• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Where I live housing costs are sky high because I'm close to NYC.. So there's apartment complexes going up all around me. Everywhere. But here's another thing that I've notices, this is just my opinion, I have no stats to back it up. The younger people today seem like they rather rent than buy. Buying a house means a lot of maintenance, extra cost, and in today's mobile job market, it means being tied to a house.

I have 4 kids, all in their late 20's and 30's.. None own a home, 1 lives in Manhattan, and 1 lives in Boston, so they don't count. But the other 2 can easily own, but they rent.. They don't want to hassles of owning. And MANY of their friends in they age group feel exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what the "American dream" of old changes into as the younger generations come of age. The fact many come out of school in debt has a big impact on how they start planning their lives; the trend of starting a family at a later age is becoming apparent. Most of the younger team members I talked to in my former corporate role didn't have the same ambition to own a home; citing some of the issues you stated. Their living conditions at the time were sharing expensive NYC apartments with their peers; this allowed them to experience NYC in a somewhat affordable way. I can see why the younger generation is skeptical about home ownership; especially houses where there is such a huge overhead. In places like NY/NJ/CT, the property taxes make it even less appealing.

Among my peers (Gen X) the idea of buying a home isn't something those I know were completely sold on either; especially after the housing market tanked in 2008. I still went ahead and purchased property because the condo I bought has a beautiful view of Midtown Manhattan and has access to multiple ways of commuting into the city. My bets are on the continued expansion westward into NJ as the family oriented people move out of NYC. So far my assumption has proven correct, thankfully. The loosely developed waterfront on the Hudson has become very active over the last 12 years; there's hardly any land left where there isn't a new luxury residential building.
 
Lovebug said:
We looked into mobile homes for a vacation home. We have an acre of land here and there, so it was worth considering. After seeing some of the mobile home bloopers at the lot, returns or just some with significant construction issues, we decided on a travel trailer. We had a truck at the time, so it really was the better choice. The only issue with that is room for washer/dryer unit. I don't do public laundry.
As we travel, we do see more travel trailer "communities",( may be it just seems that way. ) some by the side of the road, some on private land.
Click to expand...


The only safe bet is if you own the land. A mobile home might be a good way to save on construction costs, but if you don't own the land you might end up being priced out of your lot with a house you can't afford to move and can't sell for profit. It's a real shame; especially for the older folks on fixed income and those who have no other options.
 
Lovebug said:
I didn't read the article, but remember reading somewhere that, because people are weary of buying, rent due to supply and demand, goes up. Not sure if that is a factor.
Click to expand...

That's the only factor. Rent rises when there are more renters than there are available units. That situation is temporary. If rent prices increase significantly, more units will come on line until the market gets overbuilt, then rents fall. The situation is never stable.
 
ElChupacabra said:
It will be interesting to see what the "American dream" of old changes into as the younger generations come of age. The fact many come out of school in debt has a big impact on how they start planning their lives; the trend of starting a family at a later age is becoming apparent. Most of the younger team members I talked to in my former corporate role didn't have the same ambition to own a home; citing some of the issues you stated. Their living conditions at the time were sharing expensive NYC apartments with their peers; this allowed them to experience NYC in a somewhat affordable way. I can see why the younger generation is skeptical about home ownership; especially houses where there is such a huge overhead. In places like NY/NJ/CT, the property taxes make it even less appealing.

Among my peers (Gen X) the idea of buying a home isn't something those I know were completely sold on either; especially after the housing market tanked in 2008. I still went ahead and purchased property because the condo I bought has a beautiful view of Midtown Manhattan and has access to multiple ways of commuting into the city. My bets are on the continued expansion westward into NJ as the family oriented people move out of NYC. So far my assumption has proven correct, thankfully. The loosely developed waterfront on the Hudson has become very active over the last 12 years; there's hardly any land left where there isn't a new luxury residential building.
Click to expand...

Yep, like I said I live north of the City, and apartment complexes are going up everywhere here, but most are going up on the Hudson. In the past 10 years 7-8 apartment/condo complexes have been built. All together with 1,000's of units. And from what I'm hearing, they are 90% or so filled.

And I'm not even mentioning the dozens of new commercial properties on the Hudson.

