An article in this week's Forbes Magazine notes that renting, in the current market environment, is a "startling good deal". The article adds that with rents falling, renting is a "better move" than buying in many areas of the country.
We've been saying for a while now that the number and demographic trend of residential renters will continue to grow as people realize more and more that home ownership does not represent a good investment.
The ATA is on the cutting edge of this trend. As we grow in influence, we will continue to be a significant force for Americans who rent their homes.
Here's a link to the Forbes Magazine article.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/23/real-estate-advisor-personal-finance-high-end-rentals.html?ref=patrick.net
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
"It's A Fantastic Time To Be A Renter!"
Patrick Killelea, our friend at www.patrick.net, was recently interviewed by the Mortgage Calculator website. We agree with Patrick that "It's a fantastic time to be a renter."
Follow this link for the complete interview with Patrick:
http://news.mortgagecalculator.org/interview-with-patrick-killelea-of-patrick-net-its-a-fantastic-time-to-be-a-renter/
Follow this link for the complete interview with Patrick:
http://news.mortgagecalculator.org/interview-with-patrick-killelea-of-patrick-net-its-a-fantastic-time-to-be-a-renter/
Friday, October 16, 2009
What's Wrong With Being a Renter?
Check out this blog post by Mark Calabria at the Cato Institute. Right on, Mark!
A recent New York Times piece focusing on the financial health of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), offered a couple of examples of borrowers who would not have gotten mortgages, but for FHA’s low downpayment and underwriting requirements.
Take for instance a Ms. Shimon, mentioned in the piece. If she had to come up with a larger than 3.5 percent downpayment, she “would still be a renter,” in the words of the New York Times. Yes, my reaction was probably the same as yours; no, not that, not a renter, anything but being a renter. I am trying to remember at what point in our history did being a renter become a social stigma, or some sort of disease to be cured?
Of course, the article does not explain why it would be bad if Ms. Shimon had stayed a renter, because apparently the New York Times assumes all decent, upstanding people own their own homes.
Now yes, there are dozens of academic studies that show owning your own home is associated with being a better citizen, better educational and health outcomes for your children, and greater savings on the part of owners. But it is important to remember that none of these studies show that homeownership causes these outcomes, just that on average, homeownership is associated with these outcomes. More importantly, the marginal homeowner, who would not have bought a home without some sort of subsidy, is likely to be quite different than the average homeowner.
Some, like my home-building friends, might justify ever-expanding homeownership because it creates construction jobs. But so does building apartments. If we had a shortage of apartments, then maybe encouraging people to buy homes would relieve pressure on the rental market. But the glut of apartments is almost as big as the glut in homes. Rental vacancy rates are near historic highs in much of the country. Even with declining home prices, in many places it still makes more financial sense to rent.
The federal government’s obsession with homeownership was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis. It is time we recognized renting as a viable option for many households, and starting treating renters as if they were as equal citizens as anyone else.
A recent New York Times piece focusing on the financial health of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), offered a couple of examples of borrowers who would not have gotten mortgages, but for FHA’s low downpayment and underwriting requirements.
Take for instance a Ms. Shimon, mentioned in the piece. If she had to come up with a larger than 3.5 percent downpayment, she “would still be a renter,” in the words of the New York Times. Yes, my reaction was probably the same as yours; no, not that, not a renter, anything but being a renter. I am trying to remember at what point in our history did being a renter become a social stigma, or some sort of disease to be cured?
Of course, the article does not explain why it would be bad if Ms. Shimon had stayed a renter, because apparently the New York Times assumes all decent, upstanding people own their own homes.
Now yes, there are dozens of academic studies that show owning your own home is associated with being a better citizen, better educational and health outcomes for your children, and greater savings on the part of owners. But it is important to remember that none of these studies show that homeownership causes these outcomes, just that on average, homeownership is associated with these outcomes. More importantly, the marginal homeowner, who would not have bought a home without some sort of subsidy, is likely to be quite different than the average homeowner.
Some, like my home-building friends, might justify ever-expanding homeownership because it creates construction jobs. But so does building apartments. If we had a shortage of apartments, then maybe encouraging people to buy homes would relieve pressure on the rental market. But the glut of apartments is almost as big as the glut in homes. Rental vacancy rates are near historic highs in much of the country. Even with declining home prices, in many places it still makes more financial sense to rent.
The federal government’s obsession with homeownership was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis. It is time we recognized renting as a viable option for many households, and starting treating renters as if they were as equal citizens as anyone else.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Apartment Residents Told to Take Down American Flags
This is an outrage! The American Tenants Association supports the Oaks Apartment tenants who want to fly "Old Glory". Please check out this story which appeared today in KATU News:
By Melica Johnson KATU News and KATU.com Staff
Video
ALBANY, Ore. - At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments - but residents have been told they can't fly any flags at all. Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag - he said - is his way of showing support. "This flag stands for all those people," said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. "It stands for the people that can no longer stand - who died in wars. That's why I fly this flag."But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems. He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction. "It floored me," he said. "I can't believe she was saying what she was saying. "Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down. White said management told her that "someone might get offended." "I just said to her 'They'll just have to get over it,'" White said.
Residents we talked to who had been approached to take down their flags all told us the same thing: that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community. Attempts to find out for ourselves why management would ban flags were unsuccessful. KATU wanted to talk to management at Oaks Apartments, but no one has returned our calls. The woman we were told had made the decision said she was "not going to answer any questions. "The mother of one soldier fighting in Iraq put up a poster in her son's apartment window when she learned of the ban. Her son's roommate said he'll risk eviction to make sure it stays.
Another Oaks Apartment resident, Judith Sherer, doesn't have a car. Instead she carries an American flag around the complex to protest the ban, and wonders if the flag pin she wears is next to be "singled out." "If I put it on and I walk outside, what's going to happen?" Sherer muses. "Am I going to be confronted by a manager about this? "We're told the ban includes sports flags and even flag stickers on cars.
By Melica Johnson KATU News and KATU.com Staff
Video
ALBANY, Ore. - At the Oaks Apartments in Albany, the management can fly their own flag advertising one and two bedroom apartments - but residents have been told they can't fly any flags at all. Jim Clausen flies the American flag from the back of his motorcycle. He has a son in the military heading back to Iraq, and the flag - he said - is his way of showing support. "This flag stands for all those people," said Clausen, an Oaks Apartment resident. "It stands for the people that can no longer stand - who died in wars. That's why I fly this flag."But to Oaks Apartment management, Clausen said, the American flag symbolizes problems. He was told to remove the red, white and blue from both of his rides, or face eviction. "It floored me," he said. "I can't believe she was saying what she was saying. "Even long-time residents like Sharron White, who has flown a flag on her car for eight years, has been told to take it down. White said management told her that "someone might get offended." "I just said to her 'They'll just have to get over it,'" White said.
Residents we talked to who had been approached to take down their flags all told us the same thing: that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community. Attempts to find out for ourselves why management would ban flags were unsuccessful. KATU wanted to talk to management at Oaks Apartments, but no one has returned our calls. The woman we were told had made the decision said she was "not going to answer any questions. "The mother of one soldier fighting in Iraq put up a poster in her son's apartment window when she learned of the ban. Her son's roommate said he'll risk eviction to make sure it stays.
Another Oaks Apartment resident, Judith Sherer, doesn't have a car. Instead she carries an American flag around the complex to protest the ban, and wonders if the flag pin she wears is next to be "singled out." "If I put it on and I walk outside, what's going to happen?" Sherer muses. "Am I going to be confronted by a manager about this? "We're told the ban includes sports flags and even flag stickers on cars.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Good News for California Tenants!
Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed two pieces of legislation benefiting California tenants.
The first, SB 290, sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno, makes the 60-days' notice requirement for tenant evictions permanent. This means that any tenant in the state who has lived in his or her rental for one year or more cannot be evicted with less than 60-days' notice in "no cause" evictions. And it means that tenant groups don't have to mobilize every couple of years to renew the legislation. However, this does not affect tenants protected by local "just cause" ordinances; those tenants cannot be evicted without cause.
The second bill, SB 120, sponsored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, protects tenants in foreclosed or soon-to-be-foreclosed properties against utility shutoffs when the landlord or lender fails to pay utility bills. In particular, tenants in single-family homes now have the same protection as tenants in multi-family units. Utility companies (gas, electric, water, heat) are now required to give tenants notice that the utility is to be cut off for nonpayment, and to provide a procedure for the tenant or tenants to establish a payment account without having to pay the former landlord's arrearages.
Tenants in single-family homes in outlying communities were often forced to pay the former landlord's water bill to keep the water on. The new legislation also allows tenants who pay the bills, when these costs have been included in the rent, to either deduct the cost from their rent payments or sue the landlord for the cost of establishing service or paying the bills. And it prohibits utility companies from requiring large deposits if the tenant can show that she pays her rent on time. (Utility companies were frequently requiring both payment of the arrearages and a large deposit to keep utility service.) Utility services are required to establish and publicize procedures for tenants to deal with these situations; notice of those procedures should be delivered along with any shutoff notice.
We would hope that they also publicize them in their newsletters and on their websites as well.You can read SB 290 here and SB 120 here. And you can read more at the Tenants Together blog.
The first, SB 290, sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno, makes the 60-days' notice requirement for tenant evictions permanent. This means that any tenant in the state who has lived in his or her rental for one year or more cannot be evicted with less than 60-days' notice in "no cause" evictions. And it means that tenant groups don't have to mobilize every couple of years to renew the legislation. However, this does not affect tenants protected by local "just cause" ordinances; those tenants cannot be evicted without cause.
The second bill, SB 120, sponsored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, protects tenants in foreclosed or soon-to-be-foreclosed properties against utility shutoffs when the landlord or lender fails to pay utility bills. In particular, tenants in single-family homes now have the same protection as tenants in multi-family units. Utility companies (gas, electric, water, heat) are now required to give tenants notice that the utility is to be cut off for nonpayment, and to provide a procedure for the tenant or tenants to establish a payment account without having to pay the former landlord's arrearages.
Tenants in single-family homes in outlying communities were often forced to pay the former landlord's water bill to keep the water on. The new legislation also allows tenants who pay the bills, when these costs have been included in the rent, to either deduct the cost from their rent payments or sue the landlord for the cost of establishing service or paying the bills. And it prohibits utility companies from requiring large deposits if the tenant can show that she pays her rent on time. (Utility companies were frequently requiring both payment of the arrearages and a large deposit to keep utility service.) Utility services are required to establish and publicize procedures for tenants to deal with these situations; notice of those procedures should be delivered along with any shutoff notice.
We would hope that they also publicize them in their newsletters and on their websites as well.You can read SB 290 here and SB 120 here. And you can read more at the Tenants Together blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
