Printable View
Shameful really that it is still happening.
Lansing applies bandaids while the patient is bleeding to death. All those jobs, economy and wealth just going away from owner occupied homes. Engler, Granholm and Snyder all turned a blind eye.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ners/99433002/
It isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with being a renter. The wealthiest cities in the U.S. tend to have the lowest homeownership rates, and more renter-oriented metros tend to have more mobile workforces and dynamic economies.
I'm always amazed that Michigan is so owner-oriented, in a state where property appreciation is quite low. Nothing wrong with homeownership, of course, but it really isn't for everyone.
Some parts of town more than others
Attachment 32981
This map provided by the Detroit Future City Implementation Office shows the increase in rental housing in Detroit. The dark brown ares on the perimeter of the city show where single-family homes have switched in recent years from owner-occupied to rental. The yellow areas show where rental units have declined due to population loss.[[Photo: Detroit Future City Implementation Office)
I'm not sure what they are measuring here. Percent of homes that a rented vs. owner-occupied, I guess. If so, it shows a trend towards MORE owner-occupied homes in much of the city? That's an interesting finding.
What this doesn't show is what percentage is rental. It could be that the rentals in the fringes were very low, and are adjusting to a more normal percentage? Without knowing the underlying percentage of rentals, the change is interesting -- but doesn't tell us much.
The Free Press and USA Today are both owned by Gannett, so they can share content. It wasn't 'picked up' by the other, but an intriguing article.
Maybe this one will help. Somehow you have read it and come to the opposite conclusion of what is actually happening and is the point of the articles. Odd. How and why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
http://detroit.curbed.com/2017/3/20/...ers-homeowners
Reality has many more variables in play than the very incomplete picture illustrated by these maps. It's impossible to draw any conclusions from them. That's obvious from the analysis that accompanies the Percent Change in Renter Households map:
"The dark brown ares on the perimeter of the city show where single-family homes have switched in recent years from owner-occupied to rental. The yellow areas show where rental units have declined due to population loss."
According to that analysis: bad if it's brown, bad if it's yellow. What if a area is yellow because rental properties were converted back into owner-occupied homes? There is no way to tell that from the map.
Also, to the point of the article, many of the people now renting are below the poverty line and can't afford basic home maintenance.
Hello? That's the whole reason for renting? At least it provides a theoretical possibility of the house being maintained [[via the landlord). I'm not saying there aren't a lot of shitty slumlords that prey on these people, but if you can't afford to maintain a house, you shouldn't be owning one.
Article is 4 years old, but still relevant. Also everyone doesn't want to own a house. Especially younger people who seek mobility to move or change gears at a moments notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnnNike