KCRag Forum

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:57 pm
And here is the zip just to the west, 64109. Goes from Gillham to Prospect. Averages went from $50k 10 years ago to a recent peak of over $300k.

chrizow wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:32 pm

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:57 pm
And here is the zip just to the west, 64109. Goes from Gillham to Prospect. Averages went from $50k 10 years ago to a recent peak of over $300k.

fascinating, and something i've noticed in our previous neighborhood, South Hyde Park. we lived there from 2008 to 2016. during that period, it was pretty much unheard-of for a house to sell above 200k. (maybe a couple sales of unusually-large homes) now, over 200K is the norm.

phuqueue wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:20 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:18 pm There is a housing crisis only if you feel the urban core should be the sole location for cheap rent in the metro.

This is precisely the kind of take I was attacking in the first thread with that Simpsons gag. The implication here, much as in that post from a few days ago where the other person talked about "shabby, rundown areas where you can find a deal" is that people with lower incomes should be forced out of desirable urban core neighborhoods and into suburban slums to make way for whoever has an extra buck to spend. The urban core need not be the "sole" area where you can find affordable rent, but it shouldn't be transformed into a playground open only to people with money either, and in particular, people who have been in their homes for years or decades shouldn't be forced to vacate because somebody with more money suddenly parachuted in and decided they want that house for themselves.

chrizow wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:32 pm

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:57 pm
And here is the zip just to the west, 64109. Goes from Gillham to Prospect. Averages went from $50k 10 years ago to a recent peak of over $300k.

fascinating, and something i've noticed in our previous neighborhood, South Hyde Park. we lived there from 2008 to 2016. during that period, it was pretty much unheard-of for a house to sell above 200k. (maybe a couple sales of unusually-large homes) now, over 200K is the norm.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:49 pm
So you are saying that you moved out, and then the neighborhood greatly increased in value. Interesting. I think we see what was holding the area back.

chrizow wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:39 am to keep gentrifiers on their toes, i would fire several gunshots into the air around 10pm each night. sad to see no one picked up the torch when we left.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:20 am
Both also "open" to Metcalf streetcar. Czinege for listening to proposal, Skoog loves Vision Metcalf, said it VM looked at Light Rail back when it was drafted thought it was a good idea, so now pro-streetcar as it aligns with Vision Metcalf goals. Also both are open to supporting DT stadium. Really wild times that both candidates are open to these ideas, shows how far regional cooperation has come.

Samantha Pohlman says the horrific chain of events began after a chilly night inside the home the couple was renting. They had an agreement with their landlord that they would pay a lower amount of rent because they would help remodel the home.

“He just messaged him like, ‘hey, can we please just do something about the heating situation,” Pohlman said.

She says they were cordial in their request.

...
In part that’s because in much of the country, there is actually no shortage of rental housing. The problem is that millions of people lack the income to afford what’s on the market.
...
Nationally, about 45% of all renter households spend more than 30% of their pretax income on rent – the widely recognized threshold of affordability. About half of these renters, 9.7 million in total, spend more than 50% of their income on housing, greatly impairing their ability to meet other basic needs and putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

Nearly two-thirds of renters paying at least half of their income on housing earn less than US$20,000, which is below the poverty line for a family of three. Renters with somewhat higher incomes also struggle with housing affordability, but the problem is most pervasive and most severe among very-low income households.

For a household earning $20,000, $500 per month is the highest affordable rent, assuming the affordability standard of spending no more than 30% of income on housing. In contrast, the median rent in the U.S. in 2019 was $1,097, a level that’s affordable to households earning no less than $43,880.
...
At the heart of the nation’s affordability crisis is the fact that the cost to build and operate housing simply exceeds what low-income renters can afford. Nationally, the average monthly operating cost for a rental unit in 2018 was $439, excluding mortgage and other debt-related expenses.

In other words, even if landlords set rents at the bare minimum needed to cover costs – with no profit – housing would remain unaffordable to most very-low-income households – unless they also receive rental subsidies.
...
The U.S. already has a program designed to help these people afford homes. With Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, recipients pay 30% of their income on rent, and the program covers the balance.
...
The $26 billion program currently serves about 2.5 million households, or only 1 in 4 of all eligible households. The current version of Democrats’ social spending bill would gradually expand the program by about 300,000 over five years at a total cost of $24 billion.
...

...
Other studies have found that when affordability mandates are too stringent, they can discourage development altogether. This seems intuitive, as developers cannot be expected to charge rents far below market rate when all their expenses remain at a market-rate level.
...
The expectation of some San Francisco supervisors that projects should exceed even the current California level, or better yet, become 100-percent-affordable social housing, is unrealistic. Accomplishing that would require massive subsidies, and if officials such as Preston expect private developers to do this without much subsidy, not much will be built. Right now San Francisco and other expensive U.S. cities are risking that latter outcome.

herrfrank wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:35 pm We are in a bubble, folks. Ordinary people do not generate enough cash flow to support these prices.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:11 am It's a weird thing I've noticed while paying attention to Longfellow real estate where it seems like like-for-like houses haven't appreciated seemingly at all since 2019, mid-$200s to mid-$300s depends on size, rooms. But, new construction or high-end renovations are in the $600-700k range, with nothing coming close to that price-point until the last year. Just one house selling at that price would make it seem like the neighborhood has appreciated dramatically even if individual houses haven't budged. It's a strange dynamic.