The landlord does get the money, but the problem in the twin cities is that we have too many apartments. When additional apartments are built especially subsidized ones, non-subsidized units cannot compete and when they are empty and not producing income the owners cannot maintain them. This is one of basic reasons we are facing the problems we are facing today. If vouchers or existing leased housing programs were used instead of new construction, tenants could move where they want and owners could afford to maintain. Should the owner not maintain the units then the tenant could move plus the housing authority would suspend payments to the owner until they maintained their property and code enforcement could also step into the picture. The high vacancy rate and low rental rates in the twin cities is a major reason why responsible landlords chose not to invest in the twin cities. Another possible solution to this problem may be to require developers to take away as many or more apartment units than they construct, for example, build 25 new units, tear down 30. This would be creative in that the surplus of housing would come to a reasonable level and either green space or parking could be made available to downtown residents.
Could not one of the biggest cause of blight in downtown Lewiston be the excessive number of subsidized buildings? When we have taxpayer subsidized buildings renting at an artificially low rent landlords cannot compete and maintain their buildings. Tenants do need the assistance of subsidized rents, but the glut of these in Lewiston is definitely hurting the City. Would it not be better if Lewiston focused on rental vouchers for subsidies and let the citizens of the City (both tenant and landlord) operate normally in the field of housing? Then owners could receive a fair rent for their properties if they maintained them and tenants could have their choice of housing locations. Also, rents for existing buildings are less than the rents being paid for these new buildings. Certainly Lewiston (and Auburn) do not need more rental housing; a short drive or walk through any neighborhood in the twin cities will illustrate this with the number of "for rent" signs one sees. The current vacancy rate in the twin cities is not healthy for any of us. Owners cannot afford to maintain their properties from the income they generate, tenants do not want to live in unkempt buildings, and taxpayers as a whole have to pay to board up, protect, and demolish these eyesores. Better code enforcement and more subsidies aimed at well maintained buildings on the current market would go a long way to alleviate the housing problem rather than increase it by adding to the supply of housing available in the twin cities.
This is an unfortunate fact of life she has to face; as she is such a good teacher she should be able to obtain a teaching position easily. Unfortunately companies and governments sometimes add new positions that they cannot really afford and when a budget crunch comes they have to eliminate some positions. While it is very unfortunate for the people involved, the alternative is higher taxes that citizens cannot afford in cases of government employment, or a bankrupt business in private industry.
Recent Comments
The landlord does get the
The landlord does get the money, but the problem in the twin cities is that we have too many apartments. When additional apartments are built especially subsidized ones, non-subsidized units cannot compete and when they are empty and not producing income the owners cannot maintain them. This is one of basic reasons we are facing the problems we are facing today. If vouchers or existing leased housing programs were used instead of new construction, tenants could move where they want and owners could afford to maintain. Should the owner not maintain the units then the tenant could move plus the housing authority would suspend payments to the owner until they maintained their property and code enforcement could also step into the picture. The high vacancy rate and low rental rates in the twin cities is a major reason why responsible landlords chose not to invest in the twin cities. Another possible solution to this problem may be to require developers to take away as many or more apartment units than they construct, for example, build 25 new units, tear down 30. This would be creative in that the surplus of housing would come to a reasonable level and either green space or parking could be made available to downtown residents.
Could not one of the biggest
Could not one of the biggest cause of blight in downtown Lewiston be the excessive number of subsidized buildings? When we have taxpayer subsidized buildings renting at an artificially low rent landlords cannot compete and maintain their buildings. Tenants do need the assistance of subsidized rents, but the glut of these in Lewiston is definitely hurting the City. Would it not be better if Lewiston focused on rental vouchers for subsidies and let the citizens of the City (both tenant and landlord) operate normally in the field of housing? Then owners could receive a fair rent for their properties if they maintained them and tenants could have their choice of housing locations. Also, rents for existing buildings are less than the rents being paid for these new buildings. Certainly Lewiston (and Auburn) do not need more rental housing; a short drive or walk through any neighborhood in the twin cities will illustrate this with the number of "for rent" signs one sees. The current vacancy rate in the twin cities is not healthy for any of us. Owners cannot afford to maintain their properties from the income they generate, tenants do not want to live in unkempt buildings, and taxpayers as a whole have to pay to board up, protect, and demolish these eyesores. Better code enforcement and more subsidies aimed at well maintained buildings on the current market would go a long way to alleviate the housing problem rather than increase it by adding to the supply of housing available in the twin cities.
This is an unfortunate fact
This is an unfortunate fact of life she has to face; as she is such a good teacher she should be able to obtain a teaching position easily. Unfortunately companies and governments sometimes add new positions that they cannot really afford and when a budget crunch comes they have to eliminate some positions. While it is very unfortunate for the people involved, the alternative is higher taxes that citizens cannot afford in cases of government employment, or a bankrupt business in private industry.