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 may be a handful that want to interact with people from other walks of life. I know some folks like that. That would be their benefit.
Possibly there also could be a situation where a city or state is just so keen to try this from a simple social engineering analysis standpoint, they actually subsidize the full rate units also by tax offsets, offering high end units at below market rates, temp tiered payment plan loans, etc...., to lure higher income folks in, and some higher income people bite off on it.
That doesn't sound like a great investment if only a small handful of higher income people would like it.
I used to live in Alexandria VA across the river from DC. Over the last several years, a good part of the low-rise public housing near downtown was razed in favor of condos and townhomes with the stipulation that a certain percentage of each project be made available to lower-income households. To my knowledge, there have been no problems. There is even a new recreation center nearby where residents from all walks of life go and enjoy. While Alexandria is relatively safe, there are still sadly some issues with crime in the remaining public housing area but it doesn't spill over into the mixed housing.
Admittedly, Alexandria may be an exception; public housing has existed literally across the street from million dollar-plus townhomes for decades.
That doesn't sound like a great investment if only a small handful of higher income people would like it.
Yeah, you are right. I was simply spitballing reasons why wealthier folks would willingly buy in. There are a lot of reasons why people would like to see poor folks in a place like that.
But on that note, and again in perhaps a limited circumstance, the right location of any such complex/building could also lure in a wealthy buyer.
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.
It's good in theory but I have doubts about how it would work in reality.
Mixing wealthy with functional middle class people is fine, but when it comes to poor people, many have issues that make it very unpleasant to live near them, and people with money pay a lot extra to be separated from that. Whether this concept can work or not depends on the type of people who are selected to live in the building.
This is nothing more than progressive social engineering. It might sound good on paper, but so did communism. The reality would be far worse. One of the first things that happens when a neighborhood goes into decline is the crime rate goes up. Mixing undesirables with people of means just makes the latter the easiest targets of opportunity. Expect to be victimized if you move into this type of neighborhood and have anything worth stealing. And since this type of housing will be mostly in ultra-liberal areas, expect to be assaulted, since carrying a firearm for protection won't be an option.
When I think about it i don't see how this neighborhood is that different from any other. The house prices are lower in less affluent places and this would just be another one to choose from. Having already done that and moved away from it i don't see the appeal.
What is the benefit for higher income people that live there?
The government ties it to a quota of units that must be set aside in order to permit the zoning and development of the facility. So the benefit is that's its the only way the government will get out of the way of progress.
Subsidies of any kind are always going to be taken advantage of. Do most of the rent controlled units in the major cities have the poorest citizens, or some of the longest dwelling ones who are reaping a benefit regardless of income level. A buddy of mine and his wife have one such unit, a block away from Fisherman's Warf. They have a parking spot to go with it in a garage. The couple makes approximately $300K a year. They pay $900 a month in rent, which is where it's been for the past decade. The unit keeps trying to buy them out of the place with no luck. Meanwhile, SFO prices keep skyrocketing for everyone else to subsidize him.
I've had neighbors to my property go section 8 twice. One brought in a great neighbor, but she in turn brought in horrid boyfriendish characters that destroyed the place. Another was just a weirdo that would literally (DJ) in the open garage on full volume...often going inside and closing the door, making the neighborhood listen to his crap. We were planning on stealing his rig, but someone else apparently thought the same way and beat us to it.
Another friend of mine's Dad spoke on how they started in Chicago. He lived in Cabrini Green when he was starting out. He said it was for poor people and people just starting out who needed a place to stay. In the beginning, it wasn't bad at all, and a lot of people just needed a place. Often it's not the people themselves, but the associates that are complete losers and see someone with a stable place that they can someone how manipulate into letting them in and stay.
But, I step back and think...why does this not work? I mean, I wouldn't classify a single one of my personal renters as anything beyond working class, yet we don't have problems. If we do, we're on it and deal with it....and there's the rub. When the government is involved, they can't control it the same way. The owner doesn't need to resolve things to keep getting a check.
The best thing the government can do for housing is to encourage more supply and higher density. Those with money will move into the best neighborhoods, but the neighborhoods they leave are likely ok. Further, with a community in place, it's going to be easier for a few low income people to move in and adjust to the community in the least desirable living units. The worst areas get worse and worse until it becomes so cheap that some developer says....let me buy the whole area and make it all new and expensive. And the trickle down of housing keeps going.
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.
