WHat i wanna know is why do all these mayors, cities etc, say they are making affordable housing, when in reality it really isn't....

I don't think it's fair to build 100 Units and only have 10 units of them for people who make less than half the income of the local area. In stamford u need an income of about 60-70K a year to survive.....half of that is about 30-35K for those to qualify. But i just hate the fact they say it's affordable, BUT the prices for the condos is in the high 400's and 500's at selling price, and the rents be expensive. If 100 Units are built i'd give 20-30 units of affordable housing, and not give the people who are struggling the short end of the stick. IN Stamford, ALOT of families are on the waiting list to get a place to stay.....but most of them end up waiting because they can't get afford the "affordable housing".

It bothers me to see these mayors lie and talk about affordable housing, when the housing they build is expensive. Stamford is supposed to be building 1,000 Units of "affordable housing"..........since when were "luxury" condos and the Avalon Condos ( you've seen em before), since when were they "affordable"?? I know public housing is a detriment to society, but you don't have to go and build these so called "luxury" homes. Build something nice and decent......it don't have to those public housing buildings, just something nice & decent.

Any opinions, ideas on the subject of affordable housing. Talk about an area where you come from and affordable housing is an issue. Feedback is appreciated.

Although I think that providing affordable and decent housing is a good policy, there are a few reasons why it has not worked in many instances.

First, many new developments spring up in areas with rising land values, or where land values are high and there is underutilization. This means... luxury homes. If the location is decent and the developer is willing to invest millions in the project, it can command higher prices and make more money by appealing to more affluent buyers.

Second, the idea of including affordable housing in high value areas doesn't really make sense, because there are usually lower value areas around that can support affordable housing but would not be suitable for luxury homes. Why use high-value land for mid-value homes? It doesn't add up for developers.

Finally, many people who would normally buy affordable houses have been able to "afford" luxury homes due to low mortgage rates. They also see their homes as an investment that is sure to grow, so their reluctance to buy above their means has been (falsely) alleviated. What this means is that many people in the last few years of this real estate boom have opted to go "luxury", thinking it was a great investment both b/c of low borrowing costs and the potential for appreciation. This will change in the coming months and years.

IMO, the boom is over and the bust is just beginning. Unfortunately, the strategy of builiding mid-income housing that would be reasonbly priced and STABLE in the long run has not caught on in the midst of the exuberance. What we will see is the depreciation of the overpriced housing in many markets to an affordable level, until prices are more in line with wages, savings, and other economic factors. The problem, however, is that many mid-income people will get bitchslapped by rising mortgage rates and softening demand, losing their houses and their nest-eggs. The natural result of this, unfortunately, will be a decline in homeownership rates among middle class people, and an economically driven moderation in real estate prices.

Just wait and see... as the "luxury" homes languish on the market, people will realize the folly of buying overpriced real estate.

For a young guy like myself in the $40-50K/year salary range here in Buffalo, I get frustrated when I look for housing. Here in our downtown we have all this new residential housing opening up seemingly every week, but there are two problems I find. 1) The rents are usually pretty rediculous, $1000+ for a single bedroom (which I can't afford)...or 2) If i find a place in my price range ($500-$700/month) they are designated for people that make under $25k/year. The middle class gets no breaks! grrrrrr Maybe I should call Lou Dobbs, give him some more fuel for his arguments against the "assault on the middle class"...lol

the best way for younger people to get into the real estate market is to buy an older house in need of some work which is located close to an area of renovated homes. sweat equity is a great way to increase wealth, and it is an environmentally responsible thing to do.

I don't think someone in the 40-50k/year range can even afford downtown rents, let alone carry a mortgage. A commute is probably inevitable.

Affordable Housing...well...

...while the developers and politicians don't want them, will be a big issue whether they like it or not

Either that, or expect glaring economic problems and the loss of jobs and people because the majority of the citizens in that city can't even afford to live there. Luxury Condos, while nice, cater too much to a exclusive market. If nothing is done, when the bubble bursts, these communities will be hit the most.

Unless something happens, Stamford will probably be seeing a decline in housing prices and rentals by 2007...scratch that, the whole Tri-State area.

Not to gloat, but if the price is too expensive, move up here! More bang for your buck... :)

I think the problem is that when people think of buying their first home, they think they have the right to live in the best areas with all the luxuries and not have to pay market rate for it.

I am sure that there is plenty of affordable housing in or near Stamford and every other Northeast city. But it will not come with central air, dishwashers, and granite counter tops. It will not be in the best school district in the area and it most likely will not be in the safest of neighborhoods.

You get things like that after you have owned a "starter home" (or trailer), built equity, and traded up several times. Either that, or one becomes better educated and gets a higher paying job which enables one to buy it sooner.

Capitalism does not guarantee equality when it comes to possessions. It does guarantee equal opportunity for all which is why we have public school systems. Some people simply use that opportunity to make better decisions than others. The folks who went to college and were studying all night, while their peers were partying on the street corner or content having low paying jobs, generally have better homes and can afford market rate housing.

As a 49 year old liberal who is a product of the Baltimore City Public School System, I am about to move to a brand new highrise condo in downtown Baltimore. It is costing me a lot of money, but I have it because for the past 20 years I have commuted over an hour and a half each way to work and I have lived in a house without central air, granite counter tops, and an automatic dishwasher. But I built a significant amount of equity in the property I own and now it is paying off for me.

I might add that I get the added pleasure of knowing that I earned everything I have and it wasn't subsidized by my fellow taxpayers. In some ways, this feeling is more rewarding to me than actually having use of the luxuries I have mentioned above. :runaway: