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

Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#241

Post by twoheadedboy »

michaelchisari wrote: post #203
afavour wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has technically outlawed Airbnb rentals of less than 30 days already. They just need a lot better enforcement of that law.

| They just need a lot better enforcement If only there was a website where you could search a geographic area and get the address of every airbnb there...

1. Rent an airbnb for a period of time. 2. Tenant reaches out to host and asks to stay longer (or vice versa) 3. They agree to a deal outside airbnb that works better for both of them.

- no rules have to be followed

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#242

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

i think remote work goes a long way in resolving this problem.

governments are not interested in building new affordable property (at least in the UK).

so those of us who can afford to rent in these cities, but not buy, we should all leave these places...let the landlords default on their speculative house of cards.

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#243

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

cmurf wrote: post #166
spaniard89277 wrote: post #36

Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…

Empty property tax at up to 1000%. For full time occupied properties, a sliding scale rebate toward rent based on income.

New York City has very little housing available. It’s not an issue of empty properties.

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#244

Post by nickles »

Baloo wrote: post #170
nickles wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income This is great policy if you want to make housing unaffordable. When supply is less than demand, prices go up. Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechani…

>Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). This is not reality though. Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities. The guardian today published an article showing: >…

> Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.

The housing in UK is in crisis because there have not been enough homes built. My rent has gone up too, but it's not because my landlord is greedy. The cost of maintaining the building has gone up thanks to inflation (plumbers/electricians/superintendent/etc.) all have to be paid higher wages. Replacing broken fixtures is more expensive. If the landlord has a floating rate mortgage, the cost of paying the mortgage went up. For commercial apartment rentals, those companies have debt that now needs to be rolled over at higher rates.

> By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

So is it a problem that they aren't building more or not? If we agree that more housing needs to be built, then the proper incentives must be in place. And a proper incentive may actually be as simple as eliminating a disincentive (e.g. 4 years of environmental review prior to the project's approval).

> Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.

It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US. That means the impact of rate hikes is more immediate on housing prices. And if available stock being down is a problem (which it is), the obvious solution is to produce more. Alternatively, I have a modest proposal [0] that would also solve the problem.

> Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem.

Risk is omnipresent. If I purchase property, I have all sorts of risk. My building may burn down. My neighborhood may become undesirable to live in. I might not be able to take a job in a new location. I tried to pick examples that aren't about investment. These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#245

Post by runeks »

m_ke wrote: post #221
huevosabio wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing =/= Land. But our policies which heavily kneecap our ability to build more [0] make it such that Housing starts behaving like Land. The solution is to build more, and the success of Vienna does not come from public intervention but from the added supply. Tokyo is another city with famously cheap housing, and the secret is that they make it easy to build. I personally think that achieving affordable housing pr…

I'm no NIMBY but places like NYC will never be able to build enough to outpace demand.

Why do you believe that?

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#246

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

grapeskin wrote: post #167
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did that work for Berlin? Try moving there today and tell me how affordable it is for newcomers. Rent control is basically subsidizing existing grandfathered tenants by fleecing those new wishing to move in, without fixing the underlying housing shortage in any way. The solution is always, always, having (building) more supply than the demand, yet nobody seems to get it.

Damn, are rents in Berlin over 5000 euros/5000 dollars? Must be nuts.

What does the 5000$ mark have to do with it? Just because rents in Berlin are not as high as downtown Manhattan, doesn't mean they're not overpriced for Berlin wages, especially since skilled and middle class wages in Berlin are nowhere near what they are in Manhattan, so this apples to oranges 5000$ mark is meaningless for your snarky attempt at an argument.

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#247

Post by enriquto »

fartsucker69 wrote: post #215
spaniard89277 wrote: post #36

Housing and land is a non-transable good, and therefore there should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income, and renting to a representative distribution of tenants so to prevent guettos. Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy, and property owners provide almost…

Property owners providing almost no value is just factually wrong. Their function is similar to insurance. You pay rent to live somewhere because you don't want to take the risk or can't get the loans to buy a property yourself. And it costs real money and time (i.e. real resources) to build those homes and maintain them. In return property owners (or insurance runners) can get rich off your monthly payments as well…

> it costs real money and time to build those homes and maintain them.

As a renter of a dangerously unmaintained property, whose owner has never worked because he inherited a bunch of apartments, I can only laugh hysterically at your ridiculously-over-the-top sarcasm.

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#249

Post by voidhorse »

fny wrote: post #233

This is a price signal. Anyone who's calling for intervention needs to wake up. The proper response is for people to leave . If you drive across America, you'll find economically, depressed areas which have suffered from brain drain. Many aspire to attend an out of state college, go work in the Valley, join some VC-funded startup, megacorp, consulting firm, and strike it rich. In all likelihood, you will (1) not stri…

Sure, but this is totally antithetical to american culture which is extremely selfish, entirely oriented around acquiring money, and obsessed with pop culture which generally leads people to pursue positions that are high paying and locales that are “the place to be”.

When the only values that remain are the acquisition of capital, self-love, and fame, the majority of the population will elect to be in the places that present those possibilities to them, even if it requires making short-term decisions that harm them (absurd renting costs), because they believe they might make it work given time.

Re: Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time

#250

Post by mym1990 »

namelessoracle wrote: post #120
mattzito wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they fill up with low income tenants? Why would that make it undesirable?

Because low income anywhere (rental area or even just low income suburban areas) typically has a population that is less able to invest into their area (in time or money), and historically has shown that they seek an extractive relationship with their environment rather than invest in it.

Haha "extractive relationship" come on man. Poor people aren't vampires, they need to be resourceful in their environment to survive.
Post reply on HN