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.
Obviously developers and landlords are looking to make a profit, they'd be out of business if they didn't...
I think it's natural for new development to cater towards people with an income higher than the neighbourhood average, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This sort of new development typically happens if there's an increased demand for higher income people to live there, and if they can't live in new housing, they'll just update older housing and price people out of there (unless there are rent controls and such stopping this).
If new development occurs, the rest of the housing stock that hasn't been redeveloped can remain more affordable than it otherwise would be.
If you split up Toronto's inner city into Downtown, East Toronto, West Toronto and North Toronto and look at how things changed from 2005 to 2010...
The East Toronto got the least amount of new development, and the biggest increases in income (gentrification).
The West Toronto got the second least amount of new development, and the seecond biggest increase in income.
Downtown got the most development, followed by North Toronto, and both have had relatively constant incomes.
But in an area of significantly increasing population (e.g. Portland), the rest of the housing stock also becomes less affordable due to increased demand.
Incumbent homeowners voted themselves a (delayed) windfall in Prop 13.
Don't forget about commercial property owners. I watch tumbleweeds grow on major corridors of Oakland while the property owners sit around waiting until they can cash out and buy a private island.
What's wrong with profit motive anyway? One of the best things Sacramento has done is create an agency WITH a profit motive to manage all of the State properties in and around the capital. Prior to its creation, the State bought up properties that it thought it might want in the future (more for the land than whatever was on it) and then just was basically the worst slum lord to ever exist. Creation of the agency with a profit motive was in response to all the derelict properties the State owned in the area.
Profit motive is fine and great under unconstrained market conditions. In cities with tight land supply and thus high land prices, profit motive renders new development out of reach of even remotely affordable housing, and causes rents to necessarily skyrocket.
What is not fair about it? Someone owned a property and decided to sell it; that all of a sudden is not fair?
What is there to protect against? People selling their property? A property owner making improvements? A property owner requesting more money for use of their property?
Do you own property? If so, can I tell you want I want you to do with it? Do you have a car? Can I tell you what to do with it?
Protectionist homeowners already have zoning rules that protect against property owners selling a portion of their property (as opposed to selling the entirety of their property).
Those of us at the bottom of the housing food chain find it difficult to sympathize with gentrifiers becoming hoist on their own petards.
And those of us in the middle find it difficult to sympathize with people that want all the rewards that come with being a success, but are not willing to do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to earn that success.
And those of us in the middle find it difficult to sympathize with people that want all the rewards that come with being a success, but are not willing to do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to earn that success.
??? Shrug, I've worked hard and have sacrificed for decades. (Kinda why I have $10K of inventory and no cash, I take advantage of great deals to make money down the road and serve my customers better.) My life is a saga of delayed gratification.
A lease is just that - it's a short term contract to use someone else's space. When your contract is up the person or company that owns that property doesn't have any obligation to renew that contract.
If you want to plant roots somewhere - buy.
Need a free market to be able to afford to buy...all I can afford is 2,500 sq ft of land with a tiny house. Generally not available due to minimum lot size requirements.
Zoning is largely about exclusion, and exclusion of the poor and/or undesirable. Kinda like class warfare from top down.
But in an area of significantly increasing population (e.g. Portland), the rest of the housing stock also becomes less affordable due to increased demand.
There might be some cities where demand is increasing rapidly enough that more flexible zoning won't prevent housing costs from increasing, but then at the very least it would lead to smaller price increases than if the zoning stayed the same. I'm not sure if that's the case with Portland, which is growing fairly fast but not extremely fast.
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.
