ANCHORAGE — A state agency won’t be accepting any more low-income housing vouchers because the list has thousands of names on it and officials don’t want to give people false hope.
The list has reached 4,587 families, according to the Anchorage Daily News. That means it would take more than three years for an applicant to get to the top of the list.
The vouchers are for low-income residents and cap the amount of rent they must pay at 30 percent of their income. Federal funds administered by AHFC are used to pay landlords the balance.
“The demand for assisted housing has simply outgrown the supply,” said Jim Gurke, public housing director for Alaska Housing Finance Corp.
Some families are in shelters, some living with other families, and some are in situations where they have to pay a big share of their income for rent. Those in more dire straits, such as victims of domestic violence, the homeless, or those who spend more than half their income on rent, often move up the list faster.
“With the current number of applicants, it is no longer possible to estimate when voucher assistance might be available.”
AHFC is closing the Anchorage voucher waiting list as of June 1.
Darrel Hess, homeless coordinator for the city, said AHFC’s decision shows there’s just not an adequate supply of affordable housing in Anchorage.
AHFC estimates those who get vouchers keep them for an average of 81/2 years.
Meanwhile, rents have risen so that it costs more to fund each voucher. The median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Anchorage during the first quarter of 2010 was $1,127, including utilities, says a state Department of Labor report out this month.
Trevor Storrs, co-chairman of the Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness, said the problem needs to be taken to the federal level. However, Gurke doesn’t see the voucher situation improving given that many members of Congress are trying to cut spending.
Comments (10)
Add commentHelping hand or handout for the rich?
Low-income housing vouchers are keeping rents / housing prices over inflated.
I am not against helping those in need. Paying 70 percent to land owners is keeping the cost of housing high.
The affordable housing comities need to look into making housing affordable. Picking up the tab for over priced rentals is doing nothing toward making it affordable. The ones suffering most are those working poor that do not receive handouts.
Holy Cow! "The median rent
Holy Cow! "The median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Anchorage during the first quarter of 2010 was $1,127, including utilities" I cant even remember when it was that cheap here in Juneau! Whats Anchorage whining about? Last time we were renting we were paying $1800/mo plus utilities!
Think about it
Let's suppose that you just bought a fourplex. You probably paid between $350,000 and $400,000 for it - maybe more. After investing $70,000 to $80,000 of your own cash money, you have a mortgage to pay. Insurance. Property Tax. Preventive maintenance. Fixing damage caused by others. Plumbing repairs. Snow removal. The monthly expenses would be quite high.
You've invested your own money, and expect to get a reasonable return on it, so you add up all the expenses, add a little rate of return on your investment, add a little to cover your vacancy factor, and add a little to cover your time and energy in running the place. Then you divide that number by four, and that's the rent you have to charge to make it worthwhile.
There's no guarantee, as many people in the lower 48 have recently discovered, that the property will even hold it's value, let alone appreciate. Capital move? Property prices plummet, but your expenses don't. Declining population? Ditto. SEACC f***ing everything up? Ditto. So it's reasonable to expect some reward or profit for your enterprise and the risk to which you are exposing yourself.
Some say that "they" need to look into making housing more affordable, but that subsidies are not the answer. Some say that rentals are "overpriced". These, in my opinion, are uninformed knee-jerk reactions from people who have no idea what the real estate market is doing.. Put yourselves in the position I've described above. What would you, as a property owner do? Reduce your rents because uninformed whiners say you should? And just what, if anything, do you, the people who think that subsidies are driving rents up, suggest as an alternative?
Oh, and Kpawsuh, $1800 plus utilities for a 2 bedroom? Really? There's one born every minute. Unless it was prime waterfront with an awesome view. And then it's your choice to pay that much.
Um, no and it was all we
Um, no and it was all we could find in this stupid town at the time. Actually it was a three bedroom, but still. And the landlord was quite upfront that we were paying for the mortgage on the rental and his personal house. he thought it was great. He also didnt do any maintenance. We regularly had water leaking through the roof in several room. Call the city and the state and they do nothing. He would simply say he kept calling contractors to give him a bid and none would ever come over. We finally bought a place and got out. Juneau is full of unscrupulous slum lords who simply want to get rich off the backs of others. obviously not all are that way. We rented from some very nice people who charge a fair price, who always sold out and left town, leaving us to try and find new arangements. I've been both sides of the relationship, landlord and renter over my lifetime and I know the realities of both. Rent in Juneau is rediculous. Especially if you have a moderate income and cant qualify for any assistance. I have always been just over the threshold, so I just worked more. Not sure I would have taken it anyway. I'm not wired that way.
Sad but true
Sadly, there are unscrupulous and lazy landlords in every community, but that doesn't mean that all landlords should be tarred with the same brush.
I agree that rent is high here, especially with a moderate income, but it doesn't achieve anything to call it "rediculous" (I think you meant "ridiculous"). How about some suggestions?
BTW, my insurance agent suggests insurance with a replacement cost of $150 - $250 PER SQUARE FOOT (depending on the quality of construction). One might say "That's ridiculous!", but it's the reality of today's world.
See what happens to the free
See what happens to the free market when big brother government gets involved? It never turns out well for the responsible tax payer.
Except in the case of child
Except in the case of child labor laws, anti-monopoly laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety laws, etc.
So I guess your statement should be edited to read: "it never turns out well for the responsible tax payer except when it does."
I've rented at least 12 if
I've rented at least 12 if not 15 different houses in Juneau. Over half were slum that were overpriced and we had to take them just because the market was tight.
I really wish the empire would put spell check on the blog. I always have at least one typo I think.
Think about this
Instead of 350 to 400 thousand with aprox. 2,300 a mo. pmt. ( or about half what vouchers will pay)
You bought that 4 plex new in the 80's for under 125,000. If there were more rentals and less vouchers rent For a 30 year old run down dive on Delta would be just about whatever 4 students could scrape together. A new 2 bdrm house would be 2 to 3 times that amount.
As long as there are subsidies, the market can not set the price. Without subsidies you can only charge what the market can or is willing to pay.
The whole voucher scam is about to be exposed. It is not making housing affordable. It is keeping prices over inflated.
akman59, you're exactly
akman59, you're exactly right. And vouchers are nothing more than income redistribution.