"Affordability" is relative to local incomes. Usually it's expected somebody making the local median income should be able to buy the home in question and spend no more than 30% or so of disposable income making payments on it (100% financed? 80%?). No doubt homes sell for a lot more in SF or Seattle but incomes are certainly higher in those places too. I am NOT arguing KC isn't far more affordable than those places but it may be not quite as much more affordable when incomes are taken into consideration than it first appears. Also, some of that very low priced housing may be in such disrepair it deserves to be torn down. When looking at affordability there is an assumption the housing in question is in good shape--not luxury shape, just "move-in ready" with standard finishes. In other words, it's not an "affordable" comp if it needs a new roof, new plumbing (a la Flint) or rewiring to be livable.
__________________
Rusiya delenda est
|