Here if you're young, and rent an apartment, there's dozens of stores, restaurant and bars around these new complexes. And Metro-North is right there so if they feel like it they can hop on the train and be in NYC in 50 mins. They work hard all week and they don't want to be bothered with mowing the grass, or shoveling snow, or fixing leaky faucets on the weekends. So they rent. And in many cases I can't blame them.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yep, like I said I live north of the City, and apartment complexes are going up everywhere here, but most are going up on the Hudson. In the past 10 years 7-8 apartment/condo complexes have been built. All together with 1,000's of units. And from what I'm hearing, they are 90% or so filled.

And I'm not even mentioning the dozens of new commercial properties on the Hudson.

Here if you're young, and rent an apartment, there's dozens of stores, restaurant and bars around these new complexes. And Metro-North is right there so if they feel like it they can hop on the train and be in NYC in 50 mins. They work hard all week and they don't want to be bothered with mowing the grass, or shoveling snow, or fixing leaky faucets on the weekends. So they rent. And in many cases I can't blame them.
Click to expand...


I wonder how long it will be before someone starts offering ferry service to the city from Yonkers and towns along the Hudson north of that (Hastings-On-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry etc.). Having another option besides bus and Metro North would be great if somewhat affordable. North of the city the views of the Hudson from either side of the state are gorgeous; especially in the fall when the foliage changes. I think a lot of the sleepier parts of the NYC area are going to continue to grow as those who want access to the city but without the congestion find new options.
 
Property taxes and regulations have made building rental property not viable in many areas. It used to be possible to rent a house at least equaling the loan plus property taxes. That isn't so anymore. If it is not profitable to build rental property it won't be built. Zoning laws also often are written to prohibit building low-cost housing.

Rent-control only makes that a worse problem, making building low income rental property not viable.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I wonder how long it will be before someone starts offering ferry service to the city from Yonkers and towns along the Hudson north of that (Hastings-On-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry etc.). Having another option besides bus and Metro North would be great if somewhat affordable. North of the city the views of the Hudson from either side of the state are gorgeous; especially in the fall when the foliage changes. I think a lot of the sleepier parts of the NYC area are going to continue to grow as those who want access to the city but without the congestion find new options.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, around West Point that area in the Fall is gorgeous.

Some of the cities on the Hudson have nightly 'cruises', but yeah a ferry down to the city is a good idea.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) Yes, but I do give most of her work priority and explain that (in advance) to my other customers. My rate is generally on the low end of "market rate" and sometimes below that, especially when I am doing plumbing or electrical work. I charge my landlord the same rate as I charge my other customers. The combination of our low rent ($300/month) and our Social Security (SS) income allow us to do well enough despite charging a lower than typical labor rate for my self-employed handyman work. I work only for repeat customers and their referrals thus don't waste time placing bids (or doing "estimates") for jobs that I am unlikely to get.

If we had to pay higher rent and did not have SS income then I would have to raise my labor rate and/or work further from where I live. At present I have plenty enough work to meet my goals without having to work more than 10 to 12 miles from home and usually work only 3 or 4 days per week.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. A lot of people seem not to include the "value of foregone income for services provided" when they calculate the rent they are actually paying. This, of course, makes their rent appear to be lower than it actually is.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ummmmmmm yeahNO...
We just need an increase in very small "tiny houses" and affordable efficiency apartments (100 - 250 sq ft) that rent for something like $350-450 a month.
Click to expand...

Did you know that 100 sq.ft. is just fractionally more than double the size of an AMTRAK "super bedroom" and only 5 1/2 sq.ft. larger than an AMTRAK "bedroom suite" - neither of which has cooking facilities and neither of which has any storage space to speak of?
 
j-mac said:
Well, there you go again Canuk....You just can't help yourself trashing America can you...
Click to expand...

WOW!!! I didn't know that I owned CBS. Whoodathunkit?

j-mac said:
Problem is, you seem to be posting the exact problems with your own country....Wonder why you never post about that?
Click to expand...

Would Americans be interested? I think not.

j-mac said:
"There is currently a vicious crisis concerning affordable housing in Canada. While experts say we shouldn’t spend more than 30% of our income on housing, there are thousands of struggling Canadians spending more than half their income on rent. What makes this issue even worse is that its effect doesn’t end at housing. For those who live off minimum wage, it becomes almost impossible to maintain their budgets as so much of their income is going towards rent."

Affordable Housing Crisis In Canada | Loans Canada


So, maybe we should just apply your own insulting words back to your own country when you said:

'You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?'

Or, maybe we should just ignore your relentless attacks on America, dismissing them as just another rude Canuk who doesn't understand that maybe you should clean up your own glass house.
Click to expand...

You appear to have suffered terminal lip fatigue so that you stopped reading before you reached the "[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are.]" bit.

BTW, I do NOT consider the fact that the US is suffering from a "housing crisis" to be anything even remotely like approving the fact that Canada is also having one. That would be classic "Whataboutism" in action, just as it would be if someone were to take the position that it is absolutely horrible that Canada has a "housing crisis" and that means that it's OK if the US has one.

So, is it your position that


  1. "It is a "bad thing" for the US to have a "housing crisis" REGARDLESS of whether some other country has one."; or
  2. "If no other country was having a "housing crisis" then it would be a "bad thing" for the US to have one, but since other countries are having a "housing crisis" it's just peachy keen for the US to have one too."?
 
jimbo said:
Which of course would create monster scarcities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because all of the houses that currently exist would disappear, right?

joko104 said:
Rent-control only makes that a worse problem, making building low income rental property not viable.
Click to expand...

Exempt new buildings from rent-control for a period of 10 years. That will create an incentive to keep building new housing.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that 100 sq.ft. is just fractionally more than double the size of an AMTRAK "super bedroom" and only 5 1/2 sq.ft. larger than an AMTRAK "bedroom suite" - neither of which has cooking facilities and neither of which has any storage space to speak of?
Click to expand...

My 110 sf bachelor pad had a kitchenette built into one wall.
It wasn't luxurious. Two burner stove, sink and mini-fridge all in one unit, and a wee bit of counter space, and cupboards above.
 
The way the Democratic Party is causing terrible affordable housing shortages is by demanding always bringing in more and more millions of poor illegal immigrants who compete for available housing. Throw another 100,000 illegal immigrants into L.A. or any other city and unless there are tens of thousands of available rental units it will push rents upward.
 
AmNat said:
Yeah, because all of the houses that currently exist would disappear, right?



Exempt new buildings from rent-control for a period of 10 years. That will create an incentive to keep building new housing.
Click to expand...

How is that an incentive? When the property owner is finally starting to clear a profit due to inflation, the government blocks that profit nor could the owner sell the property for a profit making it not worth his/her investment and effort.

People like to think they can just find some magic fix by the government. However, as long as government increasingly finances bums and lazy asses and allows endlessly millions more illegal immigrants into the country there is no solution possible. That lands now entirely on the Democrats. Who is MOST slammed by illegal immigrants are black communities already facing serious economic problems and housing shortage.
 
Lovebug said:
We looked into mobile homes for a vacation home. We have an acre of land here and there, so it was worth considering. After seeing some of the mobile home bloopers at the lot, returns or just some with significant construction issues, we decided on a travel trailer. We had a truck at the time, so it really was the better choice. The only issue with that is room for washer/dryer unit. I don't do public laundry.
As we travel, we do see more travel trailer "communities",( may be it just seems that way. ) some by the side of the road, some on private land.
Click to expand...

One out of eight Americans live in a trailer.
 
AmNat said:
It's interesting how this thread immediately turned into a Trump-hate fest. I haven't seen a single post (aside from my own) discussing possible solutions.
Click to expand...

The reason is the liberals will not talk about policy. They just bitch about how many hamburgers Trump eats. Then some liberal will say, I heard Trump pissed in the shower. You know that's what they call real policy issues. But there is a reason they stay away from policies, the lived under the most failed President in US History.
 
AmNat said:
Limit the maximum legal sale price of real estate to the previous sale price increased by 2% per year (money spent improving a property would be added in dollar-for-dollar in the year the improvements were made). Limit maximum monthly rent to .5% of the maximum legal price. Exempt the first $250,000/occupant in a residential property from property tax, where an occupant is a person who uses it as a primary residence. Impose a 10% annual property tax on real estate which has not been used as a residence or place of business within the last year. The tax would be figured based on the maximum legal price of the property, not accounting for improvements made by the current owner. Repeal the antidiscrimination laws which render price increases the only legal form of tenant quality control (having the perverse effect that an increase in price automatically increases the market value of an apartment, since it excludes undesirable neighbors). Impose a 20% annual property tax on any real property owned by for-profit corporations or non-resident aliens which do not employ US workers.
Click to expand...

What else do you want government to control.
 
joko104 said:
How is that an incentive? When the property owner is finally starting to clear a profit due to inflation, the government blocks that profit nor could the owner sell the property for a profit making it not worth his/her investment and effort.
Click to expand...

Market rent is generally about 1%/month of the unit's value. If everything except new properties were rent-controlled, that would go higher. So an investor could definitely make a profit in real dollars by building new housing, within 10 years. And of course, they'd continue to profit after that, just not as much as they would without rent control.

Wrt selling, new buildings could also be exempt from maximum sale price for the first 10 years. At 10 years, the market value of the building would become the maximum legal price (for both sale and rental purposes).

People like to think they can just find some magic fix by the government. However, as long as government increasingly finances bums and lazy asses and allows endlessly millions more illegal immigrants into the country there is no solution possible. That lands now entirely on the Democrats. Who is MOST slammed by illegal immigrants are black communities already facing serious economic problems and housing shortage.
Click to expand...

I say throw out all illegals and reduce the flow of new legal immigrants to a trickle. Totally agree there.

Born Free said:
What else do you want government to control.
Click to expand...

I'm an economic pragmatist. I support intervention when it would benefit the people, but not when it wouldn't.
 
AmNat said:
Market rent is generally about 1%/month of the unit's value. If everything except new properties were rent-controlled, that would go higher. So an investor could definitely make a profit in real dollars by building new housing, within 10 years. And of course, they'd continue to profit after that, just not as much as they would without rent control.

Wrt selling, new buildings could also be exempt from maximum sale price for the first 10 years. At 10 years, the market value of the building would become the maximum legal price (for both sale and rental purposes).
Click to expand...

I'm a free market guy, let the investor succeed or fail, and he has the right to succeed as much as he can, no matter the time frame. Same for failure.
 
AmNat said:
I'm an economic pragmatist. I support intervention when it would benefit the people, but not when it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Just a couple of questions:

Would these qualify for government intervention that would benefit the people?

Did you support Obama bailing out GM with taxpayer dollars. He purchased shares of GM and when it was time to sell, we taxpayers lost 11.2 billion on the deal. Did you support Obama giving Solyndra 535 million to start up Solyndra, that we taxpayer lost every dime.
 
Born Free said:
I'm a free market guy, let the investor succeed or fail, and he has the right to succeed as much as he can, no matter the time frame. Same for failure.
Click to expand...

I generally agree when it comes to investors. The investment market works best when they can make (or lose) as much money as they can. But sometimes regulation is necessary for the good of the general public.

Born Free said:
Just a couple of questions:

Would these qualify for government intervention that would benefit the people?

Did you support Obama bailing out GM with taxpayer dollars. He purchased shares of GM and when it was time to sell, we taxpayers lost 11.2 billion on the deal. Did you support Obama giving Solyndra 535 million to start up Solyndra, that we taxpayer lost every dime.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle with the idea behind the auto bailout (using government investment to prevent mass layoffs), though I don't know enough about the details to form an opinion.

I'm more confident saying that funding Solyndra was a bad idea. It created a minimal number of jobs (which would've been the case even if it didn't go bankrupt). And if the government wants to subsidize alternative energy research (something I'm ambivalent about to begin with, nuclear is more effective and cleaner), it'd be better to subsidize existing research institutions and companies, rather than start-ups with a high probability of failure.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Housing's hidden crisis: Rural Americans struggle to pay rent
​

Housing has been famously unaffordable in expensive cities such as San Francisco for a while. But now in tiny towns and counties across the country, an increasing share of rural residents are struggling to pay their rents and mortgages.

The housing affordability crisis is spreading to rural communities such as Aroostook County, Maine, and Malheur County, Oregon, where the share of residents who are severely burdened by housing costs has surged since the housing crash of 2006 to 2010, according to the County Health Rankings. Other researchers are also calling attention to the issue, with Pew's Stateline finding that one of four of the country's most rural counties have seen a rise in severely cost-burdened households -- those that spend more than half their income on housing.

Fifty years ago, the most urgent issue for rural communities was substandard housing, such as whether residents relied on outhouses rather than indoor plumbing, noted Lance George, director of research and information at the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit focusing on rural housing. But affordability now ranks as the top housing concern among rural residents, he said.

"You think it's often just with big cities," he said. "Housing costs are lower in rural areas, but incomes are pretty low too." Housing affordability is a "simple equation," George added. "It's incomes related to housing costs, and incomes in the lower quintile have not increased at all, and maybe even declined."

COMMENT:-

You know, if those people hadn't chosen to live where they can't afford to live, then they wouldn't be having any problems paying their rent - would they?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are.]
​
Click to expand...

Trump MAGA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom