You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
You could get a nice home for $1300 a month, and you could get a really nice home for $2500. I still think renting is a bad move. Especially when interest rates are at 3.65% fixed at 30 years. No brainer. Of course there are many who won't qualify, and renting is their only option.
What are they thinking? Who has that type of money to spend on RENT.
SLP is becoming a high-density urban wasteland. Enough with the multi-family already.
Ranick - Based on some of the amenities offiered, I would guess the developers are targeting young professionals in a higher income bracket, who want to be close enough to work and downtown. That's more important than living in some boring far-flung suburb.
roymercer - even been to SLP lately? There's a lot of development going on. Urban wasteland? Hardly. I used to live in the eastern part of the city. There was a lot to do then, and even more now with the added dining/shopping options. My idea of a wasteland is the foreclosure belt known as exurbs like St. Michael, Rogers, Forest Lake, and the like.
Huh, so the apartments built where Al's was, in SLP don't count and SLP is JUST getting them?? I guess I could see this for people who are on a contract for a shorter time, but you could definitely get a lot buying for that a month...
I think buying is the best option for some people, but it's not a no-brainer. For one, renting gives someone more flexibility. We live in a fast-changing world and a job loss or change (avg every two years for millennials), could make owning a home much more a burden than benefit.
If your home drops in value and is underwater (about 1/3 of homes in the country) you could be stuck with an unaffordable payment and no way out without ruining your credit.
If you don't have an extra $20K+ after your downpayment you could be in trouble when you need a new roof, new furnace, or have to replace the sewage line to the street.
And it may seem bad to put $2K toward rent every month, but is a homeowner who throws money at mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance, association dues, and upkeep really better off? The small portion of the PITI payment that actually builds equity can easily be wiped out by a small drop in value or even the agent’s commissions at the time of sale. A home is about the least diversified and liquid investment. Some may be better off to invest the principal portion of their payment in non-real estate assets. For most, a home is best viewed as an expense, not an asset.
Meanwhile, low- to mid-cost apartments in the region have, almost across-the-board, become unofficial housing projects. Such gentrification seems to be a hallmark of urban decay.
"Meanwhile, low- to mid-cost apartments in the region have, almost across-the-board, become unofficial housing projects. Such gentrification seems to be a hallmark of urban decay." ---------------- Do you have any evidence of this, mouthwash?
Valid points by everyone that commented on the positives and negatives of renting versus ownership. My only comment is we have seen similar trends that have flooded the market and than trends change. There was a huge push for condos a few years ago, now many of those units sit empty. I can see that a few years down the road we will have to many rental buildings without enough demand. Everyone is quick to jump on the hot trend.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2014 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks