Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More evidence of rent declines in Portland

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#41

Post by cafard »

ikeyany wrote: post #40
newbear wrote: post #23

Just spent a month looking for a studio or one bedroom below $1200. Plenty of ok options and a couple better than ok. All apartments came with the threat of a scary property management company. Finally we found an artsy owner with an attic and After waiting two weeks for our background check to pass for a studio we were approved but had already signed a lease for he attic. Pretty stressful process. Mostly because the…

The industry is based on making money off people who need a home...is there really any room for ethics?

And the grocery industry is based on making money off people who need to eat. There does seem to be room for ethics there, for some stores or chains cut more corners than others.

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#42

Post by ikeyany »

cafard wrote: post #41
ikeyany wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry is based on making money off people who need a home...is there really any room for ethics?

And the grocery industry is based on making money off people who need to eat. There does seem to be room for ethics there, for some stores or chains cut more corners than others.

Grocery stores act as a middleman; they aren't the sole provider of food. I don't think that analogy is sufficient.

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#43

Post by hayd »

ikeyany wrote: post #42
cafard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the grocery industry is based on making money off people who need to eat. There does seem to be room for ethics there, for some stores or chains cut more corners than others.

Grocery stores act as a middleman; they aren't the sole provider of food. I don't think that analogy is sufficient.

There's no property management monopoly.... Not by a long way.

Fundamentally the problem is the company is hired to provide a service for the landlord but that service is paid for by the tenant. Hence usual market incentives for good behavior don't exist.

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#44

Post by ikeyany »

hayd wrote: post #43
ikeyany wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grocery stores act as a middleman; they aren't the sole provider of food. I don't think that analogy is sufficient.

There's no property management monopoly.... Not by a long way. Fundamentally the problem is the company is hired to provide a service for the landlord but that service is paid for by the tenant. Hence usual market incentives for good behavior don't exist.

Lack of incentives for good behavior is the natural outcome of a necessity like housing being privately owned--with no realistic alternatives. Liken this to water; we are free to buy our own expensive water if we want, but wouldn't you be outraged if there were no baseline of free/low cost tap water?

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#45

Post by JBlue42 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #39
gigatexal wrote: post #32

It’s a shitty time to be a landlord though, one without deep pockets anyway: I just have a home that I bought years ago that when I got married a year later thought I’d supplement my new family’s income with some rent. Nothing major since I have a mortgage and a high interest rate and all that. But it was fine. I treated my tenants well, came rushing in to fix anything, didn’t charge late fees, etc. then the Portland…

10% annual rent increase is a lot, and is well above inflation for most areas. Is the stipend only required if you kick them out? If that's the case, then it makes sense IMO. Renters are people and need stable housing.

Rent stabilization is capped at 3%/yr in LA. On /r/LosAngeles, you can read about those without it getting crazy increases like 22%. A 10% max seems reasonable. Given that unless you switch jobs you're unlikely to see any big % increases to your salary, why create instability or price out good tenants.

Re: More evidence of rent declines in Portland

#46

Post by gigatexal »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #39
gigatexal wrote: post #32

It’s a shitty time to be a landlord though, one without deep pockets anyway: I just have a home that I bought years ago that when I got married a year later thought I’d supplement my new family’s income with some rent. Nothing major since I have a mortgage and a high interest rate and all that. But it was fine. I treated my tenants well, came rushing in to fix anything, didn’t charge late fees, etc. then the Portland…

10% annual rent increase is a lot, and is well above inflation for most areas. Is the stipend only required if you kick them out? If that's the case, then it makes sense IMO. Renters are people and need stable housing.

I never raised it like that. But adjusting short-term renters to market rents is something tenants should understand as a possibility, this law effectively puts a cap on things.
Post reply on HN