It's definitely a trend forming in the part of my city and it feels centered around gentrification.
The part of the city outside downtown is generally poor and has serious crime problems. But downtown, older properties are being converted into nearly unrecognizable modern high-end apartments priced out of the range of (most) locals and have reached a pricing ceiling so high they can get away with 50% occupancy and simply compete on amenities for the people who don't care about how much they cost. To top it off the city is practically giving away the properties to the developers to try drive growth.
I care about the price but there's a state fund I jokingly refer to as the "Gentrifcation Fund" (I forget the real name) that will pay a part of your rent in certain properties if your income is under a certain amount.
The problem is unlike most assisted housing the limit is based on making more than most people, not less. It's defined as 150% of the local median income. Combine the income limit based on people making 2.5x the median income with the high rent, and you essentially have a fund that's paying well off people (poorer people can't afford the apartments even with the subsidy) to live in expensive apartments, feeding the gentrification of the area. I'm conflicted because it allows me to live in a very nice apartment, but I know that money could be better spent elsewhere.
It's funny because I see it as "trickle down economics" in action. For example, while I might be able to afford the apartment otherwise, the fund frees up would could be disposable income for me. The hope is probably I'd spend that money in the local economy.
Except instead what it does is give me more money to save, I sure don't feel any urge to go and waste it on expensive overpriced Downtown restaurants every night.
The part of the city outside downtown is generally poor and has serious crime problems. But downtown, older properties are being converted into nearly unrecognizable modern high-end apartments priced out of the range of (most) locals and have reached a pricing ceiling so high they can get away with 50% occupancy and simply compete on amenities for the people who don't care about how much they cost. To top it off the city is practically giving away the properties to the developers to try drive growth.
I care about the price but there's a state fund I jokingly refer to as the "Gentrifcation Fund" (I forget the real name) that will pay a part of your rent in certain properties if your income is under a certain amount.
The problem is unlike most assisted housing the limit is based on making more than most people, not less. It's defined as 150% of the local median income. Combine the income limit based on people making 2.5x the median income with the high rent, and you essentially have a fund that's paying well off people (poorer people can't afford the apartments even with the subsidy) to live in expensive apartments, feeding the gentrification of the area. I'm conflicted because it allows me to live in a very nice apartment, but I know that money could be better spent elsewhere.
It's funny because I see it as "trickle down economics" in action. For example, while I might be able to afford the apartment otherwise, the fund frees up would could be disposable income for me. The hope is probably I'd spend that money in the local economy.
Except instead what it does is give me more money to save, I sure don't feel any urge to go and waste it on expensive overpriced Downtown restaurants every night.