Printable View
Something tells me developer bro gave up on this idea then did the whole twitter tirade.
And 100k is a drop in the bucket in terms of precon development costs but, yeah, if you aren't in the good ol boy network shit costs money and you are often doing a fools errand.
A real estate developer behave like a spoiled child? Shocking. Oh wait, not shocking at all.
Especially a young one on his first try, who made his seed money advertising "we pay cash for houses" on telephone poles.Quote:
Originally Posted by schuss
Kissing everyone’s ass is required soft skill in RE dev.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Right now there are people living in RVs all over town and a big push for the local Government to provide affordable housing options. I agree that the cost of housing here is out of hand. Maybe instead of providing affordable housing they should work on a livable wage. Isn't government provided affordable housing really just another subsidy to business's that won't pay what it takes to live in a place? And when they can't staff to remain in business they have 2 choices. Buck up or fuck off.
Without housing supply also going up, paying people more just creates more demand for the lower tier of housing... which means even higher prices for housing, or even more people unable to find affordable housing. Building more housing will lower the cost of housing, and has the added benefit of paying a lot of people to build that housing- more people benefit from that approach. I personally would be in favor of higher taxes going towards larger tax credits/breaks/subsidies/expedited permit and review timelines for developers to build more housing in the middle to low income brackets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
And then separately, i would like to see more lots turned into safe RV parking that is low/no cost but has facilities to dump sewage, and/or onsite staffed bathrooms. There are lots of vacant private lots and govt owned lots out there in industrial areas away from NIMBYs that could provide safe sleeping for folks transitioning off the streets into an RV, and then hopefully into a brick n mortar eventually.
I've been saying that for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
How much $$$ in tax breaks, subsidies, and other give aways does it take to make low income housing construction pencil out?Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
You're going to have to have rules, and a lot of these people don't play nice with rules. And the bathrooms will get taken over by criminals who charge people to use them to do drugs or tricks.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
In the current market, it doesnt take much to make affordable housing more attractive to build than market rate. The programs offered now generally all work, its just that the credits/funding is limited. If there were more credits/funding available, then more affordable projects would be built. From the last funding round i saw, the spreadsheet said that only about 1/2 of the projects that applied for the credits/funding were granted funds and the rest were put on hold and will have to wait till next year to see if they get the funding/credits then. And do not forget a huge carrot here- time. If affordable projects were guarantied expedited permit timelines through 3rd party reviews or simply moving up the stack then more of them can be done in a shorter timeline and the acceptable margins for the developers can be smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
Yep, the RV lots would have to be fenced in, and folks coming and going would have to check in at the gate. If you dont follow the rules of common decency then you cant stay there. The homeless folks who dont play nice with rules arent plausibly looking to reassimilate into society arent the target demographic of affordable housing and programs to get the unhoused into homes. Help the people who want help first.
@CG, thanks for the reply.
They are building like crazy here, not just SFH but 2 & 3 story apartments as well and duplex-fourplexs as apartments and condos. Problem is they are still costing more than someone making 20 bucks an hour can afford. My PT is living in one of these units and she is already looking at re-locating because she and her husband see no path forward to ownership.
How much? Need some numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
NIMBYs love to make this argument (all the new housing is too fancy and doesn't provide affordable housing). What they ignore is that if a community builds enough fancy housing to meet it's demand, then that beater, falling apart, 1978 apartment building will be forced to reduce rent becuase there is an abundance of nicer options that they have to compete with. The main problem is communities refuse to acknowledge, and build for, the skyrocketing demand for housing in nice places like Bozeman (because NIMBYs).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/06/2...ction-council/
of course its paywalled
but yeah a bunch of boomers are upset about high density development which is pretty much the middle of the city of denver
so with all their drunken free time they are going to put up one last fight for the pull up yourself up by your bootstraps I got here first mentality before they die off
Affordable housing does not mean affordable home ownership. If you are talking about affordable home ownership, that is something different and much, much harder to address (mostly because its way less dense). I think more people need to embrace the benefits of renting for life and rid our culture of the thinking that home ownership is the bedrock of being a successful adult. Especially for those folks on the low end of the wage scale who choose to make a life in HCOLAs instead of moving around the country to greener pastures like previous generations did. Home ownership is a privilege, access to affordable housing should be a right... IMO. And right now we are struggling with a supply of affordable housing. If we raise the wage of low earners they will better compete with the earning bracket above them for housing... this raises the price of that housing and now you have two earning brackets barely able to afford housing. IMO, the solution is supply side, we are just in such a shortage that it will take a while to build out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
I cant give you exact numbers because i dont know them and everyone's proforma is a little different. What i can tell you is that we have seen very few new market rate projects come through our door in the past 6months-year and no developer ive talked to is positive about it, but i have also seen no real decline in the affordable projects coming to us which all depend on currently available subsidies. If more subsidies were available, market rate developers would be trying out affordable projects... atleast until market rate starts penciling again.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
people have been beating the business owners don't pay enough thing for awhileQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
as a business owner with employees give it up please
the problem is the american consumer refuses to pay anything more than the absolute bottom dollar for any product or service
am I not allowed to profit handsomely off my risk taking my ability to reserve and use capital as well as my ability to effectively run a business for almost twenty years?
nope
but most TGR posters easily make six figures and don't understand why everyone else shouldn't be making that kind of money
honestly bring back the trailer park
trailer parks are the answer the initial investment is low compared to a multi family development
price per sq ft of a modular home is much less than a custom single family home track home or an apartment building
but nope trailer parks are for white trash crime and people who use drugs am I right?
Most places with housing shortages already do this, and have been doing this for awhile now. Tacoma has had a multi-family property tax exemption where the standard is 8 years tax free, and up to 20 years (and yet, Tacoma is still a top 25 house poor city in America). Why not instead of throw money at wealthy, asshole, developers, we try things like getting rid of single family zoning and allow more units on each parcel? That's a cost-neutral solution to the problem. Large multi family can continue on places zoned for it (near transit) but our single family neighborhoods can absorb a lot of this growth as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Again, Seattle and Tacoma already have this (well, not with dump facilities). No one wants to live next to one and if you put them in industrial areas, they are away from services. The people who live in this types of facilities don't drive and so they need to be close to public transit. Most industrial wastelands far from the urban core are not near transit.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Greasing the palms with some cash contributions to the city council and mayors office doesn't hurt either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skistack
Hahahahaha. Fucking ENGLEWOOD? Fucking entitled dick-bags. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Here you go fred. Your dream, 55+ retirement trailer park, only 45 minutes up the road to Crystal an Rainier:Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
https://www.crystalmountainmhc.com/gallery/
I was on one of those tacoma projects... Like i said, last govt funding round i saw, half of the applicants received no funding and the projects were put on hold till next years funding round. If there is more funding available, there will be more affordable projects that can be built...there are a bunch of potential sites, but they dont pencil without funding help. The programs work, and they need to be expanded IMO. FWIW i have yet to meet an asshole developer who does affordable housing, but i have met plenty of asshole developers who flip single lots into short plats or duplexes. Its pretty much only wealthy asshole developers that take single lots in residential neighborhoods and shortplat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
And again, youre right about no one wanting those RV lots in their neighborhood. That is why i think its smart to put them in disused industrial lots. Cluster them in a particular area and run a single bus line that connects the RV cluster to nearby transit hub with a 5-15mins bus ride. That is very doable. IME, most major urban metros have industrial areas near the urban core- usually where sports stadiums, ports, RR stationsl, etc are.
That's a pretty fancy fuckin' trailer park. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Seattle/Tacoma area was developing as much as any place on Earth for the last 10 years but that just stopped in the last year. It wasn't from lack of public money being thrown at development. It was becuase of rising interest rates, higher cost of construction, and cooling housing market. When the market rebounds, and interest rates fall, I expect development to start back up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Large, empty, single family lots in cities should be short platted and developed. We should fill weed infested back yards with additional units. Beater homes should be torn down and turned into town houses and condos. In places like Seattle there are almost no empty lots left, and almost no beater homes left. The homes that are left are too nice to tear down so instead, it's about building in the back yard.
Go drive around SoDo in Seattle. It is already filled with RVs parking on the streets and it is gross. Leaking vehicle fluids. Dumping sewage on the streets. I rather see sanctioned tent cities (which we have too) than RV lots with RVs that are incapable of driving. These places have to be heavily staffed to keep law and order and just like homeless shelters, most of the people who need these types of places want to shoot up, steal stuff, and get in DV spats, so they don't jive well with law enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
That's the last major developable land from Enumclaw (the last city on the edge of the metro) all the way to Mt Rainier. The land from that trailer park to Mt Rainier is timber land owned by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and then National Forest/National Park. So it is a pretty sweet location for a trailer park, with no real risk of further development next to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
Those are not trailers. They are pre-fabs (manufactured homes). Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I've lived in trailer parks.
There were 15ish large affordable developments in King/Pierce Co that were delayed until next year at least because they didnt receive public funding this year. We know that the current program to publicly subsidize affordable developments works, so lets expand it and build all the affordable projects that are trying to get this funding. Additionally, the market rate developers currently sitting on the sidelines because of high interest rates would be enticed to throw their hat into the ring and try out affordable developments. Essentially, but limiting the public funding we are leaving thousands of affordable units on the table each year- with the side negative of leaving thousands of AEC jobs on the table too. Why wait years and years until interest rates come back down to start building again, when we could just expand a current program that we know works well?Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob