Across The Country, Renters Are Getting Crushed By Housing Costs

[geek tragedy]

Unfortunately, one in four working renters watched housing devour more than half of their paycheck pie in 2011, according to the latest Housing Landscape Report from the Center for Housing Policy. The report analyzed the period between 2008 and 2011, when the rate of renters putting more than half their income toward housing jumped nearly 4%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/across-country-renters-getting-crushed-213049653.html

Much of the strain on renters has to do with fallout from the housing crisis of 2009. Homeowners fled their underwater homes and flooded rental markets to downsize, driving up demand on a stagnant supply of properties and sending rental prices skyrocketing. At the same time, the job market floundered and people's take home pays dwindled –– basically a perfect storm in personal finance hell.

Homeowners who stuck out the crisis haven't fared much better, but their cost burden remained relatively stable throughout the economic recovery, according to CHP. One in five working homeowners experienced severe housing affordability challenges, versus one in four working renters. However, their income dropped 4% between 2008 and 2011.

Renting is the riskiest form of property occupancy, since it is guaranteed to be a money-loser. The rent is too damn high, and it is always going to go up. If you own, your housing payment does not go up so long as you get a fixed rate mortgage.

Renters and home owners both saw their incomes dive during the Great Recession. The difference, though, is that renters saw their housing prices go UP while owners saw their housing payment go DOWN.

Much of the strain on renters has to do with fallout from the housing crisis of 2009. Homeowners fled their underwater homes and flooded rental markets to downsize, driving up demand on a stagnant supply of properties and sending rental prices skyrocketing. At the same time, the job market floundered and people's take home pays dwindled –– basically a perfect storm in personal finance hell.
Homeowners who stuck out the crisis haven't fared much better, but their cost burden remained relatively stable throughout the economic recovery, according to CHP. O ne in five working homeowners experienced severe housing affordability challenges, versus one in four working renters. However, their income dropped 4% between 2008 and 2011.





Beware anyone who talks about trying to make owning one's home more difficult for the 99%.

[NCTraveler]

1. Owners of rental houses on the west coast of Florida have been......

increasing their rates for about two years. There are so many qualified renters looking for residential houses. Over the last two years, in the local market, rental prices have been going up on homes. This increase is not being seen as much in condo's, apartment, duplexes, triplexes, ect...

[geek tragedy]

2. Families.

Get pushed out of owning, enter the rental market, and thus drive rental prices up.

[NCTraveler]

3. Exactly what is going on.

In this part of Florida, when running an application for a rental, foreclosures are viewed in a similar way to medical. They aren't really looked at as bad.

[HooptieWagon]

30. Yes, I live there.

I am fortunate enough to own a home, but many friends rent. Most of them have roommates to share the rent. A few couch-surf. Its pretty tough on them.
I would disagree about apts, duplexes, etc not seeing big increases. My own observation is that that may be the case for privately-owned units, but corporately-owned units see rather hefty annual rent increases. And the corporations are really bad about keeping their property maintained. I had to lend a couple space heaters to friends whose apt owner didn't fix their broken heater for 4 months. They eventually moved.

[NCTraveler]

32. Overall, privately owned apts, condos, and duplexes have been stagnant.

They seem to stay on the market for a longer period of time. Houses on the other hand rent in one to two weeks, depending on the asking rent. That right there tells you about the market.

And yes, there are a lot of shitty owners out there. Many are also hurting with everyone else. I would not let an owner I work for dawdle when fixing an ac or heater.

[kelliekat44]

40. "The rent is too damn high!" The campaigner running on this slogan was right!!

Bad for small businesses too!

[galileoreloaded]

4. renting is the absolute smartest way to acquire housing

and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

we have bastardized to concept of equity. housing is a necessity NOT A STORE OF WEALTH.

[geek tragedy]

5. Sure, if you want to be part of the serf class, renting is the surefire way to go.

That way, someone else controls what your housing payment is, and you wind up being in a condition of economic slavery to them.

If you're moving place to place, sure rent. If you plant stay put 10-20 years, buy if you can.

[galileoreloaded]

7. 10-20 years? have you ever seen job or ownership statistics?

this ain't 1960 friend.

ownership is slavery.

[geek tragedy]

9. I've seen the entire history of rents.

The rent ALWAYS goes up. Always.

Have lived in the same area of the same city for 12 years, btw, no plans to move in the next 15.

[galileoreloaded]

11. oy vey, you need a lesson in macro.

ill work something up and post it.

[geek tragedy]

14. decisions to buy a house are classic microeconomic decisions.

thousands of real estate markets.

[galileoreloaded]

20. lol. all real estate is local right?

[jeff47]

25. It sure is local.

I wouldn't buy a house where I currently live. Because it's a failing former-manufacturing city. House prices are tanking as people with any marketable skills flee.

I'm trying to move to a different city. I already own a house there that I'm currently renting out. I'll happily buy another. Why? Because it's a growing city with slowly climbing property values - it didn't really have much of a bubble, so the prices are still fairly reasonable.

As for rent-vs-own, if you're going to look at it from a purely mathematical angle, it's usually better to own if you are going to live in the same place for 5-ish years, as long as the real estate market is not like the first city I mentioned.

The rent always going up while your fixed mortgage does not, plus equity, results in a savings if you stay in one place that long. And it's really not that hard to stay in one place for 5-ish years.

Of course there's non-mathematical reasons for and against buying a house.

As for your graph, all you've done is documented there was a housing bubble. Oooo, shocking. Of course, you're talking as if that bubble was still in effect instead of us returning to the long-term trend where the two lines are more-or-less parallel.

[geek tragedy]

34. Plus, tax deductions.

Of course, the tax deduction tends to be regressive--the higher the household income and housing payment the more the tax deduction helps.

[Mosby]

64. The deduction is based on the interest you pay on the property

and most wealthy people take out 15 year loans so they tend to pay way less interest. Of course if their mortgage payments are high enough it won't matter.

Bottom line though is that people benefit the most when they buy property because in 15, 20 or 30 years the property will be paid off while renters will still be paying rent. I can't imagine trying to pay rent when I'm retired, you sure won't be able to do it with SS income.

[geek tragedy]

65. Truly wealthy people don't bother with mortgages at all.

Renting is often the better short term option, but buying is still the long term strategy.

[Mosby]

66. that's true sometimes but rich people also know how to leverage their assets

Why buy a house for a million dollars when you can put down 200K and then amortize the rest over 15 years at 3.25%. The other 800K can then be invested and earn a lot more than 3.25%.

That's how rich people keep getting richer.

[geek tragedy]

70. Mere million dollar home= not terribly rich.

Well-off, sure, but not elite status.

Jumbo mortgages have higher interest rates and involve heavy underwriting with lots of disclosure.

[galileoreloaded]

39. the bubble wasnt the point it was the trend lol.

[geek tragedy]

31. That chart doesn't prove what you think it proves.

It tracks asset value (HPI) vs an expense (OER).

It's thus not a comparison of true cost of ownership (a very complex bundle including equity and tax breaks) vs cost of renting.

Once a household buys, their cost of ownership is effectively frozen.

[NCTraveler]

35. Seems like they are trying to justify...

paying someone else's mortgage. There are many benefits to renting, and many downfalls, this was not one of the arguments that can logically be made. I say this as a renter.

[geek tragedy]

36. They conflate fluctuations in home price with the cost of home ownership.

The two are related, obviously, but comparing two indexes doesn't say anything.

We rented for a number of years and were happy to do so. It takes a long time to save up that kind of downpayment--and even then we couldn't do 20%.

We live in one of those freak markets.

[galileoreloaded]

38. well, when i have some time for a longer teaching moment

ill overlay dollar value, oil, historical values back to the 1890's, and demographic info (the overhang in 10-15 years as boomers move into long term care as well as the shrinking pool of buyers)

a house is the worst investment ever in 2013, but you stick with it.

[jeff47]

41. Ah yes. Everyone just doesn't understand

And shockingly enough, you just don't have time to refute.

Golly, that's a completely believable chain of events. I'm going to be really surprised when the next post tries to explain that lack-of-time with something designed to elicit sympathy, like caring for the ill.

[geek tragedy]

43. Perhaps you could explain this statistic:

Page 18:

Median household wealth (2010):

Renters: $5,100
Owners: $174,500

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf

Note that these figures are taken from the very bottom of the bubble bursting. Those numbers have improved significantly for owners in the interim.

[galileoreloaded]

48. you first.

[geek tragedy]

50. Does this mean I should

buy gold?

[galileoreloaded]

52. actually it tells you to lever up on debt denominated in USD and hold asset out of the country..

but i dont want to promote being part of the problem.

what does it tell you?

[geek tragedy]

54. it shows me banks are building reserves instead of lending. nt

[galileoreloaded]

58. its dollar destruction

they have no reserves and would have no ability to lever into the fractional banking models if the reserve requirements still existed as they did.

every dollar they pump in in new debt (85B/month) is being sucked out and destroyed instantly. they would borrow more but the bond "tails" would be staggering so they accept just holding the system together with bailing wire.

the us is rapidly loosing its ability to fund daily operations.

[Samantha]

71. Not always

I have not raised the rent on my apartment in my basement since I started renting it out. I keep it low and charge a very low additional amount for utilities. The apartment is half a house and is in a great location. I did not want to eliminate quality people from renting the apartment because of the price. So it right now is an excellent bargain compared to the commercial apartments I compete with.

My costs have not gone down. My utilities have risen significantly, and my property taxes are the same as what I paid in 2008 even though my appraisal has gone down incredibly. The property taxes are supposed to be based on fair market value, but mine have not gone down at all since the crash. So taxes the same, utilities greatly increased, rent the same.

My reward has been that I have acquired excellent tenants who take care of the place and who cause no problems for nearly five years that I have been doing this.

Sam

[geek tragedy]

72. Certainly, in cases such as yours where the landlord only has 1-3

units they rent out--especially if they share the same roof--good tenants will get a break on the rent.

But, as you noted the commercial landlords have a much different policy.

[Orrex]

6. Sounds great, if you can get a locked-in rental rate for 30 years or so

Short of that, it's a great way to get screwed while throwing your money into someone else's coffer and getting nothing to show for it.

[ellie]

8. Ahhh yes, it would be wonderful

to own a home. But since I had to short sell my last house because the value dropped more than half and I had to move out of town because of a job, I doubt that my credit will ever be good enough again to buy. So I am learning to love apartment living.

[geek tragedy]

10. It is very circumstantial, depending on geography, timing in terms of job, family, etc.

Certainly if there's a lot of, well, uncertainty renting allows for flexibility that ownership doesn't.


Credit scores recover faster than people think. Seven years after short sale, your credit should be fully recovered.

[jeff47]

26. It can only affect your credit for 7 years.

Because after that, it falls off the end of your credit report.

Whether or not it affects your ability to borrow today depends on exactly how long ago it was and what else is on your credit report.

If you're really interested in buying, go ahead and see a mortgage broker. They'll pull your report and desperately try to sell you a mortgage if at all possible. But that will tell you just how much of a problem that short sale is.

Then if you decide to buy, go ahead an apply for a loan at a credit union or normal bank.

[HappyMe]

12. Who the hell can afford to buy and

maintain a damn house.

I sure can't.

[geek tragedy]

13. Depends on the house and the location. We own a condo, so less maintenance.

Long story short is that today's mortgage payment will be less than tomorrow's rent check.

We thought we'd never be able to buy where we live. Just a matter of crunching the numbers.

Our mortgage payment is $600 less than what our old apartment is renting for.

[HappyMe]

16. You still pay fees to maintain the condo.

When I was married before we owned a house. Mortgage, home owner's insurance, property taxes, new hot water heater, paint the outside, redo the kitchen and bath...in the end, it was crushing debt and constant work. I'm 55, I am not interested in living the rest of my life with that.

I have no way to save any down payment.

[geek tragedy]

18. A house would be too much money and work for us.

Then again, where we live an actual single-family house costs about $1 million and up unless you want to live in a crap neighborhood where you need the added expense of owning a car.

Then again, we bought in 2009-2010. Had we bought in 2006-2007, I'd probably sing a different song.

[HappyMe]

19. I guess I'm not in the same

'bracket' you are in. I'm a 'crap neighborhood' kind of income person.

[geek tragedy]

23. That was an unfortunate choice of words on my part.

But, here houses are just stupidly expensive--way beyond the means of anyone not in the 1% unless they inherited them.

Most, if not all neighborhoods have affordable rentals and relatively affordable apartments for sale. But houses? Ugh. If you're not a 1%er, you have a choice of money pit, meth/crack/bath salt labs for neighbors, etc.

[DCBob]

15. Buying is great if you have a solid job and dont have to move.

otherwise youre likely to get caught trying to get rid a house thats underwater.

