Population dropoff (Chicago, Irving, Brighton: townhouse, price, moving)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Drover

Yeah, in esseence the problem is that they're not hip enough. The thing about Norwood Park, Oriole Park and Edgebrook is that they are basically suburban in nature. Once you head out there you might as well be in an inner suburb that probably have lower real estate prices, lower taxes, less traffic, etc. There's little benefit to living in these neighborhoods versus, say, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Skokie, et cetera, so once you're committed to moving into that kind of environment, there's really no point to confining your search to the city neighborhoods just because it happens to have a 606XX ZIP code.

And personally, I'd pick Park Ridge over Norwood Park because then I wouldn't have to worry about High Schools. A lot of middle-class city workers live up there if they have residency requirements.

[ChiMack]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Section 8 here we come baby.

Originally Posted by Drover

They're trying to rent a lot of them out as apartments so they can at least get some cash flow out of the buildings. My guess is that the developers who built them are in a race to see which happens first, their cash runs out or the real estate market turns around. Some have already lost the race.

do you think they might rent them out to middle/lower class families maybe even section 8 or will they try to hold out and hope some wealthy people will get it...

[Drover]

I think they'd rather have half the building empty with the other half paying high rents than to have it full but with lower-middle-class people paying lower-middle-class rent.

[ChiMack]

plus dont you think that the pop of chicago would increase if the housing in the gentryfied areas wasnt played so much towards the wealthy people, i mean there are more middle/lower in come families than the wealthy people?

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by ChiMack

do you think they might rent them out to middle/lower class families maybe even section 8 or will they try to hold out and hope some wealthy people will get it...

The way things are going most people may qualify for section 8 in a few months.

[ChiMack]

Originally Posted by Drover

I think they'd rather have half the building empty with the other half paying high rents than to have it full but with lower-middle-class people paying lower-middle-class rent.

do you think that will ever change and they will be forced to let in the middle/lower class people in those units?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ChiMack

do you think that will ever change and they will be forced to let in the middle/lower class people in those units?

This is just a different way of asking the same question. My previous answer stands.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Drover

This is just a different way of asking the same question. My previous answer stands.

Landlords are not required to participate in Section 8 programs. Of the three units I own in Chicago, two point-blank refuse to participate in the program.

It's federal in nature, and so the states can say "No" if they wish. And when a Section 8 lease is up, you can (with minor difficulty) evict the S8 tenant and lease to someone else.

[ChiMack]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Landlords are not required to participate in Section 8 programs. Of the three units I own in Chicago, two point-blank refuse to participate in the program.

It's federal in nature, and so the states can say "No" if they wish. And when a Section 8 lease is up, you can (with minor difficulty) evict the S8 tenant and lease to someone else.

someone here said the the aldermen want to pass something that would require 15-20% of the new housing in gentryfied neighborhoods to be lower income but daley said he would veto it is that true? and what if that passed would that mean the more landlords cant say no what effect would it have?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ChiMack

someone here said the the aldermen want to pass something that would require 15-20% of the new housing in gentryfied neighborhoods to be lower income but daley said he would veto it is that true? and what if that passed would that mean the more landlords cant say no what effect would it have?

The effect it would have would be to make the remaining "market rate" housing stock even more expensive to make up the revenues lost from forced subsidization of low-income housing, basically wiping out any gains such a bill would make toward creating "affordable" housing. It's kind of like how rent control creates its own need by causing rental rates to go haywire.