Affordable housing models that could work?

[scholastica]

I read this article in the NYTimes when it came out. It seems like a model that could work in most places. Unlike places that fulfill the requirements for affordable housing by not allowing the affordably housed residents full access to the amenities, they are for all (no “poor door”, etc.). The county also makes a bit of money.
 

What have you seen that works? 

[HomeAgain]

Banning corporations from owning single family homes would go a long way toward affordable housing.  So would limiting the number of AirBnBs and treating them like mini-hotels when it comes to taxes and regulations.

I don't know, let's see what else shakes out after that.

[scholastica]

18 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Banning corporations from owning single family homes would go a long way toward affordable housing.  So would limiting the number of AirBnBs and treating them like mini-hotels when it comes to taxes and regulations.

I don't know, let's see what else shakes out after that.

I totally agree with you on this. In a lot of cases, mortgage brokers and bankers duped people into loans in the lead up to 2008. Then when the whole thing tanked, corporations swooped in and bought the homes in foreclosure and turned them into rentals with much higher rents than the payments were. Whole areas of my county are now unaffordable to rent for people who used to live there in their own homes but lost them. It’s criminal.

[SKL]

There are many subsidized projects that are required to offer some percentage of "affordable housing units."  It sounds like a good idea.

Given that the proportion of families needing affordable housing is much bigger than the proportion of available units, this is a start.  Better than nothing.

I wonder what happens when a tenant's income goes up.  Does she get kicked out to preserve the proportion of tenants who need "affordable housing"?

[SKL]

Regarding air b&b, I would agree with limiting the number of units a person can own before they get taxed like a hotel or however that works.  I don't think the government should prevent private individuals from letting other private individuals borrow their homes for a fee.  I mean, remember when this sounded like a fabulous idea?  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I wonder what happens when a tenant's income goes up.  Does she get kicked out to preserve the proportion of tenants who need "affordable housing"?

In the programs I'm familiar with, an income change over the limit needs to be reported, and rent would go to market rate if someone no longer qualifies for the subsidized rate. I don't think someone needs to move to a physically different unit in the building, it would just open up a different unit to be rented at the "affordable" rate (affordable in quotes because the reduced rates vary and sometimes are still quite high).

[SKL]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

In the programs I'm familiar with, an income change over the limit needs to be reported, and rent would go to market rate if someone no longer qualifies for the subsidized rate. I don't think someone needs to move to a physically different unit in the building, it would just open up a different unit to be rented at the "affordable" rate (affordable in quotes because the reduced rates vary and sometimes are still quite high).

Yeah but if there's no vacancy due to high demand, wouldn't that screw up the proportion set aside for low-income people?

Maybe they've figured all this out.  I just hope nobody has to be kicked out of their apartment because of a tenant getting a raise.

[frogger]

My husband worked for a non-profit with a similar model. Percentage is for low income, others are market rate.  They do try to make nice units, landscaped and well designed but are certainly not as fancy as what is in those pictures. 

We had a lovely complex in our neighborhood(looks way nicer than surrounding homes) and got a lot of flack from people worried about the neighborhood going to trash because "low income people". I had to respond once that if his home was vandalized I am sure he could chase the person down since it is senior housing project and they couldn't run that fast. 🙄 Anyway, it has lovely green spaces despite the density and I hope they build many more around the city. The tallest building is senior housing and the surrounding townhomes are private and paid for the development. 

[Bootsie]

I think a prerequisite for designing a model for addressing affordable housing is defining what is meant by "affordable housing".  To some people that means housing for typically homeless individuals who have no job or income.  To some people addressing the affordable housing issue means that a person in their early 20's should be able to find an apartment near their place of employment that does not require them to have a roommate.  To others it means that a family can purchase a three-bedroom home on the income of one wage earner.   And there are many other standards people would use as their definition of "affordable housing."  Those are very different issues with very different possible solutions (and those solutions can be at odds with each other.)

 

[scholastica]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think a prerequisite for designing a model for addressing affordable housing is defining what is meant by "affordable housing".  To some people that means housing for typically homeless individuals who have no job or income.  To some people addressing the affordable housing issue means that a person in their early 20's should be able to find an apartment near their place of employment that does not require them to have a roommate.  To others it means that a family can purchase a three-bedroom home on the income of one wage earner.   And there are many other standards people would use as their definition of "affordable housing."  Those are very different issues with very different possible solutions (and those solutions can be at odds with each other.)

 

The federal government typically defines housing as affordable when it consumes no more than 30 percent of a household's income. 
 

[frogger]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Banning corporations from owning single family homes would go a long way toward affordable housing.  So would limiting the number of AirBnBs and treating them like mini-hotels when it comes to taxes and regulations.

I don't know, let's see what else shakes out after that.

I am not a big fan of bans. It is more complicated than that. Many air b&bs are just average joes trying to make a buck. They also provide rentals near family and such where hotels may not exist. We are a tourist destination so I understand the frustration. 

I think I mentioned in the last thread that 3 hotels have been converted to housing. The compactness of a hotel plus water to every room (unlike an office building) makes them great for converting to low income housing if you need a lot of homes quickly. 

We need space for both tourists and locals. More options is better than taking away options. 

[Bootsie]

Just now, scholastica said:

The federal government typically defines housing as affordable when it consumes no more than 30 percent of a household's income. 
 

But, there are still a range of issues.  Are we discussing how to we make sure there is zero-cost housing for someone without a job?  Are we discussing the fact that the family with two kids can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at less than 30% of income, but cannot afford to buy a three-bedroom house?  Are we talking about a 20-something who can share an apartment with a roommate at 25% of their income, but an apartment without a roommate would be more than 30%?....  

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I think a prerequisite for designing a model for addressing affordable housing is defining what is meant by "affordable housing".  To some people that means housing for typically homeless individuals who have no job or income.  To some people addressing the affordable housing issue means that a person in their early 20's should be able to find an apartment near their place of employment that does not require them to have a roommate.  To others it means that a family can purchase a three-bedroom home on the income of one wage earner.   And there are many other standards people would use as their definition of "affordable housing."  Those are very different issues with very different possible solutions (and those solutions can be at odds with each other.)

 

"Low income housing" is the typical designation for specialized homes with rules regarding Federal income limits etc.

Affordable housing is just affordable for the general population. It is often looked at from a fairly broad range around the median income of the city. 

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, there are still a range of issues.  Are we discussing how to we make sure there is zero-cost housing for someone without a job?  Are we discussing the fact that the family with two kids can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at less than 30% of income, but cannot afford to buy a three-bedroom house?  Are we talking about a 20-something who can share an apartment with a roommate at 25% of their income, but an apartment without a roommate would be more than 30%?....  

Well, honestly, in my opinion, what we need is for the supply to not be artificially restricted by local government and for it to adapt to the needs of the local population using prices.  There will be a lot variety in a healthy housing market that isn't totally restricted by gov't. 

[scholastica]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, there are still a range of issues.  Are we discussing how to we make sure there is zero-cost housing for someone without a job?  Are we discussing the fact that the family with two kids can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at less than 30% of income, but cannot afford to buy a three-bedroom house?  Are we talking about a 20-something who can share an apartment with a roommate at 25% of their income, but an apartment without a roommate would be more than 30%?....  

There’s no one size fits all solution for a problem like this. Different communities have different root problems and can find solutions. I posed the question of what have people seen that works on the problem. 
 

We are discussing how to get a roof that is safe, sanitary and healthy over people’s heads that costs 30% or less of their income. I’d like to know how it can be  done within a market economy model because I prefer a market economy. The market economy has failed in this market in many places. 

[HomeAgain]

9 minutes ago, frogger said:

I am not a big fan of bans. It is more complicated than that. Many air b&bs are just average joes trying to make a buck. They also provide rentals near family and such where hotels may not exist. We are a tourist destination so I understand the frustration. 

I think I mentioned in the last thread that 3 hotels have been converted to housing. The compactness of a hotel plus water to every room (unlike an office building) makes them great for converting to low income housing if you need a lot of homes quickly. 

We need space for both tourists and locals. More options is better than taking away options. 

You don't have to like bans to find they are necessary.  The number of houses bought by hedge funds and corporations is insane and it's driving up the prices exponentially.

You cannot have a realistic conversations about affordable housing without dealing with the elephant in the room. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html

 

AirBnBs are rentals that need to be subject to the same laws as hotels, same taxes.  The fee structure is out of hand and you can say it's avarage joes, but that's not the whole picture. If they want to act like hotels, they need to be treated the same way.

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, there are still a range of issues. 

There are.

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Are we discussing how to we make sure there is zero-cost housing for someone without a job? 

That needs to be one of them. Some people are unable to work. They still need to be housed. Right now, a lot of people in that situation end up on the street. There are programs for this situation, but there aren't enough housing units. People can qualify for disability housing if they are disabled, but if they are without a job despite being capable of working, there are typically provisions that require them to be looking for work and/or provide some assistance with finding a job. Section 8 housing is often a good solution for people with disabilities, but many parts of the country have years long wait lists for people to get a voucher. Where do they live in the meantime?

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Are we discussing the fact that the family with two kids can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at less than 30% of income, but cannot afford to buy a three-bedroom house? 

I don't think this is a situation that requires a specific remedy. It's okay for people to live in apartments. It's nice of course if those who would like to buy a house have options available to do so. Living in an apartment does not build equity for the renter.

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Are we talking about a 20-something who can share an apartment with a roommate at 25% of their income, but an apartment without a roommate would be more than 30%?.

I don't personally think this is so much what we are talking about. Though if there is nothing available for private living even as one gets to 40-50% plus of their income, that becomes a problem. There are people who have reasons that shared living won't work for their specific circumstance and it shouldn't be literally impossible to find a workable living situation.

[frogger]

Just now, scholastica said:

There’s no one size fits all solution for a problem like this. Different communities have different root problems and can find solutions. I posed the question of what have people seen that works on the problem. 
 

We are discussing how to get a roof that is safe, sanitary and healthy over people’s heads that costs 30% or less of their income. I’d like to know how it can be  done within a market economy model because I prefer a market economy. The market economy has failed in this market in many places. 

Well, it isn't allowed to work at all in this particular circumstance. Yes, there are costs imposed on neighbors when someone builds next door. We have decided that the neighbor has more say than the property owner or buyer.  We need a more nuanced way of dealing with those costs. It sucks to have bought a place with a view on the 14th floor and then a larger building blocks that view. Perhaps payouts to current owners for the loss of their view is in order? But our current situation is that it is a constant battle to develop.

Things like noise ordinances, smells, or traffic should be considered and perhaps rules like that would be better than neighbors getting to control what others do. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

[SHP]

There are two types of Airbnb/short term rental (STR) One is owner occupied then other is not owner occupied. The latter needs to be treated as the business it is, taxed, regulated, and required to comply with zoning laws just like other bed and breakfasts.

Owner occupied STR still needs to be treated as an in home business for tax and insurance purposes. Owner Occupied STR is completely different than letting a friend who is between places crash on your couch for a few days, or having out of town family stay in your spare bedroom. It is also different than having housemates who contribute to their share household expenses. Pretending it is the same is dishonest and fraudulent.  

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

You don't have to like bans to find they are necessary.  The number of houses bought by hedge funds and corporations is insane and it's driving up the prices exponentially.

You cannot have a realistic conversations about affordable housing without dealing with the elephant in the room. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html

 

AirBnBs are rentals that need to be subject to the same laws as hotels, same taxes.  The fee structure is out of hand and you can say it's avarage joes, but that's not the whole picture. If they want to act like hotels, they need to be treated the same way.

Totally agree that about the tax structures and they should be treated like hotels to level the playing field. Our city discounts primary residences in the tax bill. I also recently supported an increase in that. 

What do you think incentivizes corporations to buy homes? If they are putting them up for rent would it not decrease their profit margin to simply have enough other homes for people? The reason homes are a great investment is because their supply is restricted. 

I do agree about the tax dollars supporting corporations of various kinds. It is maddening but that is a whole thread in itself. 

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

I hate flat rate definitions because there's no nuance. Thirty percent is going to look wildly different depending on individual circumstances. Either of my young adults could pay significantly more than that and be okay. They have no other debt and have good to great benefits through their employers. But for a single young adult with student loans, or a married couple with student loans, two kids in daycare, and who have to cover a lot of their own health insurance/medical costs -- that thirty percent is going to be a mucher harder reach.

[HomeAgain]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

Totally agree that about the tax structures and they should be treated like hotels to level the playing field. Our city discounts primary residences in the tax bill. I also recently supported an increase in that. 

What do you think incentivizes corporations to buy homes? If they are putting them up for rent would it not decrease their profit margin to simply have enough other homes for people? The reason homes are a great investment is because their supply is restricted. 

I do agree about the tax dollars supporting corporations of various kinds. It is maddening but that is a whole thread in itself. 

Are you asking what I think incentivizes corporations to control the market and be able to set price and control the supply for the demand?

 

I don't know. I think it would be money.  Money seems to be a great incentive.

[frogger]

Just now, HomeAgain said:

Are you asking what I think incentivizes corporations to control the market and be able to set price and control the supply for the demand?

 

I don't know. I think it would be money.  Money seems to be a great incentive.

I agree profit is definitly the motive but I disagree that it is a bad motive unless they are not providing a good or service for it.

But if there were plenty of homes they couldn't control the market. 

Also are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to own homes even if they build them? Would that not decrease incentives to build in places where we definitly need more building? What about foreclosures? Would banks quit loaning money at cheaper rates if they have no collateral? 

I am just not sure I understand all the ramifications of not allowing corporations to own homes. I am not even sure what it would entail or mean. I have a lot of questions on how that would work. 

[SHP]

We need to be careful to clearly articulate when discussing corporations and housing. In my area if someone owns a home and is stationed overseas for a year in order to legally rent out their house they are required to be licensed as a business complete with state tax ID and all that fun. And before anyone starts to argue that it is different, from a legal standpoint it is not. That person and the corporation that owns a thousands houses are viewed the same way from a legal standpoint. 

 

[frogger]

12 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I hate flat rate definitions because there's no nuance. Thirty percent is going to look wildly different depending on individual circumstances. Either of my young adults could pay significantly more than that and be okay. They have no other debt and have good to great benefits through their employers. But for a single young adult with student loans, or a married couple with student loans, two kids in daycare, and who have to cover a lot of their own health insurance/medical costs -- that thirty percent is going to be a mucher harder reach.

Yes, it isn't useful for the individual but aggregate measures call for aggregate data. Hopefully, within individual circumstances people would adjust for very personal circumstances. My husband and I would always laugh at the mortgages we were offered by banks. No where on the form was a box asking how many children you had 🤣 or if any of them or you had special health circumstances or disabilities (which would be illegal) but both those things cost an incredible amount of money and drastically alter what a person can safely afford. 

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, honestly, in my opinion, what we need is for the supply to not be artificially restricted by local government and for it to adapt to the needs of the local population using prices.  There will be a lot variety in a healthy housing market that isn't totally restricted by gov't. 

In my experience, variety in housing markets has little to do with government restrictions.  I live in a region that has been growing for several decades and still continues to grow. The city I am in has hundreds of new homes added each year. There is little variety because builders are maximizing profits and so are building the largest homes they can possibly sell. This is pricing people out of the market and driving younger would-be homeowners into multi family housing, or further away from the city, and growth follows them out. Recently, there are more apartment complexes being built, and that is a huge profit center for developers in this environment. One of the nearby complexes will have 12 multi story apartment buildings when it is all built out. There is a rezoning request for an apartment building that is adjacent to my neighborhood. The developer wants to change it from two stories to six stories - tripling the capacity. There is a nearby five story building, so he will probably have his request granted.

None of this is making housing more affordable.

The requirements that local governments can place on developers must be reasonable (related to compatibility to adjacent area, zoning, health, safety, etc.). This has been adjudicated ad nauseam. They cannot prevent property from being developed entirely, they can exercise some oversight. They cannot force a property owner to build out their property, much less tell them they can't maximize their profit. Rezoning requests are frequent in our city and they are granted as long as the property being rezoned is relatively close to similar existing properties. The majority of our rezoning requests are for agricultural or industrial to single family residential, though there is some rezoning to multi-family, retail and office as well.

 

[SKL]

"Affordable Housing" in the context in which I've seen it in my job:

"To satisfy these affordable requirements, 20% or more of the total units must be both rent-restricted and occupied by qualifying low-income households. ..."

"A rent-restricted unit is one where the maximum monthly rent does not exceed one-twelfth of 30% of the adjusted income of a family whose annual income is equal to or less than 80% of the area median income (AMI), as determined by HUD, with adjustments for the number of bedrooms in the unit ...."

[TechWife]

31 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well, it isn't allowed to work at all in this particular circumstance. Yes, there are costs imposed on neighbors when someone builds next door. We have decided that the neighbor has more say than the property owner or buyer.  We need a more nuanced way of dealing with those costs. It sucks to have bought a place with a view on the 14th floor and then a larger building blocks that view. Perhaps payouts to current owners for the loss of their view is in order? But our current situation is that it is a constant battle to develop.

Things like noise ordinances, smells, or traffic should be considered and perhaps rules like that would be better than neighbors getting to control what others do. 

If by neighbors you mean property owners, they really have little say beyond electing local officials. Granted, some officials are more responsive to property owners concerns regarding development than others and citizens can certainly choose to elect them for that reason. If you moved into a house by an undeveloped piece of land that isn't in a designated floodplain, then you should expect someone to build on it eventually. The idea of compensating someone for a changed view is a non-starter.  Noise ordinances are already established. You can't change them on a neighborhood basis, it's all or none. Cities do take traffic into consideration, but the path to address issues as they arise is limited by tax revenue and the extensive amount of time it takes to execute a change in an existing roadway. Developers foot the bill (and pass it along to the buyers) for new utility lines and streets. The city can determine things like the size of the utility easement, the number of bathrooms per square foot, and the width, length and placement of roads, address environmental concerns and have building safety codes. They can, for example, require roads wide enough to accommodate on street parking on one side and still allow for a large fire truck to pass through unhindered; and/or require that the road connect to a specific existing road for traffic management or safety reasons.  They can deny a development if their water treatment is at capacity, for example. But, from a tax revenue perspective, cities approaching their capacity will generally plan an expansion or partner with a nearby city.

[frogger]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

 There is little variety because builders are maximizing profits and so are building the largest homes they can possibly sell.

This particular thing is happening in my city as well where the government has zoned for single-family housing. Because the builder is restricted to one type of housing, the builder will make the most money off a large home. Many basic costs stay the same whether I build a 1000 sq foot or 3000 sq foot home. They are called fixed costs. Why would I not build the biggest home if that will give me the most profit? But that is because the parameters set by the government. Would a duplex or 4 plex make me more money under the same parameters? I cannot tell you under your local conditions but I know here people would jump at a piece of that property and you cannot say that is what the market is dictating if that is controlled by the gov.  The builder knows anything he builds will sell under current conditions. 

[Melissa in Australia]

43 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

One of my DS is paying 50% of his income in rent in the tiniest unit. My DS was paying 75% when she was at university ,Not uni accommodation, For a room and one meal a day 

It is becoming fairly common to need to pay up to 50% of income to get rent here 

 Especially for people living paycheck to paycheck.

[Heartstrings]

48 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

You don't have to like bans to find they are necessary.  The number of houses bought by hedge funds and corporations is insane and it's driving up the prices exponentially.

You cannot have a realistic conversations about affordable housing without dealing with the elephant in the room. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html

 

AirBnBs are rentals that need to be subject to the same laws as hotels, same taxes.  The fee structure is out of hand and you can say it's avarage joes, but that's not the whole picture. If they want to act like hotels, they need to be treated the same way.

I like SKL’s idea of treating them like hotels after a certain number.   Like after 2 or 5, or over a certain dollar amount earned. I still think it’s ok to BNB a room, or a whole house or even just an extra property and just treat it as regular income.  I considered renting out a room or my whole house only during graduation weekend when hotels are booked and that seems silly to tax like a hotel if it’s one weekend a year.  Or I’ve stayed where the owner rents the house occasionally to cover her mortgage, she lives there but stays at her boyfriends place when she’s renting it, and that doesn’t feel like a hotel.  So I completely agree it’s out of hand!   We just need a way to separate out kind of a side hustle from the big operations 

[SKL]

47 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

Having to pay "only" 30% of their income for housing would be a dream for a lot of people I know.

[frogger]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

If by neighbors you mean property owners, they really have little say beyond electing local officials. 

That isn't how it works in my city. We do have community feedback and it can get really nasty. Even if the developers work with the comnunity to change different aspects the long drawn outprocess makes things costly. Time is money after all. They have shut down reasonable projects. They wanted to shut down the housing project I spoke of earlier in this thread but it made it through and actually made the whole neighborhood nicer. 

[KSera]

54 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

30% is livable for many situations. One of my kids was able to mostly self support while paying about 40% in rent (sharing a place with several other people). We were still covering health and car insurance and cell phone. I don’t think a family with kids would have an easy time with any more than 30% going to rent (this is of course income dependent as well. A high income family is going to have a lot more money left over after 30% toward housing).

[TechWife]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

This particular thing is happening in my city as well where the government has zoned for single-family housing. Because the builder is restricted to one type of housing, the builder will make the most money off a large home. Many basic costs stay the same whether I build a 1000 sq foot or 3000 sq foot home. They are called fixed costs. Why would I not build the biggest home if that will give me the most profit? But that is because the parameters set by the government. Would a duplex or 4 plex make me more money under the same parameters? I cannot tell you under your local conditions but I know here people would jump at a piece of that property and you cannot say that is what the market is dictating if that is controlled by the gov.  The builder knows anything he builds will sell under current conditions. 

It's also leading to high rents in the new apartment complexes because they are building luxury apartments.

City zoning actually protects taxpayer property values. It also helps manage traffic and school usage, among other things. We have single family homes, town homes and apartment buildings in our development. I can walk to all of them and all the kids go to the same schools, we all use the same roads. Should a developer be allowed to triple the size of an apartment building so that he can make more money? Our schools are full - kids moving into our area cannot go to the local public school unless/until someone moves or graduates. They are bused to other schools. There are so many car accidents at the intersection where our neighborhood connects to a major artery that the police have been known to per-emptively put a car nearby to respond to accidents. To turn into the development, we have to cross two lanes of a highway that has a 55 mph speed limit, has limited-sight distance without a light. Our hospitals have multiple day waits for beds. ED's routinely divert ambulances to other hospitals because they are at capacity. Should someone be allowed to build a large building and add hundreds of people and multiple vehicles just because they can? If regulating building for those reasons is the type of government regulation you oppose, then I really can't understand where you are coming from. Speaking from a high & rapid growth area, adding dwellings isn't as simple and beneficial as many people think it is. I wish our town could turn away a development because schools are at capacity, or require the developer to build a neighborhood school, but it can't because schools are under the jurisdiction of the county, not the city. I wish they would expand the zone that limits building height because that limits capacity, but they can't because they have already approved high buildings outside the zone. I wish they could force developers to build smaller houses, but they can't. The most they can do is ask for mixed-use developments, but in the end they can't control housing prices.

[scholastica]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

30% is livable for many situations. One of my kids was able to mostly self support while paying about 40% in rent (sharing a place with several other people). We were still covering health and car insurance and cell phone. I don’t think a family with kids would have an easy time with any more than 30% going to rent (this is of course income dependent as well. A high income family is going to have a lot more money left over after 30% toward housing).

You were covering a lot there! I wouldn’t really consider that self-supporting. They would have had to go without those things or other needs without your help. They’re very lucky you’re able to do that.

[Pawz4me]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

It's also leading to high rents in the new apartment complexes because they are building luxury apartments.

City zoning actually protects taxpayer property values. It also helps manage traffic and school usage, among other things. We have single family homes, town homes and apartment buildings in our development. I can walk to all of them and all the kids go to the same schools, we all use the same roads. Should a developer be allowed to triple the size of an apartment building so that he can make more money? Our schools are full - kids moving into our area cannot go to the local public school unless/until someone moves or graduates. They are bused to other schools. There are so many car accidents at the intersection where our neighborhood connects to a major artery that the police have been known to per-emptively put a car nearby to respond to accidents. To turn into the development, we have to cross two lanes of a highway that has a 55 mph speed limit, has limited-sight distance without a light. Our hospitals have multiple day waits for beds. ED's routinely divert ambulances to other hospitals because they are at capacity. Should someone be allowed to build a large building and add hundreds of people and multiple vehicles just because they can? If regulating building for those reasons is the type of government regulation you oppose, then I really can't understand where you are coming from. Speaking from a high & rapid growth area, adding dwellings isn't as simple and beneficial as many people think it is. I wish our town could turn away a development because schools are at capacity, or require the developer to build a neighborhood school, but it can't because schools are under the jurisdiction of the county, not the city. I wish they would expand the zone that limits building height because that limits capacity, but they can't because they have already approved high buildings outside the zone. I wish they could force developers to build smaller houses, but they can't. The most they can do is ask for mixed-use developments, but in the end they can't control housing prices.

I brought up infrastructure in the other thread, but many ignored it. But it's a massive problem in some areas. 

[TechWife]

4 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I brought up infrastructure in the other thread, but many ignored it. But it's a massive problem in some areas. 

We're blessed that our town has been able to be pro-active with the things they are allowed to do. But larger issues that they can't affect (like stoplights on state maintained highways or schools) really do affect quality of life in some ways people who aren't living it don't understand. A child was hit by a car last year crossing a road on a bike. Waits for hospital beds have affected our family and so many others. Three days isn't uncommon. The state controls the number and location of hospital beds, OR's, and high dollar equipment (like MRI machines) and hospital systems actually have to compete with one another to be allowed to expand. The city can affect none of that. The most they can do is try to convince one of the hospital systems to expand in our area, which is again, a multi-year process once they have said they want to do so. Schools are another beast entirely. They've been successful in luring some public charter schools, but those schools are full as well. Unlike traditional schools, they can't be made to add trailers or make them expand otherwise, so their impact is limited.

Don't get me wrong, I love where I live and I am not complaining at all. It's just the reality of the situation. There are real "growing pains."

[Heartstrings]

15 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I brought up infrastructure in the other thread, but many ignored it. But it's a massive problem in some areas. 

Infrastructure really has to be dealt with locally.   It’s hyper local so kind of hard to talk about. I’ll mention a school and someone will say their neighborhood doesn’t need schools, the real issue is water treatment and why are we talking about schools, then someone will say that their neighborhood just built a new water treatment, how could  you think water is important, it’s obviously traffic and it devolves from there.  
 

Broadly speaking, freezing  a city isn’t really possible so growth has to be dealt with.  The city/county can charge builders higher fees to go to roads or force a builder to pay for a substation or whatever.  People at meetings can jump and down demanding a new school instead of just saying No to anymore development. 
 

I don’t think asking 1 apartment building to bear the cost of a whole new school is fair, since no one entity paid for the existing schools, that cost was shared. and more people will use the school than just people in that one building.
 

No one considers that they are benefitting from existing infrastructure that someone else paid for.  You (general you) didn’t write a check to the school when your twins pushed the numbers up and now they needed to add a kindergarten teacher, ya know?    It’s not just new people who cost an area money.  

Cities and schools in growing areas need to have growth plans.  If it causes higher taxes in one area people should fight and campaign to lower it in others. If the city raises property tax to build a new school an argument could be made that more people means increased shopping so lowering the sales tax is in order because it’s being shared more widely, as one example.  

One place as yet unmentioned is that growth areas also attract more business. Maybe the big box store needs to pay for its own red lights and extra roads, maybe kick in some for the new turning lane that is now needed, or kick in some towards the school that it’s customers and employees will need.  There are ways to do things.  

Communities growing should be symbiotic. The apartment building means a new school is needed but should bring in more tax revenue than an empty lot.  Those new people will be shopping and paying sales tax now, and personal property tax and registration fees on their cars, which will pay for new parks or more red lights.  They are giving into the community just as they are costing it money.  Just as current residents both cost money and pay in money.  

[Frances]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Regarding air b&b, I would agree with limiting the number of units a person can own before they get taxed like a hotel or however that works.  I don't think the government should prevent private individuals from letting other private individuals borrow their homes for a fee.  I mean, remember when this sounded like a fabulous idea?  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Where I think things are heading here is distinguishing between owner occupied short term rentals and non-owner occupied ones. If you live in the home and want to rent out a room or basement apartment or backyard apartment or whatever, fine. Obviously it’s better for the housing shortage if you do so to long term renters and not short term ones, but it looks the government here is going to leave these alone.

They are looking much more closely, however, at any homes used only for short term rentals, so basically as a business. Various proposals are being floated from restricting their number and location to taxing them like businesses rather than residences and several things in between. 

[frogger]

States restricting health care expansion is another horror. We have hospitals competing for allowed expansion for x number of beds. I remember advertisements from two hospitals that were competing for state medical board to approve their expansion and it all felt like an egregious waste but that is a problem that will exist regardless if expansion is not allowed. In fact, the homeless use more medical resources then I do from frost bites, hypothermia, substance abuse and taxpayers pay for it but that really is it's own topic.

Infastructure was handed to all the familes that bought earlier. Unless you are like my husband and I that own acerage where there is no electric, water, sewer, or even a road but that is unlikely. Like our home intown you probably all bought in places with established infastructure. Someone had to originally build that. Someone had to upgrade it. Infastructure always needs upgrades. When you double the number of people in an area you will double the tax base paying for said infastructure. There are strategic ways of lowering costs. A local example would be the town center where I live going multi family would be dramatically cheaper than putting city and sewer up the mountainside where people are all on well and septic. Saying that you can't have multi family on a septic based system for health reasons and the taxpayers don't want to pipe water and sewage up and down a mountain does make sense, especially when many more families can live where the city sewer system already exists. What doesn't make sense is saying there is no way to upgrade systems in general especially for increased density. 

And kids getting hit by cars is a whole nother thread I will spare you my thoughts on driver entitlement and pedistrian safety because you are probably tired of hearing from me. 🤣

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

And kids getting hit by cars is a whole nother thread I will spare you my thoughts on driver entitlement and pedistrian safety because you are probably tired of hearing from me. 🤣

Pedestrian safety should be improved everywhere.  But alas, it won’t be.  Very few places in our country do pedestrians safety well.  

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I brought up infrastructure in the other thread, but many ignored it. But it's a massive problem in some areas. 

I didn't ignore it. I just had no way to add to it without taking over since it is such a huge issue. 

[frogger]

14 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Pedestrian safety should be improved everywhere.  But alas, it won’t be.  Very few places in our country do pedestrians safety well.  

Different thread but I am happy with the newer federal scoring system that takes into community impact on transportation intiatives. We had people wanting to mow down lots of older more affordable housing to save 2 minutes on their commute. Would have lost federal funding though.  I can see the difference it is making locally but once again different thread other than to say it kept my local community  from displacing a bunch of people by destroying more housing for little gain. 

Edited January 19 by frogger

[Bootsie]

I don't know how well the operate in other areas, but I have been impressed with the intiaitives and projects of Habitat for Humanity near where I have lived to address affordable housing opportunities.

[Frances]

8 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

30% seems huge to me, like I can’t imagine it.  Is that an actual liveable amount or just what the government considers, and is not really accurate for everyday people trying to make ends meet.

I just sat down and figured it out; our mortgage is 8.6% of our grossly monthly income.  We put over 30% right now in retirement and other savings, so that does bring down our net, but I can’t imagine paying more in mortgage and still have money leftover for life things.  

I don’t think most people paying 30% or more of their income for housing are putting much if anything towards savings or retirement.

[Melissa in Australia]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I don’t think most people paying 30% or more of their income for housing are putting much if anything towards savings or retirement.

Here retirement, or superannuation is paid by employers. A percentage of weekly income 

People paying 50%  or so of income on rent aren't living the high life of holidays involving flying, going on cruises or things like that. At least the ones I know personally aren't. 

[Happy2BaMom]

11 hours ago, frogger said:

.....Many air b&bs are just average joes trying to make a buck.....

 

That's the way AirBnB started, but that isn't really the case anymore. According to AirDNA (a data & analytics company specializing in vacation rental companies; report available through link), only 38% of AirBnB listings are homeowners with a single listing. In some vacation hot spots, corporate ownership can be up to 90% of the listings.

Which is not to take away from the fact that 38% is still 38%, and those individuals should be exempted from any gov't requirements, restrictions, & taxes that should (IMHO) be applied to corporate & multiple-property ownerships.

Edited January 20 by Happy2BaMom

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Here retirement, or superannuation is paid by employers. A percentage of weekly income 

People paying 50%  or so of income on rent aren't living the high life of holidays involving flying, going on cruises or things like that. At least the ones I know personally aren't. 

That’s nice that retirement is paid by the employers. Yes, I would think that people who are spending 50% of income on rent don’t have much left after paying for all of the basics, even if retirement is taken care of by the employer.