The place I lived in slowed in pace after 10 years, so not carrying it out quite that far but that was the rate. It was a normal, safe area within the city that feeds into excellent schools. The area has blown up in population since the early-mid 2010s so increased demand is definitely a factor as well.

Downtown Charleston I went all in on rentals in a pre-gentrified area. One of the houses went up by 3.5x in 8 years, but I lost all that in the divorce. Definitely not bitter about that....

A good portion of white liberals live in the city rather then the suburbs.

I'm in the woodlands. This is my fear if I stay for a decade, but it has had staying power up until now.

Woodlands seems to be pretty insulated in the Woodlands proper with the development of a version of a city core. This is something that none of the other suburban regions have.

BCG Disciple said:

---

I'm in the woodlands. This is my fear if I stay for a decade, but it has had staying power up until now.

---

I45 and section 8 multi family is a family centric "death sentence" to The Woodlands. Thousands of apartments in and around The Woodlands has brought in thousands of eternal victims and I45 gives them quick access to escape back to Gunspoint mall area after crime. In the decade I've lived in the area, 2 different fleeing criminals almost hit my car on I45 running from police after committing crime in the mall area. Both were car fulls of a demographic that will remain nameless--Not Asian. The Woodlands will continue to slowly erode...Still a great area but eroding. I Give it 10-20 more years before families begin to move en mass. My guess is The Woodlands will remain a popular retail and work hub but crime will increase and families have already started to take flight.

jtraggie99 said:

---

Throw away consumer culture. People are obsessed with the newest and greatest. I'm 47 and my parents still have the same bedroom furniture they've had my entire life. My 98 year old grandmother still has some of the same furniture her and my grandfather had before I was born, still lives in the same house as well. That doesn't happen much today with younger generations.

---

I don't entirely believe this.
Then again, maybe I'm not a younger generation at 43.
We still have same couches, tvs, dining table that we bought when we moved into this house 11 years ago. Our couch from our first house made its way down to the basement, and finally after 20 years, we got rid of it, but only because it was the fake leather stuff that was shedding all over the place.
We also recently got rid of my wife's armoir that she had as a teen.. but didn't replace it.. just don't need it anymore.

Still have the same bedroom furniture since we were in our mid/late 20s.

I think with electronics your thoughts are on for sure, but it's kind of forced. 8 year old iphones don't work all that well, nor do 15 year old tvs. That's not the consumers fault, it's the manufacturers, well and mostly technology changes too fast. 32gb phone 8 years ago was a lot, now pictures are 5x the size, so that gets eaten up quick, so we move to 128gb.

wash, rinse, repeat

Cars, I don't see any correlation between age and always having a new car. I see that with young and old, and young and old people both keep cars a long time.

Yeah, like many things, it's not true for everyone. It's just a trend that you see much more of today than say when we were growing up.

I'll play along for a moment as I see this come up often (I live in McKinney by the way and this is often discussed). And I am always genuinely curious. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are suggesting that in order for suburbs to continue to thrive and not decline, they should not allow apartments or rental homes. Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, people who either choose not to buy property or cannot afford to should not be allowed to live in suburbs? And if so, they should live where?

62strat said:

---

jtraggie99 said:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are suggesting that in order for suburbs to continue to thrive and not decline, they should not allow apartments or rental homes. Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, people who either choose not to buy property or cannot afford to should not be allowed to live in suburbs? And if so, they should live where?

---

in another suburb.

Cherry hills village is a very exclusive burb/neighborhood in south denver. Similar to river oaks. No apartments. All lots are acre+, with large homes. Multi million $. Does everyone have a right to live there?

Of course not. I'd love to, but I can't afford it, so I live elsewhere.

I hate this argument.

We will never live in a world where no apartments will never be built. But not EVERY suburb has to do it. Some can/should remain 'exclusive', more expensive, upper class, whatever you want to call it. Just like in real life.
You have first class on planes, then private for the next income level up.
Not everyone has a right to all the privileges in life.

---

That's kind of my point. The OP seems to be saying that ALL suburbs decline to due rentals (i.e. poorer people). And that to prevent suburbs from declining, this should be prevented. Not some suburbs, but all suburbs. So who decides which suburbs should be for poorer people and have rentals and which do not?

62strat said:

---

jtraggie99 said:

---

62strat said:

---

jtraggie99 said:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are suggesting that in order for suburbs to continue to thrive and not decline, they should not allow apartments or rental homes. Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, people who either choose not to buy property or cannot afford to should not be allowed to live in suburbs? And if so, they should live where?

---

in another suburb.

Cherry hills village is a very exclusive burb/neighborhood in south denver. Similar to river oaks. No apartments. All lots are acre+, with large homes. Multi million $. Does everyone have a right to live there?

Of course not. I'd love to, but I can't afford it, so I live elsewhere.

I hate this argument.

We will never live in a world where no apartments will never be built. But not EVERY suburb has to do it. Some can/should remain 'exclusive', more expensive, upper class, whatever you want to call it. Just like in real life.
You have first class on planes, then private for the next income level up.
Not everyone has a right to all the privileges in life.

---

That's kind of my point. The OP seems to be saying that ALL suburbs decline to due rentals (i.e. poorer people). And that to prevent suburbs from declining, this should be prevented. Not some suburbs, but all suburbs. So who decides which suburbs should be for poorer people and have rentals and which do not?

---

Two things;
First bolded; do you disagree? Do you have any examples of a majority lower income area that has not declined?

Second; The people in charge of development/zoning, etc; town council..

The op only cares about his suburb. He doesn't care about all suburbs. he could care less if a suburb in a metro 200 miles away allows apts. He only wants his suburb to not decline.
But not everyone cares about decline, especially those who are responsible for the decline.

Like I said, there will never be a world where apartments are no longer built. I have never once said apartments should never be built. I just don't want too many around where I live. Put them all together somewhere else.

---

I understand what you are saying. But to that point, the OP asked why Texas suburbs decline. Not just his suburb (Plano), but Texas suburbs. If his answer is due to poor people (rentals), then it sounds like his solution is to not let poor people in suburbs. Which begs the question, where should they go?

So when it comes to the state of texas, people who can't afford to buy property should only be allowed to live in rural areas and city proper? (yes I know you said you were not against apartments ever being built, more directed at the OP)

By the way, your suggestion that city councils and city officials should decide this, is exactly what happened in Plano and surrounding cities and exactly what the OP is complaining about. And for the record, my kids attend Plano schools (their mom lives in Plano) and it's still a great place to live with great schools.

Plano schools have seen massively unsustainable levels of low income student enrollment over the past 20 years, between 500% and 800% increases, depending on the campus. At the rate Plano is continuing to build apartments, how much longer will the schools stay great?

so just for the record, are we cool with the Asian's displacing the white kids?

Looks like the highest rated schools in Plano are majority Asian, FWIW.

62strat said:

---

jtragg said:

---

I understand what you are saying. But to that point, the OP asked why Texas suburbs decline. Not just his suburb (Plano), but Texas suburbs. If his answer is due to poor people (rentals), then it sounds like his solution is to not let poor people in suburbs. Which begs the question, where should they go?

---

he never offered up a solution. The solution you're giving is your conclusion.

He asked 'why do residents let it happen?'
That answer is easy; they don't pay attention to who they are voting for locally, if they vote at all on the local level.
With certain leaders comes certain types of development. People need to pay more attention that type of stuff, but they don't.

They only care who the president is.

---

Yes, that is correct. Which is why I said "it sounds like". He hasn't offered a solution. I'm just making inferences based on what he's said so far. He may have something completely different in mind or no thoughts on solutions at all.

On angle on apartments is they are a concentrated tax generator so easy new money for the city/county etc.

jtraggie99 said:

---

62strat said:

---

jtragg said:

---

I understand what you are saying. But to that point, the OP asked why Texas suburbs decline. Not just his suburb (Plano), but Texas suburbs. If his answer is due to poor people (rentals), then it sounds like his solution is to not let poor people in suburbs. Which begs the question, where should they go?

---

he never offered up a solution. The solution you're giving is your conclusion.

He asked 'why do residents let it happen?'
That answer is easy; they don't pay attention to who they are voting for locally, if they vote at all on the local level.
With certain leaders comes certain types of development. People need to pay more attention that type of stuff, but they don't.

They only care who the president is.

---

Yes, that is correct. Which is why I said "it sounds like". He hasn't offered a solution. I'm just making inferences based on what he's said so far. He may have something completely different in mind or no thoughts on solutions at all.

---

He also said he's never seen it outside of texas.

So there's the solution. Stop apt building in texas, if you can't afford it, move to another state lol.
Problem is, if you can't afford to live in TX, you can't hardly afford anywhere.

My town was the 'new' shiny suburb back in the mid 90s (Parker, CO). It grew from a few thousand residents in late 80s to 60-70k today. Home values have doubled+ in the last 10 years, so unless you moved here 10+ years ago, you are pretty much on the higher income scale. I think the avg house value is $600k or so, which with taxes/ins is a $4k payment. I certainly couldn't afford to live here now (not with current lifestyle), our mortgage is $2k.

The town has had it's share of apartments that were built along the way, but, for the most part, they did it smart. They put all the apts along the highway core on the north side of town. Most of the rest of the town is neighborhoods. We don't have an apt complex at every intersection like you see driving around houston burbs. We also have a little quaint downtown that's been there for 100+ years.

On top of that, the apt rent isn't cheap.
The argument of the left here is 'the people that work in this town have to live, and they can't afford the rent, so we need low income housing.' So just having an apt isn't cheap enough. A 2 bedroom apartment in my town is $2k+

Problem is (for the left that want low income housing), the town is 90% built out, so there ain't much room left, and what is left is slated to be single family homes.
There was one section 8 apartment complex approved and built, so we have the 1. Weird thing is, it's in the MIDDLE of a neighborhood. 100% surrounded by single family houses.