Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Big Ones | Bush Clinton Bush Clinton... »

Friday, October 5, 2007

I Have Officially Been Priced Out of Central Seattle

posted by on October 5 at 11:42 AM

I have to move because they raised my rent in my building and it sucks. But you know what sucks even more? Housing prices have gotten so high I can’t live in dense Central Seattle. And I have a good job, making a reasonable amount of money. I want to live in an area where I don’t need to commute—it’s impossible. Every single studio, one, and two bedroom apartment I’ve seen listed in Capitol Hill, First Hill, and the Central District would cost more than 1/2 of my monthly wages to live in.

I’m not looking forward to being homeless, so I guess I’m going to have to look forward to being poor. I thought I finished doing that when I got a full-time job. Fuck the Seattle housing market.

RSS icon Comments


I'm in the same boat - my property managers want to jack up my rent over 20%.

Posted by Willis | October 5, 2007 11:48 AM

Ask Dan for a raise.

Posted by Catman | October 5, 2007 11:50 AM

The Seattle rental market is crazy. Condo conversions are kicking people out of their apartments, forcing them to find new places. Add to that the influx of people into the rental market because they had to give up their homes due to adjustable rate mortgages getting out of control. And of course, the housing market is too ridiculous for most folks to get a condo, much less a house.

Posted by Emily | October 5, 2007 11:51 AM

It's a conundrum.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 5, 2007 11:54 AM

And it's not just the rent. Because of the tight rental market, apartment management is getting pretty fucking creative with fees and deposits as well. I looked at a place last month where they wanted $50 to check my credit in addition to the $100 application fee. (You're charging me a fee just to apply to live here?)

I asked why the application and credit check fee was so high and the response was, "Because we can get it."

It's a racket.

I hope the city council can look into this, but I don't have high hopes for resolution as long as we have real estate developers holding office.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 5, 2007 12:00 PM

This will choke off our city of creative folks and young people. The only hope is if they keep building and the housing market crashes in Seattle. But the thing that's really important is that they keep building. Build on every fuckin empty lot. Tear down single occupancy housing. Get rid of parking requirements. Build, build, build.
And maybe with some more GWB economic magic the crash will happen and we can live in the city again.

Posted by poster girl | October 5, 2007 12:04 PM

I'm in the same boat. I'm looking for a place now and can't find anything but shitholes. I don't know what is better: Live in a shithole apartment in a nice city, or live in a nice apartment in a shithole city?

Posted by cliff rancho | October 5, 2007 12:06 PM

Hi, Ari. We've been talking about this almost daily for years. Where have you been?

Posted by Gomez | October 5, 2007 12:07 PM

somwhere in this thread someone will invariably say how the condo conversions/builds are a good thing for the rental market, but you just have to wait a while until real density is reached and then you'll see how wonderful it all is. what they dont mention is that these new buildings drive prices up, with each cycle, then becoming the baseline for the market.

they think its supply and demand only, and not that what we need and should be demanding of is more affordable housing. you know, the kind us shlubs, can reasonably live in.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 5, 2007 12:08 PM

I'm also waiting for the housing market apologists to show up, the ones who say that this sort of problem is a good thing and a product of a natural, healthy economy and housing market or some shit. Waiting... waiting....

Posted by Gomez | October 5, 2007 12:09 PM

The thing that get's me is the North end neighborhoods who fight anykind of apartment building what so ever. They all consider themselves good lefties but when it comes to having an aprartment in their neighborhood they fight like crazy.

Posted by lisa Gin | October 5, 2007 12:10 PM


Posted by monkey | October 5, 2007 12:15 PM

The same thing happened to me. And then a month later, the owner sold to condo developers. It's scary, huh?

I moved to Lake City. No danger of condo development here--there aren't even any fucking sidewalks. But to be honest, I'm suprised by how much I like living away from the "Metro-Natural" vibe that Seattle's officials have envisioned.

Transportation is a draw back. I have to ride the (irradic & infrequent) bus instead of walk to work, which sucks.

It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world, either. Oh, Seattle. How I wanted to belong to you.

Posted by tabletop_joe | October 5, 2007 12:17 PM

RE 5: Market forces dictate high rents (as in "because we can"), not "real estate developers holding office." The key to solving this problem is more supply (or less demand, which is unrealistic given 50,000+ people moving to the region annually). The barriers to adding more supply are resrictive zoning laws (inlcuding the ability of NIMBYs to drive up cost) and the high cost of construction/materials. Lowering production cost would cause more housing to be created, but in the absence of lower cost, the major factor driving the creation of more housing is higher rents/sales prices. Most developers and investors don't build out of charity, they build to acheive a profit.

Posted by High-Rise | October 5, 2007 12:17 PM

Poor guy. When I see you on the streets, I'll be sure to drop a couple bucks into your cup.

Posted by Amelia | October 5, 2007 12:20 PM

ahhh theres the rub...

but in the absence of lower cost, the major factor driving the creation of more housing is higher rents/sales prices.

sounds to me like they are building more, so that they can charge us more.

kind wonky, that

Posted by hipsterlite | October 5, 2007 12:24 PM

You know, we've seen this before. The last time was between '78 and '83, and the result was a drop in housing prices all over the city.

One of the interesting effects of a hugely inflated real estate market, like the one we're dealing with right now, is that investors get into the act: speculators invest in development projects to build condos all over the city. The developers' agenda is to sell as many new projects as possible to investors while the market looks hot. They don't care if the projects are a good idea because they're being paid flat fees by the investors. The result is a huge market glut of apartments and apartment buildings. Then the financing collapses and housing gets really cheap.

There was a 6 story condo on Bellevue, near Roy, when I was in high school in '85 that had run out of money two years earlier. The single-pour concrete structure sat there unfinished until the tech boom of the early '90s, when someone finally bought the building and finished it. People who have only lived here since the '90s can barely imagine such a thing, but it happened once.

It'll happen again.

Posted by Judah | October 5, 2007 12:26 PM

I'm moving to Wyoming.

Posted by Sam Hill | October 5, 2007 12:27 PM

Without actual numbers on either your income or your rent as increased, there is no room or point to commenting on you being priced out. For all I know you are bitching because your rent went from 650 to 800 or something. There are plenty of apartments to be had in the central core of Seattle at the 900-1200 range. And if you can't afford that, you are not working a well paid job. Again, this comment is pointless, because I'm making assumptions on numbers since the OP failed to provide them. but, yeah, DOWN WITH SEATTLE HOUSING! because it affected me! WHINE. et. al.

Posted by seattle98104 | October 5, 2007 12:27 PM

Try throwing a dog into the equation. I was looking for a place a few months back and found that only the shittiest of the shitty apartments allow dogs. The place I did find has been doing a ton of remodeling, so I feel like it's only a matter of time before they tell us they're converting.

Posted by Todd | October 5, 2007 12:27 PM

@9 -- @14 -- we have a winner!

Posted by Cow | October 5, 2007 12:31 PM



Posted by Mr. Poe | October 5, 2007 12:35 PM

Hey lady, I'm pretty sure we've passed the era when 50% rents were reasonable to expect in this area. :( If you still have to keep to that 1/2 income thing, try looking for a room in a house. There's no way I could afford to live in a normal, non-low-income house here in Capitol Hill, but I CAN afford to split a cheap house three ways with some friends. (Four ways until just recently.)

I really think group living is the only way to go for lower-but-not-officially-low-income folks in Seattle. It's not always ideal but the savings make it worth trying. Find a couple other people who live like you do and rent a house!

Posted by Katelyn | October 5, 2007 12:36 PM

This sucks for Ari, but this is also why we need regional planning for transportation and development, so that people who are temporarily priced out of the city can move out a bit but still have access to walkable neighborhoods, convenient transit, and other urban amenities.

Most relevantly for current political issues, this is why we need Sound Transit 2 to go beyond the borders of the city of Seattle, starting now and not a few years from now. (Vote yes on Prop 1.)

Also, while central neighborhoods are out, there are plenty of in-city neighborhoods that are not central that still have decent transit, walkable neighborhoods, and things to do besides stay inside, mow the lawn, or go to the mall. While the market is still crazy, take a vacation in a less central neighborhood. When apartments become cheap again (and they will, relatively speaking), you can move back into a central neighborhood.

But hey, acknowledging that markets are cyclical makes me an apologist, so feel free to ignore me.

Posted by Cascadian | October 5, 2007 12:37 PM

I am getting increasingly sick of the prices rising, condos taking over. I consider myself in the range that I should be able to afford decent housing without any public support. That however does't mean I don't want our local governments to get behind providing medium income housing closer more centrally as a global warming issue. I know lots of people that don't want to commute, but have to for budget reasons.

Posted by Erin | October 5, 2007 12:43 PM

@9 - sigh. People say condo building is good for the rental market because it's true, hipsterlite. Building more condos doesn't raise the price of the neighborhood - rather, the condos are being built because the demand is already there. If they stopped building them, prices would be even more ridiculous, as buyers would claw at each other over the few available cubic feet on the market.

It's probably good for the neighborhood to keep a limited percentage of low-income housing available, but insisting on no new development in the face of huge demand is just not going to work. You want to live on the Hill? So does everyone else. That's why it's expensive, not because developers make shiny new buildings.

Posted by tsm | October 5, 2007 12:45 PM

Look at the rental prices in Washington, D.C. and you'll feel better.

Granted, the salaries in Seattle are shit.

But really, Issaquah can't be so bad. ...

Posted by spilled latte | October 5, 2007 12:45 PM

Bauhaus mentioned being charged $50 to check his addition to his application fee.

I seem to remember getting charged $75 for a credit check, in addition to an application fee, while trying to get an apartment on Union...IN 1992.

And the same thing was true on Bellevue Ave 1994.

I don't think that "credit check fee" has as much to do with the current housing/renting situation in the Seattle metro area as the combination of desirability of living on Capitol Hill with the often questionable finances of those young enough to want to live there.

...and the fact that people WIll pay whatever they can for a chance to live somewhere they want to live.

Since THAT'S true, the question can it be in the developers' interest to offer decent and affordable housing in desirable areas of town at reasonable rates?

If government steps in to create that "interest"--what can be done to insure that the developers have an interest in properly maintaining the property?

Barring that--those seeking decent affordable housing have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

{Probably why most people live their lives scrambling to get ever-better paying jobs to keep them out of that kind of dependency.)

Posted by pgreyy | October 5, 2007 12:46 PM

i was just in Wyoming. sure is pretty.

Posted by sari | October 5, 2007 12:50 PM

BTW, I'm in the same boat. But I'm, oh, 85% convinced that this market cannot maintain itself - the gap in the rate of salary increases and the rate of housing prices is unsustainable. Seattle is not somehow special and exempt from the slump every other area is facing; it's just been delayed a bit. I predict prices, if they don't plunge, will stagnate for quite some time (and decrease when adjusting to inflation).

Posted by tsm | October 5, 2007 12:50 PM

I grew up in Wyoming. Do not move there. I'd rather live in a shithole in Seattle than live in THE shithole that is Wyoming.

Posted by Amy | October 5, 2007 12:54 PM

What the hell is Wyoming? Is that like a condo?

Posted by Do not compute. | October 5, 2007 1:07 PM

Come join your friend Amy J Ruiz here in beautiful and still somewhat affordable Portland.

You can have Matt Davis' job.

And Amelia@15 Ari is a girl, duh.

Posted by PdxRitchie | October 5, 2007 1:10 PM

Wyoming's not that bad. Try Shelby, Montana in January. You could probably get a four-bedroom house there for $25,000. I know you could a few years ago, and there hasn't been much of a boom since then.

Posted by Fnarf | October 5, 2007 1:12 PM

re to 26:
sure, I agree with you, to a point, there is some development needed. But this demand and the resulting rush to build also needs to be tempered with the fact people are already living and working here. Change is inevitable, but one thing we can do is place some checks upon that rate of change, for the sake of those who are invested (trough living/participating) in this community.
We can have a viable future and make a livable present, these things are not mutually exclusive.

"People say condo building is good for the rental market because it's true"

I've yet to see it.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 5, 2007 1:13 PM

It's purely anecdotal, but I think the stagnation in the housing market is already here - it's just that the realtors and developers don't want the rest of us to know it.

For several months now, on my commute between E. CapHill/Squire Park, and Wallingford, I generally drive by at least a dozen homes for sale; most of them have been on the market for at least a month, a couple for as long as three months. Some of them have "recently reduced" signs stuck onto the realty boards, indicating the sellers are getting a bit desperate.

These are nice homes, well-maintained, SFAICT, in what I think most people would consider desireable neighborhoods - but they're not selling. I would venture to guess there are quite a few other houses in equally desireable neighborhoods that are also sitting idle on the market.

Maybe it has to do with the increase in condo availability; maybe potential buyers are finally putting up resistence to the ridiculously inflated prices being asked; maybe its a combination of these and other factors. But from what I see out there on my daily commute, it seems pretty clear that something is happening to the market.

Posted by COMTE | October 5, 2007 1:14 PM

Aren't there any cheap apartments being advertised in The Stranger's classifieds?

Uncomfortable silence.

Ah. Well. How about Craigslist?

Posted by Boomer in NYC | October 5, 2007 1:14 PM


I have found that the best low cost housing around is in buildings that don't advertise. In my area (side of cap hill facing the city, near lake view) many places just put up an "apartment available" sign. Not sayin you haven't tried that, but just wanted to make the suggestion. Most studios or 1 bedrooms from those places run 500-1000. Not sure what your budget is.

Posted by Original Monique | October 5, 2007 1:26 PM

Someone at the EricaB/BOAT "Bikes in the Cal Anderson" thing last month, said that Pittsburgh mean house range was below 40k. That's considering you live at least 3 miles from the universities, and probably a good bit of crime around. Don't really know, we didn't get too much into it. We talked mostly about his bike store shirt from the Bloomfield Pgh neiborhood. Appararently, the Anarcho-Commie bookstore across the street recently closed. I never got to reading that Paul Robeson book I got from there, though they did have an ok tolerable, mild incense burning when I'd stop in and browse.

Posted by June Bee | October 5, 2007 1:33 PM

Demand is cyclical. Right now the downtown core is in high demand ergo prices and rents are high. Before that it was suburban areas that were hot. This works on a national scale with different regions and cities being more desirable then others. New York used to be a place few (relatively) wanted to live. Now itís in demand. A landlord will charge what the market will pay. No landlord is going to sit with an empty complex just to have high rents. If people were not paying these rents and housing prices they would be lower.

While renting has some great advantages one of the downsides is that you don't get stability in cost. If your neighborhood is in low demand your rent is cheap, if it gets popular it goes up. With a mortgage (a fixed one) you pay the same every month (which actually goes down in terms of real dollars) whether your neighborhood is in demand or not.

There is not a whole lot suggesting the Seattle market is going to crash. We are not that overpriced and we don't have an unbearable percentage of bad mortgages. What is more likely is a slow down and possibly even a few years of stagnation. Then incomes catch up and eventually the whole thing repeats itself.

Posted by Giffy | October 5, 2007 1:33 PM

@36 - I, too, know of two people who have failed to sell their condos so far; one of them has taken it off the market and it looking to rent it. In one case, the realtor set the initial price insanely high and wouldn't bring it down to a reasonable level. It further reinforced my suspicion that this is a bigger fool market.

Posted by tsm | October 5, 2007 1:36 PM

@17 Judah I would agree with you about the inflated housing costs, but in central Seattle that really only applies to the condo market when you big picture it. The cost of single family and semi-detached homes in central Seattle aren't going to come crashing down irregardless of any sub prime loan crisis or oversaturation. The condo story will more than likely be another story though. There are only so many baby boomers that will continue to buy in all of the new developments being built downtown, in the South Lake Union area, maybe Cap Hill, etc... 2200 Westlake is already a good example of this. Single family homes on the east side and up in the Woodinville/Bothell area might start to drop though as those areas are seeing inflated prices on older contstruction that is starting to really show wear and tear with zero curb appeal.

Posted by Sweetie | October 5, 2007 1:45 PM

Ugh. doesn't *anyone* here read SeattleBubble???

Posted by annoyed | October 5, 2007 1:45 PM

Try renting in SF! Move to Greenwood or West Seattle and STFU.

Posted by hunh? | October 5, 2007 1:51 PM

Go to Tacoma. It's nice there and they have a growing scene for local artists.

Posted by Grit City | October 5, 2007 1:53 PM

I wonder how your two-house owning boss feels about this. Isn't it great working for the Stranger?

Posted by Bar Rag | October 5, 2007 1:58 PM

I went to college in Santa Cruz, California during the dotcom bubble and just after, when rents hit their unrealistic an astronomical peak in California.
Santa Cruz was a nice beach/university town where eventually EVERYONE wanted to live.
Renting - eventually a room in a house cost $850/month. A one-bedroom apartment cost at least $1200, and that was a deal. A two bedroom house was $1800 minimum.
Buying a house? A tiny two bedroom...$550,000 was cheap.
Anyway, this began to twist people's lives and make everyone...even the rich people, unhappy. Friends would kick out friends for money...landlords were kings and queens. I truly hope Seattle finds a solution, before life becomes truly miserable. To this day I can't pass through that small city without feeling totally creeped out ... it's like knowing the exact nature of some horrible disease.

Posted by gallopinto | October 5, 2007 2:07 PM

House Sharing is a good idea that is done in other markets like LA, SF and NYC.

If you can join with another 1-2 professional, single grown up people you could live in a pretty nice place.

The idea that every person should have a 500-1000 sq foot apartment for themselves is also not sustainable. Seattle has one of the highest single person household rates in the US.

I was blown away when I moved here and discovered a single person could afford to live in a 750 square foot apartment by themselves.

How about house sharing as an option?

Posted by Just me, myself and I | October 5, 2007 2:12 PM

Try looking in the Northgate area. Sure, it's far away, but the buses are pretty reliable.

Posted by Greg | October 5, 2007 2:25 PM

I live in West Hollywood, and the 1 bedroom above me was just rented out for $1600, and the one next me on the same floor went for $1700.

Sorry to hear about your rent costs going up.

Posted by Paul | October 5, 2007 2:25 PM

Dan Savage owns 2 homes? (46)

Posted by Pete | October 5, 2007 2:30 PM

Ah, Wyoming...where the men are men and the sheep are nervous and Dick Cheney, well, just Dick Cheney.

Posted by QuimbyMcF | October 5, 2007 2:32 PM

i live in balard, it's not that much better as far as pricing goes....
and it's not icky, it's wonderful.

Posted by erin | October 5, 2007 4:19 PM

I've been renting a studio at the Tuscany for 14 years in 93 the rent was 450 now it's 740. I just bought a condo on first hill for 210,000 my new payment is between 1100 and 1200 per month. I make less than 42,000 a year. You too can own....try

homeowner with a boner.....yipee! available at the Tuscany on first hill in November 500 square feet.

Posted by Lynneland | October 5, 2007 4:20 PM

Giffy, you're my buddy, but honestly, incomes are NOT keeping up with housing prices. I make 35K a year and don't have prospects for making much more than that any time soon. Granted, once the boyfriend is done with school we'll have more income, but in the meantime we're not saving any money that we could use for a down payment or anything.

And if I'm going to pay as much as I am for rent, I am going to move somewhere with real public transportation. Unfortunately I am locked into this town through at least 2011, so I'm stuck trying to make ends meet.

Hey, at least I'm union so I get a cost of living raise every year! It's 3%. I got my raise this year and then immediately my rent was raised over 10%. How is that sustainable?

Posted by exelizabeth | October 5, 2007 5:27 PM

Sorry, just don't buy it. I mean, it sucks that you feel you're getting priced out of where you live, but I guarantee that there's a place you can rent in the areas you describe (Capitol Hill, First Hill, CD) that you can afford. It's probably a shithole next to some drug dealers where you're likely to get shot, but believe me, it exists.

That's the problem with wanting to live centrally -- unless your income rises, it's tough to maintain the same standard of living. Ultimately, you have to decide whether location or quality of residence is more important to you, and frankly, that's a decision EVERYbody has to make. (I.e., people move to the suburbs b/c they can get a house that's twice as big as in the city and not worry about crime. Same exact deal, just on a bigger scale.)

10 years ago, I paid $450/mo to live in a single, rat-infested room in the Bay Area with Saran Wrap windows because it was located where I wanted/needed to be. You might have to make a similar choice.

Posted by Sigh | October 5, 2007 5:35 PM

Get a roommate. Single young professional people in high-rent areas like NY, DC or the Bay Area never live alone unless they have a trust fund.

Posted by kk | October 5, 2007 6:29 PM

The only way prices drop is if demand drops, and the only way demand drops is if jobs disappear or this city suddenly turns into a shit-hole nobody wants to live in.

Anyone really see Seattle becoming an economic wasteland, or seeing the city's beauty suddenly dissipate into a giant ghetto?

That's what I thought.

Posted by Gomez | October 5, 2007 9:13 PM

@ #5

City council will never understand how bad the situation actually is, and therefore, will never put the in the effort to eradicate all of the because they're FUCKING HOME OWNERS. The people who have the power to do something aren't directly affected. Too bad for the rest of us.

Posted by renting and pissed | October 5, 2007 9:23 PM

@55, I didn't say they were keeping up, I said they would catch up. Right now housing prices and to some extent rents are higher then incomes can support. That doesn't so much mean a crash as much as a slowing of housing prices until incomes catch up.

There is also the problem, at least in Seattle proper of less houses then demand. That means that to some extent housing can be more expensive then median income would suggest. For example to take a extreme example if 100 people want to live in area that has 25 houses those houses can be priced such that only the top quartile can afford it, yet still be stable in the long run.

Seattle is not that extreme however living in the more desirable neighborhoods is still going to require either high income or great budgeting.

Posted by Giffy | October 5, 2007 11:19 PM

I'm a hard worker and make $X a year. I live in [insert neighborhood]. This year my rent went up $Y, but my raise was only $Z! With this evidence, I can safely say that Seattle is entirely unaffordable.

Boo-fucking-hoo. This is almost as bad as the letter to the editor the Pee-Eye published the other day. The one with the recently graduated accounting major who had $19,000 in student loan debt. "I can't pay it off!" she sobbed. She also worked as a barista. Now a good barista is hard to find, but you'd think an accounting major could figure this shit out...

Posted by joykiller | October 6, 2007 12:09 AM

Yeah yeah yeah. We could go around and around with this shit: she's whining, it's unrealistic, you should live with people, etc. etc.

What I'm actually curious to know is what people believe governmental entities should do about maintaining some degree of affordable housing in the city. SF and NY, I believe, have a degree of tenant protection with rent caps or freezes or whatever. What are the pros and cons of government action? Is there some reasonable approach that could be advocated for here, but which doesn't completely destroy owners' rights?

Posted by leek | October 6, 2007 1:55 PM

Doh... for some reason I couldn't remember the term "rent control." That's what I'm referring to. Is there any smart way of providing tenants more protection than what there is--which, as a recent victim of increases, I was unhappy to learn is "must give two months' notice if the increase is more than 10%." So the increase could be 500%, or whatever the landlord wants to ask... so long as you get 60 days to find your new place!

Posted by leek | October 6, 2007 1:58 PM

I should count myself lucky to live in a 1-bedroom on Capitol Hill for about 30% of my take home income. However, I am lighting a candle to St Jude and praying 3 rosaries to the Blessed Virgin every night that my rent won't climb into the unaffordable range or my building won't go condo. (Not really but you get the point.)

Having said that, I am not going to take the prospect of commuting to my job from Yakima because I can't afford anything closer lying down. Instead of whining to the Stranger Slog about how we are being priced out of the city how about organizing? Are we asking our city leaders what they are doing to prevent Seattle from becoming the San Francisco of the northwest? And are we voting accordingly? What exactly are our rights as tenants? Why--why on earth--does Seattle not have a cap on condo conversions? What can the local media do to help? (Note to the Stranger: as fascinating as this week's feature article on Hump!3 was to read, how about more coverage on this issue? Just a thought.) The free market alone is NOT going to bring more housing for the middle class into the city. Anyone who thinks otherwise should look at NY where you have to be a relative of Donald Trump just to find a roach infested shithole in the South Bronx, or San Francisco where the average person can't even look at anything within a 100 mile radius of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seattle must not go the way of these cities. Let's do something instead of just complaining about it.

Posted by david | October 6, 2007 2:03 PM

the only place that you guys are gonna end up is renting from people like me. and then going "whaaaa, oh fuck...oh fuck over and over like idiots when I jack up your rent every month. the seattle area is going to be a land of property barons and we are going to see property appreciation in the next ten years that will exceed most of the nation. so MAYBE you should consider changing your F words from fuck to fund and consider FUNDING yourself a new piece of property. hey....I have a word for is not 4 letters long so I doubt you will understand it..but...its called EQUITY.its when you spend only 20000 or so to buy a house or condo and pay a few hundred dollars more than you would in rent, but you would see an increase of about $150000 in 4 to 6 years in our market. slobs would rather just lazily picket and say "oh please give me a hand out and stop buying property" lets just make seattle a lazy slacker town so hipsters like us can just smoke all day in our dirty brown slacks and make $7 an hour in an old record store. lets artificially ruin our successful market that is creating unprecedented growth in equity for homeowners just so we can sit our lazy butts in a $600 month apartment. why should they get 100s of thousands in equity while I work so hard sitting around listening to old nirvana records all day?

Posted by .... | October 6, 2007 5:15 PM

ummm....yeah....I wonder what would I do as the owner of an apartment complex in seattle....I can either convert it to a condo to meet the market needs, sell the units, take the money and be done with it...OR, I can just keep on renting to a dude named sage who wears the same flannel shirt every day, smells like hemp, has long greasy brown hair, plays the guitar till 500 am, and pays his rent late every month. YEAH! I think that I will NOT convert my apartment to a condo just to keep Sage happy and also because I love having to unclog his toilet every week after he flushes the sticks and stems in his bong and clogs it up. I think that I will LOSE a million or so in profits just to keep him and his slacker friends happy......YEAH that is REALLY going to happen! so go ahead protest.....

Posted by yeah | October 6, 2007 5:24 PM

Either that or move back in with your parents, I kid....Or perhaps move to the southend where you can find many nicely priced apts where rent includes utilities and go back to commuting.

Posted by kaysizzel | October 6, 2007 11:04 PM

I had to spring for an extra $250. 'non-refundable fee', to get my apt.
When I questioned this I was told it's for processing all my forms. I was appaled, but I had to take it, as the apt. I was in prior was told that it was going condo.
Is this shit legal?!

Posted by Jeremiah | October 8, 2007 8:59 AM

I'm rollin' in the Snoq... That's Snoqualmie, for you ironically t-shirted Cap Hill hipsters.

Hey, we even have a Starbucks now... OH yeah...

Posted by Steven | October 19, 2007 1:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).