Unfortunately, at this juncture in Minneapolis Housing, I don't see rents free-falling nor landlords getting the proverbial shaft anytime soon. As a matter of fact, rent in Minneapolis is ridiculous. Does anyone on the list have compartitive statistics for rents in other "Minneapolis" sized cities? On a salary of roughly 26,000 dollars a year, I can no longer afford to live in Uptown, Lynn/Lake, or adjacent neighborhoods. And I have fairly low financial burdens. I currently live in Powderhorn Park, a wonderful neighborhood, where rent pricess are steadily climbing.
I lived for a time in the Phillips Neighborhood. My landlords lived three houses down from me. I lived in a duplex that was beautifully kept. My landlords were interested, of course, in making a profit from their property, but they were also interested and dedicated to making their housing affordable. They could have easily charged 200-250 dollars more a month in rent, and found renters, but they understood rent gouging and valued affordable housing as much as making a buck. I wish more landlords understood the role that THEY have to play in creating affordable housing. -Brandon Lacy Campos -Powderhorn Park ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mpls Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Vacancy rates, rents, economic indicators...... > > > Honest question for landlords on the list: I've noted a tone of > > satisfaction among some landlords (not on the list) that there may in > > some way be a lessening of the affordable housing crisis--with terms > > such as "vacancy explosion" being used and so forth--but why the > > satisfaction or excitement? Just curious as to how lessening of a tight > > market benefits landlords who otherwise are getting high rents and > > little turnover. Is it political satisfaction in some way? Or am I > > reading the landlord response differently? > > > You are mistaken. There is no satisfaction on my part. I am trying > desparetly to avoid the hammer on the eggshell theory being played out. The > old adage goes something like this. We want to enjoy the egg with out > totally destroying the shell. And the hammer could be better used > elsewhere. Loosening of a tight market does not benefit the landlord, at > all. > > The housing crisis is ending. I don't want to see an overbuilding. First > the resources could be better used elsewhere (hammer of government spending > on housing). The shell is the current private sector market. We don't need > to smash it like 1986-94. During that time a glut of rental was avail. > This led to better deal for the renter. It also meant disaster for the > neighborhoods. > Bankrupt properties that did not get maintained for years. Landlords > renting to ANYONE. The government is always late to the party. Now we will > see if the many levels of government are going to pile on a soon to be soft > market or will they tend to their own patch. > > Sum up. Over building is just as bad as under building. > > Craig Miller > .org/mpls > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
