Readers Mixed On The Term ‘Affordable Housing’
The post introducing the poll last week generated nearly 60 comments. “Affordable Housing” is clearly a loaded phrase.
Q:Â When I hear the term “affordable housing” I think of:
- projects” subsidized by taxpayers 36 [22.36%]
- Total housing costs of no more than 30% of a household income 34 [21.12%]
- Clean/quality housing for lower-income working families 33 [20.5%]
- Something I don’t want near my place of residence 23 [14.29%]
- An unsafe ghetto 11 [6.83%]
- No place I want to visit or live 8 [4.97%]
- Unsure/no opinion 8 [4.97%]
- Other answer… 8 [4.97%]
The other answers submitted were:
- A Conundrum
- Low-quality construction
- That it should be re-framed in terms of the life cycle. Singles thru retirees.
- The city of St. Louis is full of affordable housing
- clean/quality subsidized “projects” that, over time, turn into unsafe
- Mixed opinion, but obviously a negative connotation.
- a serious problem in Saint Louis
- One of the negative results that arise from capitalism and poverty
Despite what many might think, many in our region struggle to afford safe & clean housing.
– Steve Patterson
There are two equal parts to this equation, what you make / can afford to spend AND what the housing you want to be in costs. Most of us cannot afford to be in as nice a home in as nice a neighborhood as we would like. The next question is is this “fair”? What can government and/or the private sector do to either reduce housing costs and/or to increase wages? I’d argue that housing costs in and around St. Louis aren’t excessive, and it’s the relatively low wages and a lack of employment opportunities that are the real culprit.
There are two equal parts to this equation, what you make / can afford to spend AND what the housing you want to be in costs. Most of us cannot afford to be in as nice a home in as nice a neighborhood as we would like. The next question is is this “fair”? What can government and/or the private sector do to either reduce housing costs and/or to increase wages? I’d argue that housing costs in and around St. Louis aren’t excessive, and it’s the relatively low wages and a lack of employment opportunities that are the real culprit.
all this is nonsense and public opinions are nonsense: Affordable Housing is a term that replaced the term expanded housing opportunity. Expanded Housing Opportunity replaced the term Spatial Deconcentration. Spatial Deconcentration was subjugated because the Asst Secretary of HUD arond 1979 determined SD attaracted too much negative attention. SD is what is known locally as The Team Four Plan. TTFP designed a metro wide housing scheme n which the concentrated black poulation would be spread thru-out the entire metro area B’ville to St P’trs. AH suggests a few poor mixed in w/ middle and upper classes.
Ivory Metal
all this is nonsense and public opinions are nonsense: Affordable Housing is a term that replaced the term expanded housing opportunity. Expanded Housing Opportunity replaced the term Spatial Deconcentration. Spatial Deconcentration was subjugated because the Asst Secretary of HUD arond 1979 determined SD attaracted too much negative attention. SD is what is known locally as The Team Four Plan. TTFP designed a metro wide housing scheme n which the concentrated black poulation would be spread thru-out the entire metro area B’ville to St P’trs. AH suggests a few poor mixed in w/ middle and upper classes.
Ivory Metal
Wow. The lack of comprehension as to what affordable housing is and isn’t is staggering.
Wow. The lack of comprehension as to what affordable housing is and isn’t is staggering.
If you don’t have a job, then not much of anything will be “affordable”. If you have 3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then not much will be, either. And if you’re Albert Pujols or Augustus Busch, then everything is affordable. What’s not to understand?!
If you don’t have a job, then not much of anything will be “affordable”. If you have 3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then not much will be, either. And if you’re Albert Pujols or Augustus Busch, then everything is affordable. What’s not to understand?!
In response to your question. No, you can’t tell, but give it 10 years and it will be obvious!
In response to your question. No, you can’t tell, but give it 10 years and it will be obvious!
“If you have 3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then”…..you make bad choices. There are numerous ways to prevent that situation.
STL is an extremely affordable city to live in by nearly any criteria. Here in Northampton where I bought a few years ago a smaller and completely acceptable brick home can be had for $160k (even less if your willing to grab something a bit more towards the fixer-upper end)….it’s not fancy but it’s dry, it’s safe, folks take pride in the upkeep of the property and everyone is friendly. If you buy half a duplex it’s even cheaper and there are some wonderful duplexes here. How much more affordable does it get? If you want a roof over your head you will have to actually do some work for it.
“If you have 3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then”…..you make bad choices. There are numerous ways to prevent that situation.
STL is an extremely affordable city to live in by nearly any criteria. Here in Northampton where I bought a few years ago a smaller and completely acceptable brick home can be had for $160k (even less if your willing to grab something a bit more towards the fixer-upper end)….it’s not fancy but it’s dry, it’s safe, folks take pride in the upkeep of the property and everyone is friendly. If you buy half a duplex it’s even cheaper and there are some wonderful duplexes here. How much more affordable does it get? If you want a roof over your head you will have to actually do some work for it.
Bravo Sir.
Extremely naive to say that people with “3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then you make bad choices”. Some people do not come from money. It is hard to move up the ladder. Don’t consider your own experiences as the only one, have a little heart and think about others that may have a harder time.
Oh jeez, are we all really going to get into an argument about whether or not people are poor deserve to be poor? Undoubtedly, some people who are poor have no one to blame except themselves for all of the bad decisions they have made. But there are some people who are generally down on their luck. Take the proverbial single mother with four children; what if her husband had left her for another woman? That has sent many a family into poverty overnight. The answer to why people are poor is much more nuanced than mere ideologues can generalize.
Bravo Sir.
Extremely naive to say that people with “3 or 4 kids and make minimum wage, then you make bad choices”. Some people do not come from money. It is hard to move up the ladder. Don’t consider your own experiences as the only one, have a little heart and think about others that may have a harder time.
Oh jeez, are we all really going to get into an argument about whether or not people are poor deserve to be poor? Undoubtedly, some people who are poor have no one to blame except themselves for all of the bad decisions they have made. But there are some people who are generally down on their luck. Take the proverbial single mother with four children; what if her husband had left her for another woman? That has sent many a family into poverty overnight. The answer to why people are poor is much more nuanced than mere ideologues can generalize.
For the people that think STL doesn’t have enough affordable housing….have you EVER traveled anywhere? What other major city has as much affordable housing as we do?
Seriously, that’s not a rhetorical question…you think STL is so overpriced, then tell me where else I could go and still live in a city the size of St. Louis with all the amenities we have and pay less for a quality home?
For the people that think STL doesn’t have enough affordable housing….have you EVER traveled anywhere? What other major city has as much affordable housing as we do?
Seriously, that’s not a rhetorical question…you think STL is so overpriced, then tell me where else I could go and still live in a city the size of St. Louis with all the amenities we have and pay less for a quality home?
Who said St. Louis was overpriced? That’s not the point. Affordability is a function of income. Low income people have a hard time affording decent housing. Do we want them living on the streets or in substandard housing? I guess that’s what a libertarian would say.
Being poor sucks – no disagreement. But define “decent housing”. No, we don’t want the poor “living on the streets”, but “substandard” is a pretty loose description. Pretty much every property in the region needs an occupancy inspection before it an be occupied, and I assume that sets the minimum for “standard” housing. If it’s rental property, it may not be exactly what I’d want to buy – worn-but-servicable floors, tiny bathroom, small bedrooms, dated kitchen, no garage – but the roof won’t be leaking, the smoke detectors will be working and the appliances, heat and A/C will be functional. Bottom line, a roof over one’s head.
The question is where does one draw the line when it comes to subsidizing poverty? Whether it’s by choice or circumstances? Housing? Section 8. Food? Food stamps. Heating? Heat Up St. Louis. Children? AFDC. Disability? Social Security & Medicaid. Clothes? Goodwill. Transportation? Metro. Internet? Libraries. Cable TV? Cell phone? You may view it as “libertarian” to say enough is enough; I view it as making the most of finite public resources. Socialists want all of us to be equal, with no rewards for working hard and succeeding (and no penalties for laziness or failure). And for us capitalists, there’s a big difference between short-term challenges, like unemployment or the husband deserting the wife and kids, and structural failures, like dropping out of high school, being unmotivated or enjoying too many recreational drugs – all bad choices. We support short-term, finite government assitance; we resist permanent assistance when there are other options.
There can be long stretches of time between occupancy inspections. Substandard housing means unsafe and unsanitary. JZ, maybe you’ve never heard of the term “slumlord”? I’ve heard stories of building owners cutting off the sewer stack as it enters the basement, with raw sewage flowing onto the basement floor. Leaking roofs, broken windows, holes in floors, leaking plumbing, you name it. It costs money to operate and maintain even so-called “affordable housing”, and many landlords underestimate those costs, often leading to deteriorating property conditions and people living in substandard housing.
Of course I’ve heard of slumlords. But there’s an easy solution, if you’re renting and you’re not happy, MOVE OUT! Vote with your feet, quit enabling the POS. I know what the market is like. The going rent for a 2 BR rental home in south city (like the one we own a couple of blocks from the Shrewsbury Metrolink station) is $650 a month. It’s affordable housing in a pretty decent neighborhood.
Looking on Craigslist just now, I easily found a 1 BR apartment that’s nicer, but smaller, for $400 a month (“Cozy Midtown apartment that’s easy on the budget! [Midtown, 63104]”) So just what do you consider to be “affordable”, for a place that’s not substandard? $500 a month? $350? $200?!
Bigger picture, we screen all our potential tenants. Last time around, we had a guy apply who had several convictions, a suspended drivers license and a poor credit score – guess what, we didn’t rent to him. Guys like that keep the slumlords in business. And it wasn’t an affordability issue, it’s a bunch of bad choices catching up with him.
I saw a sign on the front door of a run down looking 4-family in South City offering units for $850 per month.
Re. your under 700 credit score rental applicant, sort of like that pay day loan store down the street, there are predatory landlords just as their are predatory lenders.
Low income people get taken advantage of on many levels. Crappy landlords keep them in lousy housing. The tenant doesn’t have much leverage in the relationship.
A 2-BR Southwest city single family home near the Shrewsbury metrolink station is not typical for the St. Louis city rental housing market. More typical is a 2/4 flat in wide swaths of the city. These are almost all much older than SW city housing and higher cost to operate, running on thinner margins for the owner.
Seen those late night TV shows about how to make quick money in real estate? Seen the ads for buying great houses at tax sale? Seen the waves of foreclosure passing over some neighborhoods? These are the market forces negatively impacting the supply of decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing for low-moderate income households.
I agree that “Low income people get taken advantage of on many levels.” Where we obviously disagree is what role the government should play. Should the government outlaw background checks? Deposit requirements? Should the government come through and inspect every residence (rental AND owner-occupied) every year or two to verify that they meet certain habitability standards? Should the government then fund any needed repairs? From a list of government-approved contractors? Should the government provide weekly housekeeping and lawn care services?
I’ve seen the get-rich-quick-in-real-estate infomercials and I’ve seen the foreclosures. I’m just not sure how they’re “negatively impacting the supply of decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing for low-moderate income households.” If anything, the current recession is driving down the cost of housing, for all income levels, through simple supply-and-demand economics (I was able to get more rent two or three years ago). Where there ARE negative impacts is for current owners, who have seen their equity reduced or wiped out, but those remain paper losses until and unless one is trying to sell or refinance.
And before you get into buyers being duped by unscrupulous lenders during the boom times (resulting in now “unaffordable” mortgages), all I can say is that between the Truth in Lending laws and simple, basic greed, anyone who pleads ignorance now is not being totally truthful. Just like those infamous rent-to-own operations, where one pays way more, in total, than they would from normal retailers, some people will always choose instant gratification over thinking through the long-term consequences, including any potential negatives.
As American consumers, we’ve been conditioned to expect the biggest, the best and the newest. That’s only sustainable IF you/I/we have the funds to support such extravagant consumption. It’s not surprising that the poor have simlar aspirations, just like it’s not surprising that they lack the resources to “keep up”. Which gets to the crux of the discussion of affordable housing – should the government be “solving” the money side of the equation (more and better jobs and job training) or should the government be “solving” the price side of the equation (what housing costs)? “Getting rich”, quick or not, is the best way to solve the whole affordability issue!
Jim, surely you must understand how foreclosure negatively impacts the supply of decent and safe affordable housing. It’s all about supply and demand. The demand increases, the supply decreases, the market is weakened by falling property values, and it becomes more uneconomical to maintain real estate. Everybody loses.
Huh? When costs go down 10%, 20% or 40%, then they become more affordable. Supply is up now, since not as many buyers are buying, waiting for the market to bottom out. If you couldn’t afford to pay $250,000 three years ago, you’re more likely to be able to pay $180,000 today, assuming you still have the same job. $180,000 becomes $130,000. $120,000 becomes $90,000 or $80,000. If this were retail, it’d be “Everything’s 1/3 Off!”
There will always be owners who skimp on maintenance, good times or bad. But most owners know that it’s better to fix problems when they’re small, and not to wait until they’re big ones. Real estate ain’t free, and if you want to get your money back (the investment part), you gotta take care of it. It takes some pretty extreme conditions before “it becomes more uneconomical to maintain real estate.”
For most low to moderate income people, affordable housing means rental housing. When values of rental housing drop and they become harder for capitalists to run as a profitable business (low values, high operating costs, low rents), then the properties go off the market and the supply of decent affordable rental housing drops.
I dsiagree. Most rental properties are owned by people who want to keep them rented – they rarely “go off the market”. If anything, the supply has increased, as more than a few owners (those unable to sell for the price they want) have turned to renting, increasing both the supply and the quality of available properties. I do agree that profit margins have dropped as rents have declined, that some maintenance has undoubtedly been deferred, and that foreclosures, the reduced availability of motgages, the increase in the number of unemployed and an erosion in wages has increased the demand for rental housing.
Who said St. Louis was overpriced? That’s not the point. Affordability is a function of income. Low income people have a hard time affording decent housing. Do we want them living on the streets or in substandard housing? I guess that’s what a libertarian would say.
Being poor sucks – no disagreement. But define “decent housing”. No, we don’t want the poor “living on the streets”, but “substandard” is a pretty loose description. Pretty much every property in the region needs an occupancy inspection before it an be occupied, and I assume that sets the minimum for “standard” housing. If it’s rental property, it may not be exactly what I’d want to buy – worn-but-servicable floors, tiny bathroom, small bedrooms, dated kitchen, no garage – but the roof won’t be leaking, the smoke detectors will be working and the appliances, heat and A/C will be functional. Bottom line, a roof over one’s head.
The question is where does one draw the line when it comes to subsidizing poverty? Whether it’s by choice or circumstances? Housing? Section 8. Food? Food stamps. Heating? Heat Up St. Louis. Children? AFDC. Disability? Social Security & Medicaid. Clothes? Goodwill. Transportation? Metro. Internet? Libraries. Cable TV? Cell phone? You may view it as “libertarian” to say enough is enough; I view it as making the most of finite public resources. Socialists want all of us to be equal, with no rewards for working hard and succeeding (and no penalties for laziness or failure). And for us capitalists, there’s a big difference between short-term challenges, like unemployment or the husband deserting the wife and kids, and structural failures, like dropping out of high school, being unmotivated or enjoying too many recreational drugs – all bad choices. We support short-term, finite government assitance; we resist permanent assistance when there are other options.
There can be long stretches of time between occupancy inspections. Substandard housing means unsafe and unsanitary. JZ, maybe you’ve never heard of the term “slumlord”? I’ve heard stories of building owners cutting off the sewer stack as it enters the basement, with raw sewage flowing onto the basement floor. Leaking roofs, broken windows, holes in floors, leaking plumbing, you name it. It costs money to operate and maintain even so-called “affordable housing”, and many landlords underestimate those costs, often leading to deteriorating property conditions and people living in substandard housing.
Of course I’ve heard of slumlords. But there’s an easy solution, if you’re renting and you’re not happy, MOVE OUT! Vote with your feet, quit enabling the POS. I know what the market is like. The going rent for a 2 BR rental home in south city (like the one we own a couple of blocks from the Shrewsbury Metrolink station) is $650 a month. It’s affordable housing in a pretty decent neighborhood.
Looking on Craigslist just now, I easily found a 1 BR apartment that’s nicer, but smaller, for $400 a month (“Cozy Midtown apartment that’s easy on the budget! [Midtown, 63104]”) So just what do you consider to be “affordable”, for a place that’s not substandard? $500 a month? $350? $200?!
Bigger picture, we screen all our potential tenants. Last time around, we had a guy apply who had several convictions, a suspended drivers license and a poor credit score – guess what, we didn’t rent to him. Guys like that keep the slumlords in business. And it wasn’t an affordability issue, it’s a bunch of bad choices catching up with him.
I saw a sign on the front door of a run down looking 4-family in South City offering units for $850 per month.
Re. your under 700 credit score rental applicant, sort of like that pay day loan store down the street, there are predatory landlords just as their are predatory lenders.
Low income people get taken advantage of on many levels. Crappy landlords keep them in lousy housing. The tenant doesn’t have much leverage in the relationship.
A 2-BR Southwest city single family home near the Shrewsbury metrolink station is not typical for the St. Louis city rental housing market. More typical is a 2/4 flat in wide swaths of the city. These are almost all much older than SW city housing and higher cost to operate, running on thinner margins for the owner.
Seen those late night TV shows about how to make quick money in real estate? Seen the ads for buying great houses at tax sale? Seen the waves of foreclosure passing over some neighborhoods? These are the market forces negatively impacting the supply of decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing for low-moderate income households.
I agree that “Low income people get taken advantage of on many levels.” Where we obviously disagree is what role the government should play. Should the government outlaw background checks? Deposit requirements? Should the government come through and inspect every residence (rental AND owner-occupied) every year or two to verify that they meet certain habitability standards? Should the government then fund any needed repairs? From a list of government-approved contractors? Should the government provide weekly housekeeping and lawn care services?
I’ve seen the get-rich-quick-in-real-estate infomercials and I’ve seen the foreclosures. I’m just not sure how they’re “negatively impacting the supply of decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing for low-moderate income households.” If anything, the current recession is driving down the cost of housing, for all income levels, through simple supply-and-demand economics (I was able to get more rent two or three years ago). Where there ARE negative impacts is for current owners, who have seen their equity reduced or wiped out, but those remain paper losses until and unless one is trying to sell or refinance.
And before you get into buyers being duped by unscrupulous lenders during the boom times (resulting in now “unaffordable” mortgages), all I can say is that between the Truth in Lending laws and simple, basic greed, anyone who pleads ignorance now is not being totally truthful. Just like those infamous rent-to-own operations, where one pays way more, in total, than they would from normal retailers, some people will always choose instant gratification over thinking through the long-term consequences, including any potential negatives.
As American consumers, we’ve been conditioned to expect the biggest, the best and the newest. That’s only sustainable IF you/I/we have the funds to support such extravagant consumption. It’s not surprising that the poor have simlar aspirations, just like it’s not surprising that they lack the resources to “keep up”. Which gets to the crux of the discussion of affordable housing – should the government be “solving” the money side of the equation (more and better jobs and job training) or should the government be “solving” the price side of the equation (what housing costs)? “Getting rich”, quick or not, is the best way to solve the whole affordability issue!
Jim, surely you must understand how foreclosure negatively impacts the supply of decent and safe affordable housing. It’s all about supply and demand. The demand increases, the supply decreases, the market is weakened by falling property values, and it becomes more uneconomical to maintain real estate. Everybody loses.
Huh? When costs go down 10%, 20% or 40%, then they become more affordable. Supply is up now, since not as many buyers are buying, waiting for the market to bottom out. If you couldn’t afford to pay $250,000 three years ago, you’re more likely to be able to pay $180,000 today, assuming you still have the same job. $180,000 becomes $130,000. $120,000 becomes $90,000 or $80,000. If this were retail, it’d be “Everything’s 1/3 Off!”
There will always be owners who skimp on maintenance, good times or bad. But most owners know that it’s better to fix problems when they’re small, and not to wait until they’re big ones. Real estate ain’t free, and if you want to get your money back (the investment part), you gotta take care of it. It takes some pretty extreme conditions before “it becomes more uneconomical to maintain real estate.”
For most low to moderate income people, affordable housing means rental housing. When values of rental housing drop and they become harder for capitalists to run as a profitable business (low values, high operating costs, low rents), then the properties go off the market and the supply of decent affordable rental housing drops.
I dsiagree. Most rental properties are owned by people who want to keep them rented – they rarely “go off the market”. If anything, the supply has increased, as more than a few owners (those unable to sell for the price they want) have turned to renting, increasing both the supply and the quality of available properties. I do agree that profit margins have dropped as rents have declined, that some maintenance has undoubtedly been deferred, and that foreclosures, the reduced availability of motgages, the increase in the number of unemployed and an erosion in wages has increased the demand for rental housing.
And from a place where housing was a lot more unaffordable than St. Louis ever was, Longmont, Colorado, comes the following newspaper article: “Longmont officials grapple with unintended consequences of affordable-housing rules”
“A program aimed at providing affordable housing for the working class may be dumped or put on hiatus over criticism that it’s hurting those the city is trying to help. Builders and some on the City Council, including the mayor, are targeting Longmont’s “inclusionary” zoning ordinance, first adopted in 1995. It requires that 10 percent of new residential development be set aside as affordable housing rather than sold at market rate.”
“Officials crafted the ordinance during a time when the housing market was hot in Longmont and working families — including teachers, police and firefighters — needed help getting into a home, said Kathy Fedler, coordinator of the city’s affordable-housing program. To qualify, a single person would have to make between $36,000 and $45,000 a year while a four-person family would need to bring in $51,000 to $64,000.”
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17816013
And from a place where housing was a lot more unaffordable than St. Louis ever was, Longmont, Colorado, comes the following newspaper article: “Longmont officials grapple with unintended consequences of affordable-housing rules”
“A program aimed at providing affordable housing for the working class may be dumped or put on hiatus over criticism that it’s hurting those the city is trying to help. Builders and some on the City Council, including the mayor, are targeting Longmont’s “inclusionary” zoning ordinance, first adopted in 1995. It requires that 10 percent of new residential development be set aside as affordable housing rather than sold at market rate.”
“Officials crafted the ordinance during a time when the housing market was hot in Longmont and working families — including teachers, police and firefighters — needed help getting into a home, said Kathy Fedler, coordinator of the city’s affordable-housing program. To qualify, a single person would have to make between $36,000 and $45,000 a year while a four-person family would need to bring in $51,000 to $64,000.”
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17816013