Your thoughts on mixed income housing (public housing with the wealthy in one building) (2015, condominium)
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.
There was a study in Princeton NJ based on a real-life development which turned out to be a failure. Anyway, the conclusion was that the low-income can only be 15% of the units in order to work in a positive way. In other words, once you go over 15%, the problems that come along with poverty reach a critical mass.
There is a lot of difference between "low income" housing and public housing, as is stated in the title.
I had a federal job with middle class income in a high cost of living area. There was a new development with some low income units. I would have had to make twice my salary to qualify for a loan for one of the Iow income units. "Low income" can vary a lot by location.
I would think that a federal employee with security clearance wouldn't be a problem in a nice area.
Public housing, however, is a completely different issue. That's government paying housing for low income and low income persons can come with a lot of issues. Go look at any government low income housing and the tenants are tearing it up. Their kids are out of control. There is grafitti, dirt, and lots of boyfriends and other relatives snuck in to live for free.
The government won't allow cherry picking to get the few decent people out because that is discrimination. Dont firget, the government has decided it is discrimination to refuse to rent to felons. So felons will be eligible for that subsidized housing in the nice expensive building.
There was a study in Princeton NJ based on a real-life development which turned out to be a failure. Anyway, the conclusion was that the low-income can only be 15% of the units in order to work in a positive way. In other words, once you go over 15%, the problems that come along with poverty reach a critical mass.
This,
it actually works a bit in Philly. I'm a city gal, sorry I've done surburbia life. no sidewalks, have to drive 5 miles just to get a gallon of milk. no "neighborhoods" just row after row of cookie cutter sfh that all look like stepford wives?? thanks but no thanks.
Now low income does not have to mean ghetto. developers in Philly are required to designate some % of their units for what they call "affordable housing". If you are a small real estate investor it can bring tax advantages to having a % of your units as "affordable, low income".
my neighborhood is economically mixed, yes you could have a doctor in one house and some one on subsides housing in another. like someone else mentioned it's not the money it's the mentality. most of the places near me have HOA's that screen and handle tenant concerns. so even in the low income units, is someone working, is the place maintained well, are the tenants respectful.
Personally I've never in my life asked someone how much they paid for their apartment /townhome and I no one has ever asked me. I could care less who pays what until they ask me for some money or start tearing the place up.
I speak as someone that was an investment real estate broker, from 1972 till I finally retired. I was for 3 years the president of a county wide rental owners and managers association, so I have had experience in rental properties.
People segregate themselves when they buy or rent property. They want to fit in with the neighborhood, and at the same time want to feel proud of their neighborhood. The more money they have, the more true this is.
There is nothing wrong with section 8 rentals, if you are very selective of who you rent to. The families on section 8 housing, are always afraid they will lose their subsidy and could become homeless, except the absolute lowest quality of renters. They will live by the standards of the neighborhood. But the ghetto dwellers, who live there by choice are another story, and if you are a good manager you will not rent to them.
Trying to get wealthy to rent or buy in a mixed neighborhood or condo development is not going to happen. They are going to live around other wealthy people, period. Middle class, are going to live with others in the middle class. The ghetto dwellers, are going to live there because they do not have enough money to move up.
Build a complex, where you want 20% wealthy, 60% middle of the road income wise, and 20% low income from the other side of the tracks as they say, and you are going to have a huge number of vacant units, and you will have a very much money losing complex. To attract wealthy and middle income, you are going to have to cut the rent below what it costs to operate the building and pay the mortgage. Or if a condo complex, you will have to sell the units below cost to build to get people to move into them.
People seek to move up in life, buying bigger and better homes, buying new cars, instead of cheap used cars, etc., etc., etc. The idea of moving downwards in life with those mixed units this thread is about, is against all human nature. People move into the best neighborhood they can afford, not moving down into what will be known around town as the loser neighborhood that these mixed units portray.
There is a lot of difference between "low income" housing and public housing, as is stated in the title.
Public housing, however, is a completely different issue. That's government paying housing for low income and low income persons can come with a lot of issues. Go look at any government low income housing and the tenants are tearing it up. Their kids are out of control. There is grafitti, dirt, and lots of boyfriends and other relatives snuck in to live for free.
trying to stay away from being too political, but isn't it these behaviors that we should working hard to change (whether it's 20% of the residents or 80%), not trying to conjure up ways to provide more housing for those who find themselves in need of public housing?
Do you think my suggestion - especially if you allowed the "civil servants" to occupy a significant % of the space - would help ameliorate the problem?
All you have to do is look at classrooms to see what will happen. The theory -- the top students will be role models and motivate/pull the others up. The reality -- class is taught to the lowest common dominator so the top and middle students get pulled down.
My mother lived a nice rented townhouse which was fairly expensive. One day a woman moved in next door. The woman didn't appear to work and told my mother her rent was subsidized. A short while later a man moves in and then a couple of teenagers started showing up as well. Music is played into the night and a neighbors car is stolen.
My mother lasted 6 months before moving.
It can bring down a good neighborhood fast!
Most (not all) people who have subsidized housing are not trying to better their situations. This is a life they were probably raised up in and has been so for generations. Personally, I feel there should be a limit on how long you can receive subsidized housing. When I was a kid my mother raised me and my brother in an apartment with no help from the government. She was a single mother that did not receive child support and with a high school education. She was a waitress and busted her butt everyday so we could have a roof over our head and food on the table. One day a new lady with 2 kids moved in next to us. My mom found it odd that she was always home so one day she asked her "So where do you work", she said she didn't work. My mom asked her how do you pay for your bills? She said the government pays for them! She said she paid next to nothing for rent and received food stamps. Had been doing it for as long as she can remember. And here was my mom, paying full rent and not taking one cent for a hand out!
There needs to be a time limit set and you should have to prove you are looking for work or taking classes to get a higher skilled job. It ridiculous that people sit on these programs their entire lives and their children learn the same behavior. Don't get me wrong, if you honestly need the assistance I'm glad it's there, but there should be a time limit!
Cities such as Toronto, New York, Chicago, Tampa, etc. have been developing mixed income residences (such as condos) in recent years.
The goal is reduce the crime, gang activity, and other negative outcomes typically associated with project housing. Mixed income housing is said to enable low income people the opportunity to live in a safe, clean, and positive environment that they otherwise wouldn't have.
By mixing in the wealthy (some areas are starting to include middle wage earners) the HOAs and taxes help keep the area thriving with restaurants, nice amenities, and positive foot traffic.
So what are your thoughts of this arrangement?
By the way, I have no problems with many people who live in project housing. Most are appreciative of a home. However, there can be some bad apples mostly due to lots of free time (unemployment) and low levels of values in keeping the property nice as no money was invested in it.
How does it affect re-sale value?
What are the incentives for the wealthy to live in mixed income housing?
Just some of my thoughts. Just an interesting concept I have a lot of questions about.
This is just a twist on the Hope VI rental program that has been in place for years. The thought that home ownership vice renting would have lessor income folks utilizing more personal responsibility and good stewardship may possibly have some merit, but I have not heard of it working out well. SFH in neighborhoods with some room between the occupants may do better. But if one is actually trying to sell these places, how do you convince the wealthy to buy in? You would need to drop the price, or find some idealists that want to buy in.
I lived in a mixed income rental apt complex in the early 90's in Virginia Beach. I moved in without a thought to socio-economic status, but simply wanted something in my income bracket, with a good commute to work, and access to shopping and such. Seven buildings total, four were subsidized, three (one of which where I lived) where not. I recall standing in the managers office to pay rent once, and a tenant from one of the subsidized units was in there, loudly complaining that a hole in the wall that one of her sons had created the day before by bashing a door into the wall had not been repaired yet, in her 4 bedroom place. And she "pays $74.00 dollars a month for that apartment!" (I was paying almost $700 a month for a two bedroom place in the same complex).
We could not get food delivered there after dark because of the delivery driver muggings (plus one murder), and the open parking invited thefts and vandalism to the cars owned by the market rent paying folks (like my car).
My 4 year old daughter was threatened with bodily harm by a young teen girl from the subsidized apartments "if she thought she would be able to ride our bus on the first day of school", my daughter came in crying to my wife about it from the common playground.
I broke my lease when a bullet fired from the parking lot from the subsidized end of the complex penetrated my living room wall. After I moved in I discovered drug use was rampant.
How does my personal experience pertain to the OP here?
I for one would never buy a home in a socially engineered mixed income building or complex. Never.
Last edited by snebarekim; 11-18-2017 at 07:11 AM..
do you have any links to these arrangements, or to the sociological research that's occurred?
where I could see it working is properly-located developments basically completely run by government - a % of the units serve the "low income affordable housing need" and the rest are occupied by your teachers, police and fire, nurses, etc. Those folks would pay "market rent" for the City, just not the low-commute location. Or, they'd just be charged rent based on their income.
This is an older article, (but still pertinent IMO) that I read in the left leaning "The Atlantic" online 'zine a while back. Some research had been done (almost by accident) that sort of answers your question regarding socially engineered mixed income housing arrangments.
But you bring up a good point, at least for very expensive areas such as New York and San Fransisco. If the building or complex units were sold to high income buyers, and the lower rent units were occupied primarily by skilled blue collar workers, it may have a chance at working.
Last edited by snebarekim; 11-18-2017 at 07:03 AM..
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.
developers in Philly are required to designate some % of their units for what they call "affordable housing". If you are a small real estate investor it can bring tax advantages to having a % of your units as "affordable, low income". 