[geek tragedy]

17. I would say transaction costs are a bigger problem.

Though there certainly is a risk that housing prices will go down in the 5-10 year horizon, it's still a relatively unlikely event if you're planning to be there for a healthy number of years. There are 'only' about ten million homes underwater in the US. A lot of them still represent lost equity of course, which is an associated risk--the forfeiture of at least part of a down payment.


Guaranteed probelms. fees, mortgage taxes, title insurance, etc. Lots of expenses associated with buying/selling that aren't there for renting. (renters do have to pay brokers fees in some markets).

[shanti]

33. And that's the main reason I bought when I did

In 1996. I had a secure state job, and knew I wasn't going anywhere for many years. My mortgage was cheaper than rent, so it was a no brainer. What I failed to realize was how hard it would be to maintain my home as an aging single woman. It would be nice to have help!

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Well...

[mike_c]

22. my rent has been stable and VERY reasonable for 15 years....

I'm a very happy renter. About ten years ago-- right at the height of the housing bubble-- my landlord entertained the notion of selling me the house. My monthly mortgage payment would have been more than twice my rent payment. I was very happy when he changed his mind.

[geek tragedy]

24. He's probably very happy to have a good tenant.

If one has a great relationship with the landlord who happens to be a mensch, it can be a great arrangement. But, if he sells his house to a greedy asshole . . .

[madville]

67. Opposite for me

My house payment is about half what it would cost to rent this house here. House payment including taxes and insurance is $550, to rent an equal house would be $1000.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. I earn a pretty good salary but face a dilemma: housing prices are too high in this

Last edited Mon May 6, 2013, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

high-cost area of Washington, D.C. I rent because I can't afford the huge downpayment necessary to own. So on the one hand, I do well in my job, but on the other hand, it doesn't matter because I can't translate that success into homeownership. Make too much to qualify for a lot of the programs with income restrictions; make too little to afford the high-ass downpayment and closing costs.

I can't and won't complain. There are people in much worse conditions. This area didn't experience a big economic downturn as other parts of the country; therefore, rents and housing prices are crazy high.

[geek tragedy]

37. We had to save years and years and years to come up with our 10% down payment.

There's no way either one of us would have been able to buy as a single income household. It took us a decade of living together and pooling our savings to come up with the downpayment we had in 2010.

I would certainly recommend saving with an eye towards the future, but wouldn't recommend buying as a single-income household in a place like DC, NYC, SF etc.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. Yeah. I'm single and therefore the only income earner. So yes, that's been the name of the game.

Maybe I'll find someone to shack up with one of these days! LOL!!!

[geek tragedy]

46. I recommend it. Bonus points if you do it before marriage and

thereby raise the hackles of your ex-hippie parents from the era of free love.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. LOL!! Definitely. I'm sure they want nothing less. :)

[jeff47]

42. If your credit is good enough, you might be able to get an 80/20

That's 80% "regular" mortgage, 20% line-of-credit or second mortgage.

The 20% one wil have a much higher interest rate, so you would want to pay that off as quickly as possible. If the payments on that 80/20 work out to be less than renting, or if the non-monetary reasons to buy are good enough, it would be a way to buy without saving a 10% down payment.

In addition, the 80% loan doesn't require private mortgage insurance like a 90% loan does, which reduces the payment on the 80% part. Though the higher rate on the 20% usually offsets that savings.

80/20's used to be easy to get. Then they became impossible to get a couple years ago. I have no idea how easy they are to get now.

And make sure you run the numbers - in your particular situation it could be a great option or a terrible option.

[geek tragedy]

44. I don't think anyone does piggybacks anymore.

People can do lender paid PMI with some programs, or FHA, or just pay PMI until there's been enough appreciation that it doesn't apply (some lenders will build such a clause into the mortgage agreement).

We did lender paid PMI in 2010 when putting 10% down. Refi'd once our property had appreciated enough so that we were under 80% LTV.

Then refi'd again a year later when "rates that can't go any lower" dropped another .875%.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Yeah, I work at HUD and am familiar with this program, but even an 80/20 is difficult to come by,

even if one has outstanding credit. My credit is pretty good. I see what you're saying, though. And thanks for the support.

[geek tragedy]

51. Have you looked at FHA and FHA-eligible buildings in your area? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. Yeah. Still a lot of restrictions, but I haven't given up. Thanks so much. I'll keep saving and

hoping!

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Look up the FHA program called 'Homepath' and find homes at 3.5% down in your area

no income restrictions, enter 'Homepath Washington DC' into Google and go buy a house.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Thanks for this! I will look into it. :)

[JVS]

28. It's not the rents that are the problem, it's the lack of increases in income.

I've been renting a long time. Rates are pretty stable. Rent is supposed to go up gradually, and it has done so. Income isn't supposed to decrease and it has.

[truedelphi]

29. If we now had someone who kept to his campaign pledges in the WH -

Perhaps things would be different.

As far as the economy, especially the housing sector: here is part of the big problem on why people need help so badly, and it illustrates that Obama did not move away from what happened under Bush: We saw this coming with the defeat of cramdown in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. During the campaign, Obama claimed he supported the idea, and the senior Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, was an early and vociferous supporter. But the banks didn’t like the idea that homeowners could negotiate a fair price for their homes under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. Obama didn’t lift a finger, probably too busy worrying about how to cut Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget.

When he toured Wisconsin in October of 2008, he said that although the recent Bailouts of the Financial Sector did not come with regulations, if banks did not remember the Bailout Monies came from Main Street, he would as President see that regulations and serious restrictions on banks went down. Instead, once in office he became very friendly with that sector. And the worst that happened to the Big Financial firms is the "severe scolding" that he gave them, early Fall 2009.

My neighborhood had a 25% foreclosure rate. I lost two of my closest neighbors as a result. In both cases, the home owners arranged a short sale that would have netted more for the bank then the eventual sale the banks arranged some 18 months later. Why was this allowed? Properties to sit vacant, and since any property that is not watered regularly during the California summer dry season becomes a fire hazard - the banks were not just hurting the individual families but endangering the entire neighborhood!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. Obama's problem--which is not new to most presidents--is that they make all these claims,

all these promises when they know that they can't do anything without Congress. It is a big problem for this president because he keeps making these promises that he knows damn well can't get past the Republicans. So on that point I agree with you. Still, this is a problem that is at least a decade old. It's going to take some time to fully recover because what the mortgage industry did was really legal. Why was it legal? Because Congress deregulated and reduce its oversight function. So what the banks did in luring people into these homes and making a profit was perfectly legal. But I agree with you: bring back Glass-Stegall. Strengthen congressional oversight of the mortgage and banking industries. Until we have a Congress that will make these changes, we're fucked, and it has little to do with Obama, as there's little he can do. He should stop saying that he can. He can't!

[truedelphi]

53. May I remind you of a President's ability to

Number One: Make appointments. Eighty percent of what any Administration accomplishes happens on account of the appointments they make.

And in Obama's case, the appointments he makes are atrocious. Almost every appointment that Obama has made with respect to the economy has been to help out the Financial Top Dogs. (The one exception I can think of was Neil Barofsky. But while Barofsky should have been put in charge of oversight of the Federal Reserve, he was instead given a position simply looking out over the 700 billions of dollars that went to the Big Firms through the original set of TARP's.) Meanwhile the Fed Reserve High Priest, one Ben Bernanke, he distributed over 15 to 16 TRILLIONS of dollars as loans, to the top banks and Financial Institutions. Experts now state that some 4.7 trillions of those dollars will never ever be repaid. But hey - Social Security can make up that gap, in part at least! And was Bernanke even scolded by Obama? Heck no - he got re-appointed by the President, so he can continue his all-out war on America's middle class.

By mid December 2008, many of us realized that Obama's pick for Treasury top position was one Tim Geithner. Lil Timmy as head of the Treasury? Are you kidding me? The man should have been charged with RICO style crimes for his manipulation of the banking system on Wall Street circa Autumn 2008. And been wearing an orange jumpsuit by Jan 2009 - but instead he is sitting in the top position of the economic nobility over our nation's citizens and our economy. He has lied repeatedly to Congress, which is impeachable, and I hope someday to wake up and find E Warren has decided to impeach Mr Geithner.

Secondly: A President has the power of issuing an Executive Order. Any time he wanted to, he could have deemed it in the interest of the nation to preserve its democratic way of life, by stipulating the needed measures, restrictions and regulations upon the Big Financial Players. If he wanted to. But obama doesn't even relate to the notion of a strong middle class being the heart, soul and backbone of a democracy. In fact, he cannot even bring himself to talk about our inalienable rights. Instead, he calls these rights "Traditions" which is neo Dem, neo con, PNAC language, for the installation of a military state.

I have asked several times for someone or anyone to show me a photo of Republicans or Congress people twisting the president's arm and forcing him to make these appointments, and so far I haven't gotten one nibble in response. He has made these decisions as he is someone who works for the One Percent.

[geek tragedy]

55. Huh?

A President has the power of issuing an Executive Order. Any time he wanted to, he could have deemed it in the interest of the nation to preserve its democratic way of life, by stipulating the needed measures, restrictions and regulations upon the Big Financial Players.

No, only Congress can do that. To the extent federal agencies can 'legislate' new regulations, they can do so only per an explicity delegation of authority by Congress and subect to rulemaking requirements.

P.S. Obama did issue an executive order allowing qualified homeowners with a GSE-owned mortgage to refi even if severely underwater.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. No need to remind me of anything. As someone who works for a federal agency,

You are wrong on both accounts: Regulations do not work in the way you describe and neither do Executive Orders. Some EO's have no force of authority if there isn't funding behind them to carry them out. All EO's do is order executive/federal agencies to take an action. But again, if there is no money behind them to enforce the laws, then it doesn't hold much power. Who controls Congress matters in this because it is the Congress (the House, in particular) that has the authority of the budget. That's why EO's are typically issued in the area of foreign policy--where the president wields a great deal of constitutional powers.

[truedelphi]

63. Okay what if I concede and stae that the Congess IS INDEED the problem.

Well ya know what? In that case, if Mr Obama really wanted to provide stability instead of disaster for the middle class, then perhaps Mr Obama shouldn't have given the Chief of Staff position to one Rahm Emanuel to reward Rahm for all "his hard work." It was this hard work of Rahm's back in the mid 2000's when he flew around the nation and saw to it that it was ALWAYS the more conservative Dem candidates that got the sponsorship of the party. And it was Rahm who that discouraged and prevented progressive Dems from having a chance at running for office on the Democratic ticket. So instead we got ourselves a Congressional majority in the House circa Jan 2009 -but so many of the crucial players were people like my Congressman, Mike Thompson, who believe that Single Payer HC is socialism and that Social Security needs to be ruined in order to be saved.

My point in mentioning the above is to point out the Obama pattern - he doesn't fight for the middle class. Rather he rewards those who have worked the hardest to rid the Democratic Party of any remaining vestiges that remind us it was once the party of FDR, Kennedy and Jonson.

BTW, the Department of Justice has plenty of money. Plenty of it. Oodles and oodles and oodles of money. And unfortunately Obama appointed a man, Eric Holder, (he who had once defended Death Squad members), that man runs our DOJ currently. And while California could not get any loans to stave off the financial ruin brought about by the Big Bankers, as Tim Geithner stated that such loans would be a disaster for the nation's deficit, Mr Holder has plenty of money to spend on people coming here and harassing med marijuana smokers, their clinics, dispensaries etc.

So while HSBC has been out there laundering the drug cartels' monies, despite the violence of those cartels, and socking away billions in profits, without so much as a slap on the hand of any HSBC executive, the people in California watcheda s 6,000 good paying jobs were destroyed, clinics and dispensaries were closed down, and one very decent man from the Central Valley was sentenced to ten years for his crime of doing as we the California voters had asked: keep a medical marijuana dispensary up and running in the Central Valley.

[alarimer]

57. It's also bad in military communities where the housing allowance drives up prices as well.

Especially in towns with limited rental stock. The Elizabeth City Coast Guard base has houses standing empty, yet those in the Coast Guard must live somewhere else. And the rest of us who have to rent pay outrageously as a result. If you want decent housing, at least. If you are willing to live in crap hole in gang-infested part of town, you can get it cheap.

I would never buy here, even though I could probably easily find something I could afford that would be cheaper than renting for the simple reason that I do not want to be stuck here with a house I can't unload when I want to move. And trust me, I WILL want to leave this dump of a town sooner rather than later.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. I have a rental unit

and I haven't raised the rent in at least 15 years. I also pay utilities. Not all landlords are evil. Buying a duplex was one of the best moves I've made in my life.

[freshwest]

69. I don't think I fit in any of these scenarios.