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.
You are 100% right. These units are built paying "prevailing wages" so they cost about $400,000 per unit, but the rent, or sales are highly subsidized by the taxpayer. My theory of why they don't create jobs, instead, is that they believe they would move to the suburbs. Additionally, it's a proven way to get votes for the democrat party.
If only city "leaders" would lead, all of those people would have much more money to spend, and the taxpayers would have more money to spend. Win--win.
Is it just me, or do other people also get tired of hearing the terms "affordable housing" and/or "market rate housing"? Call me a pessimist, but whenever I hear either of those terms used in the discussion, I can't help but think that it's a "code term" for taxpayer subsidized housing. How about these developers find some "decent paying jobs", to go along with their housing units, so the residents can earn a decent living, and be able to cover their living costs?
Affordable housing is a type of housing that is for the intermediate person that is a working person that may not enough for market rate(another way of saying standard) housing, but also make too much for lower income housing. That is the difference, as a person can be middle class, but still fit in this intermediate category.
It doesn't have anything to do with votes or anything else, but to fit a market that many in the private sector do not touch and in many cases, is created in a public/private(i.e.-not for profits, etc.) partnership. Hence, what you have in terms of much of the housing in the Inner Loop fill in land.
I think the problem is that people just don't understand that there are levels of housing versus being a matter of lower income and middle class and up housing.
You also have to consider that people have to work their way up to better paying jobs and in turn, there needs to be housing for those at every level economically. Especially when cities want to get away for concentrating poverty and want to develop communities/neighborhoods at various price points for people to live in, with newer housing. Those things I just mentioned are issues that many older cities like Rochester and other Northeast and Midwestern cities are dealing with.
Affordable housing is a type of housing that is for the intermediate person that is a working person that may not enough for market rate(another way of saying standard) housing, but also make too much for lower income housing. That is the difference, as a person can be middle class, but still fit in this intermediate category.
It doesn't have anything to do with votes or anything else, but to fit a market that many in the private sector do not touch and in many cases, is created in a public/private(i.e.-not for profits, etc.) partnership. Hence, what you have in terms of much of the housing in the Inner Loop fill in land.
I think the problem is that people just don't understand that there are levels of housing versus being a matter of lower income and middle class and up housing.
You also have to consider that people have to work their way up to better paying jobs and in turn, there needs to be housing for those at every level economically. Especially when cities want to get away for concentrating poverty and want to develop communities/neighborhoods at various price points for people to live in, with newer housing. Those things I just mentioned are issues that many older cities like Rochester and other Northeast and Midwestern cities are dealing with.
The problem with this way of thinking, is multi faceted. First, the "tenants" get used to getting something for nothing. If you can't afford it, buy something you can afford, or increase your income. It's not the taxpayers responsibility. That's for family and friends.
Nextly, by perpetuating these policies, the costs of a housing unit will continually go up. It's just dumb and wasteful that our leaders have so much disrespect for people on both sides of this.
The problem with this way of thinking, is multi faceted. First, the "tenants" get used to getting something for nothing. If you can't afford it, buy something you can afford, or increase your income. It's not the taxpayers responsibility. That's for family and friends.
Nextly, by perpetuating these policies, the costs of a housing unit will continually go up. It's just dumb and wasteful that our leaders have so much disrespect for people on both sides of this.
See, you aren't understanding what affordable housing entails or are lumping it in with public housing then. Again, these are largely working people that are in a housing market that doesn't get fulfilled strictly by the private housing sector and many of the other residents are usually disabled, Vets or elderly. So, this is about people that have worked or are working(i.e.-taxpayers, current or former long timers).
Also, many of these developments have public and private involvement. So, the funding isn't just from the government.
Another thing is that it usually has economic requirements, which aren't low income. So, how are said people dependent, if they have to make a certain amount of income to even qualify for said housing?
If anything, the need comes from the lack of quality housing that people don't have to pay well over the suggested 30% of so of income and the stock isn't necessary up to date. So, it fills a housing need that is a little bit different from public housing.
See, you aren't understanding what affordable housing entails or are lumping it in with public housing then. Again, these are largely working people that are in a housing market that doesn't get fulfilled strictly by the private housing sector and many of the other residents are usually disabled, Vets or elderly. So, this is about people that have worked or are working(i.e.-taxpayers, current or former long timers).
Also, many of these developments have public and private involvement. So, the funding isn't just from the government.
Another thing is that it usually has economic requirements, which aren't low income. So, how are said people dependent, if they have to make a certain amount of income to even qualify for said housing?
If anything, the need comes from the lack of quality housing that people don't have to pay well over the suggested 30% of so of income and the stock isn't necessary up to date. So, it fills a housing need that is a little bit different from public housing.
I understand how it works. That's why I support realistic housing opportunities. Why do they have to have a brand new house????? MOST taxpayers do not.
What do you have against these people working harder, and or smarter to become self sufficient? To have extra money in their pocket, rather than waiting for "free" money.
I know you are trying to say these people are doing their part, but they are not. Being uncomfortable in your financial situation can be a great motivator. Making people comfortable in their situation just weakens the person. Buy or rent the house you can afford. There are plenty. Maybe they could fix it up and make some money. If they do that once, chances are they may do it again and again, with their children learning with them. That's what I'm talking about.
I understand how it works. That's why I support realistic housing opportunities. Why do they have to have a brand new house????? MOST taxpayers do not.
What do you have against these people working harder, and or smarter to become self sufficient? To have extra money in their pocket, rather than waiting for "free" money.
I know you are trying to say these people are doing their part, but they are not. Being uncomfortable in your financial situation can be a great motivator. Making people comfortable in their situation just weakens the person. Buy or rent the house you can afford. There are plenty. Maybe they could fix it up and make some money. If they do that once, chances are they may do it again and again, with their children learning with them. That's what I'm talking about.
Do realize that there are housing issues across the country, right? Let alone across the state. New dwellings have been needed for a while, considering the age of the housing stock in much of the state. Housing has to be viable in order to live in.
There is also the issue with housing being bought up as investments versus by people looking for housing to actually live in. So, that plays a part in some of this as well.
You can be self sufficient and still need housing that doesn't overburden those that work/economic situation. It isn't a matter of not being self sufficient or not working, but it is about fulfilling a housing need for those at a certain income level or stage, while there is a shortage of available, viable housing. That is a big difference and it isn't like people that live in such housing has to or will stay there forever.
Even if one is "uncomfortable" in their income situation, they still need a place to live and one that allows for them to save and move up economically. This is where this comes in, especially considering that it is a market that private developers have to get government investment in order to build.
This doesn't get into those that are elderly or have disabilities and/or are veterans.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 01-30-2024 at 01:03 PM..
You do realize that there are housing issues across the country, right? Let alone across the state. New dwellings have been needed for a while, considering the age of the housing stock in much of the state. Housing has to be viable in order to live in.
You also have the issue with housing being bought up as investments versus by people looking for housing to actually live in. So, that plays a part in some of this as well.
You can be self sufficient and still need housing that doesn't overburden those that work. It isn't a matter of not being self sufficient or not working, but it is about fulfilling a housing need for those at a certain income level or stage. That is a big difference.
Even if one is "uncomfortable" in their income situation, they still need a place to live and one that allows for them to save and move up economically. This is where this comes in, especially considering that it is a market that private developers have to get government investment in order to build.
This doesn't get into those that are elderly or have disabilities and/or are veterans.
First off, disabled people should have help.
Second, there's plenty of housing, and code enforcement officers. It wasn't long ago that the city was encouraging multiple family housing convert to single family in a way to fill vacant housing.
Your argument that because there is a need, so they should be built, despite not having the money is just nonsense. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, eventually you run out of other people's money.
Sounds like "the minimum wage should be increased because that's what someone needs to live", even though that person doesn't produce work to match the wage.
Second, there's plenty of housing, and code enforcement officers. It wasn't long ago that the city was encouraging multiple family housing convert to single family in a way to fill vacant housing.
Your argument that because there is a need, so they should be built, despite not having the money is just nonsense. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, eventually you run out of other people's money.
Sounds like "the minimum wage should be increased because that's what someone needs to live", even though that person doesn't produce work to match the wage.
They may need housing that is suitable for their budget as well and we can't assume, as you have plenty of homeless Vets that you would think would get help, but don't.
The key word is viable housing and there is a need for code enforcement officers, given the older age of the housing stock in many places across the state. Plus, much of that housing stock needs to be brought up to proper code requirements and you still would need infill.
Where do you get that there isn't any money for housing, when the governor has been looking for municipalities to help increase the housing stock and is looking to do so? https://www.ncsha.org/hfa-news/five-...rdable%20homes. This would mean that there is funding that is allocated for housing.
Also, you don't have to work a minimum wage job to still have a need for housing that doesn't go beyond 30% of one's income. You can make above that and still can't find housing within your budget.
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.
