Seattle is The Most Affordable Major City for Renters? (Sammamish: real estate, 2013)

[Steve Bowen]

I would never have believed this: Census surprise: Seattle the most affordable big city for renters | FYI Guy | Seattle Times

Is anyone else somewhat horrified that 46% of renters being cost-burdened (paying 30% + of their income in rent) is the lowest percentage for any major city in America?

[Hemlock140]

Not at all, because what it means (and says in the article) is that we have a low percentage of poor people. In places like Detroit people pay a lot more of their income for rent despite much lower rent because they have so little income. It's a good thing for Seattle to have less poor people renting. Of course, we do have plenty of homeless but they are not counted in this study since they pay no rent.

[tom331]

That is correct comparing to the price of real estate in Seattle. In Austin, Texas, you can buy a $200k house and lease it for$1,600 a month. In Seattle, you might need to pay $300k for a house and lease it for $1,600 a month. Unless you are going to stay in Seattle for a long time, it is better off to lease than to buy at current rental rate. In many other cities in the country, a mortgage payment could be lower than rental payment, but, this is not the case in Seattle.
I have looked for an investment property in Seattle, but at current housing price, there is no positive cash flow to invest real estate at Seattle.

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Not at all, because what it means (and says in the article) is that we have a low percentage of poor people. In places like Detroit people pay a lot more of their income for rent despite much lower rent because they have so little income. It's a good thing for Seattle to have less poor people renting. Of course, we do have plenty of homeless but they are not counted in this study since they pay no rent.

Sure, I completely understand that, and I agree. My concern is that if 46% is the smallest percentage of renters in any major city in the US paying 30%+ of their income on rent, that sounds like an indicator of a nationwide income crisis to me.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

Sure, I completely understand that, and I agree. My concern is that if 46% is the smallest percentage of renters in any major city in the US paying 30%+ of their income on rent, that sounds like an indicator of a nationwide income crisis to me.

Yup. If rents in Seattle are a relative bargain compared to mortgages, and 46% of the renters are spending a too high percentage of their income on rent, what is that really saying?
It's pretty misleading, if you just read the headline. Let's say you're a gardener living in Tulsa, and read the headline that Seattle is the most affordable major city for renters. How would Tulsa renter fare in Seattle?
In Tulsa, gardeners can afford to buy houses, and because house prices are so relatively low, middle class folks can and do buy houses. And you don't save money by renting, as mortgages are similar to rents.
In Seattle(the city itself), not only would a gardener not be able to afford to buy a house, but would have trouble finding an affordable rental.
It is true that there are far more people who consider themselves middle class than actually are. But the growing income disparity everywhere is pretty striking. I love that as a result of Seattle's income and education levels, there are now great places to eat and things to do. But I don't like the fact that many of the types of people who used to be able to afford to live here no longer can, and that poorer people are shunned and thought of as criminal. Rant over.

[Ruth4Truth]

Hard to believe. I know a number of people who've been forced out of Seattle by rents, and had to go to the northern suburbs.

[mrman78]

Weird, but sort of makes sense. I mean, I make more here than I did in Houston but my rent is actually cheaper in Seattle - I'm in an older building with about 150 sq ft. less space though. However, the location is light years better than the place I had in Houston and that is the icing on the cake! I probably could have bought something in Houston versus here, but why would I have wanted to do that!

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Ira500

But I don't like the fact that many of the types of people who used to be able to afford to live here no longer can, and that poorer people are shunned and thought of as criminal. Rant over.

Since the homeless camp moved to Sammamish, I see and talk to several of them on the bus coming home from work. These are people that look, dress, and work like the rest of us, but can't afford housing. Not like those you see under the overpass or downtown in Seattle. They even wear ID badges from their employers like everyone else on the bus. Most are saving up for the first/last months rent.

[AmFest]

Knowing that Seattle has one of the highest costs of living in the nation, I actually don't feel bad for renters in other populous cities. If you pay 10% more of your income on rent but 20% less on everything else you still come out way ahead.

[Malloric]

No, not really that hard to believe. Seattle is affluent and relatively inexpensive. Again, that's because I'm used to California's real estate prices and rents. Trendy downtown high rise averaging $2,000 a month? Those are $4,000 in San Francisco. A crappy studio is $2,000. San Francisco isn't that much more affluent than Seattle is but the rents are way lower.

As for the 30% thing, no. That's just some threshold a bureaucrat pulled out of a hat last century. It's not really relevant. For example, at one time we spent a huge percentage of our incomes simply on food and clothing. Those are much lower. Naturally, that leaves more money for other things -- mostly housing and medical care.