing. I agree it is best to see a finished community and it's impact and appearance. but on the other hand this is a well to do suburb, i don't think people from the inner cities are waiting on line to pay $1000 + per month rent were a 2 bedroom only allows 2 people to live there. i also agree that it is unfair to have some people work really hard and pay a lot of money for their residence while other people get a handout and are not motivated, but i don't think this is that situation. i also believe this affects a town as a whole, not just the block that it is built on.
in wa state (seattle atleast) builders can provide a few affordable housing units (20%) in exchange for significantly reduced taxes for 10 years on the value of the property. You can make up to $80,000 (a family of four) and still qualify; the max rent on a two bedroom is around $1700 while the market rent isn't even that much higher (maybe 3-400 bucks). Anyone who tells me these families don't work hard to afford this rent is crazy.
in wa state (seattle atleast) builders can provide a few affordable housing units (20%) in exchange for significantly reduced taxes for 10 years on the value of the property. You can make up to $80,000 (a family of four) and still qualify; the max rent on a two bedroom is around $1700 while the market rent isn't even that much higher (maybe 3-400 bucks). Anyone who tells me these families don't work hard to afford this rent is crazy.
They need to change the term 'affordable housing'...when you say affordable housing down here, you're talking about section 8, low income, and public housing.
blueberrie, that is EXACTLY the situation. the builders now have to provide a % of new units as affordable or they cannot build . in order to make this lucrative for the builder there is incentive which in this case is PILOT (pymt in lieu of taxes) exactly as you stated. the criteria is the same the rent is lower but not much. i had a niece who applied in a different town and it was $1100 for a one bedroom, she said "that's not affordable"
KiminFL, they probably do have different terminology, you're just not aware nor care about it because it is NIYBY! we also have low income and section 8 both are for people with really little to NO Income, and is subsidized by the govt or state program meaning a portion of the rent is paid by someone else. section 8 or low income are usually rental properties in projects or buildings. affordable housing is condos or town homes. in the case of town homes, people actually purchase with their own money and obtain a mortgage on their own credentials.
KiminFL, they probably do have different terminology, you're just not aware nor care about it because it is NIYBY! we also have low income and section 8 both are for people with really little to NO Income, and is subsidized by the govt or state program meaning a portion of the rent is paid by someone else. section 8 or low income are usually rental properties in projects or buildings. affordable housing is condos or town homes. in the case of town homes, people actually purchase with their own money and obtain a mortgage on their own credentials.
Why are you telling me something I already know? I know what sec 8 is and I know what low income housing is as well. I also know that townhomes can be bought and or rented (either as a section 8 or regular tenant)
What I'm telling you is this: when you talk to people down here about 'affordable housing' you're talking about housing projects, section 8 homes, and low income complexes or neighborhoods..not middle class neighborhoods.
There's a big reason why the gov says they should mix low income housing in with middle class housing. It's because the people who get government benefits sometimes learn a great deal as to how to go about living in a better way, that is more successful and self-sufficient, when they have neighbors that already know how to do it. When people are only surrounded by other poor downtrodden or ignorant people, they don't have the opportunity to learn the smarter ways of people who have learned and mastered the American system of prosperity. There are many things that middle america knows, and take for granted, that the poor simply do not know. And the examples around them may help constrain them from falling into a life of economic degeneracy instead. Everyone needs to live amongst good examples, whether it's family or neighbors. The second generation especially, but maybe all, may conform more to the values of the surrounding "normal American" community rather than some inner city slum. There's also that advantageous factor of "who you know, not what you know" for things like job leads etc, that comes into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxie Girl
I'm generally opposed to programs that disincentivize personal advancement, which "affordable housing" clearly does. If someone with low skills (and thus low pay) can magically afford to live in a high-demand area thanks to govt subsidies and whatnot, then they now have no incentive to advance their career and financial situation via legitimate means; along the same idea, now their employers have no incentive to raise their pay or promote them because these people are now willing to live on their current wages because they are now living in the area they want to be in. So now the employer is basically getting to pay below-market wages for the worker because the worker is getting subsidized housing. Effectively, we are subsidizing the employer with tax money. Of course, govt programs never end up helping those they are intended to help.
I just read an article this weekend (by coincidence) about "affordable housing" being built here in Orange County CA. Some of these families were sharing apartments before (4 adults and about 5 or 6 kids in a 2 bedroom apartment), and now each family gets their own 2 bedroom apartment, paying about 60% of market rate. So the rest of us are all subsidizing these families who decided to have kids they couldn't afford to support, and live in a high-demand area that they can't legitimately afford to live in. If we stopped subsidizing these people's lives, they wouldn't be able to afford to live or work here, and employers would have to offer higher wages (and perhaps benefits), thus enabling workers to afford to live here based on their income, not a subsidy.
As far as living near "affordable housing," I generally would stay clear of it if there were other good housing options that were not as close to it. Sure, some of the families who live in affordable housing are good, but crime does tend to be higher in and around lower income communities, there's no getting around that.
We have a few tracts of "affordable housing" here in HB and they are actually quite nice, built right next to more expensive tracts, and you wouldn't know it was designated for "moderate-income" households by driving through. That said, by limiting the income of potential buyers, it creates a strange distortion in the market forces that can actually be counterproductive. The way it works here is these designated tracts have limits on household income. So, the tract I looked at had a household income limit of $85k. Yet, the selling prices were around $450k! I was floored by this, I figured if the houses in the tract were selling for $450k the limit must have been more like $140-$150k. So I asked the listing agent, how is anyone able to sell these houses for so much (which is honestly close to market value if there were no income limits) with these limits in place. The listing agent told me the typical buyer is a young person or young couple, just starting out and not making much, but their parents are gifting them like $200-$300k to put a bunch of money down and make the payments affordable. Hardly the demographic the law was intended for.
Like most. A good idea...but will not admit.....NIMBY
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 know what sec 8 is and I know what low income housing is as well. I also know that townhomes can be bought and or rented (either as a section 8 or regular tenant) 
