Live data from Hacker News

A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

gothamist.com

161–170 of 450 posts

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#161
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of things are side-effects of "tenant's rights" laws. Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. The problem is that this is antithetical to higher density, because you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex. You can have condos perhaps, but not everyone can afford to get into one, or even wants to. And if…

> Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. Great! Housing should never have been allowed to become a commodity.

Did you read the rest of the comment?

How do you solve the problem of condo owners not maintaining a property and letting problems fester for a couple decades after which they might be dead or move out?

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Old people in Texas get their property taxes frozen I believe at 65. True but if you're turning 65 after you're tax bill has grown 10% for over a decade as your transitioning to your fixed income years; it's not a good thing just to freeze the tax bill. You might not have time to earn and save enough to cover the value it gets frozen at. It does help soften the blow for many though. > But honestly it might be bette…

If you despise that thinking, then we need to regulate the housing market to discourage seeing housing as an investment as we see it today. Everyone expects, more or less, for real estate to climb in value but nobody wants to square that with these other emotional ideas attached to housing. It either is an asset or it’s a commodity as far as the market goes. If you want generational housing and for housing to be gene…

It's fine to be an investment. It can climb in value. But it doesn't need to be such a need to force the liquidity. Your example of "under utilized asset" and downsizing must then translate down to some metric of square-footage per resident. How exactly to you propose to regulate the housing market with this in mind, in a reasonable manner. Because, to me I think of the 2 sides. Growing households and shrinking ones. On the shrinking side, we want the government enforcing laws requiring homes get sold as each child moves out to adult hood? Then again as each spouse dies? On the growing family side, they get to move into a bigger house only as each child is born? This is just insane right?

I personally do not think 10 years is that long in housing. Sure a lot can change in housing over that time but at any given moment, If I'm in need of housing and supply doesn't exist, I can build a custom home in less than 2 years. I can buy in a development basically immediately. This might not be a global truth but it's the state of things in Texas specifically, and has been for a long time. Affordability is the limiting factor, not time.

I think the property taxes in Texas make sense if RE grows at rate of inflation. For a long time, we had affordable housing and now that's not necessarily the case. So the rules/laws need to change to protect people from getting priced out due to taxes is all. It's an issue that didn't bother anyone before because they were assuming their raise in income would cover the raise in taxes. But wages don't increase 10% annually like our taxes do (whole other topic LOL!) so they get put in a hole. Anyone coming into the market now knows the prices, it's all available information, and they can decided if they want to move here or not. It could all be a bubble that pops and corrects one day, but not until inbound population growth slows down.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#163
In a past life, I was the make-ready electrician for a top local broker. I had to quit this life for a multitude of reasons, primarily that of feeling parasitic to a parasitic industry.

What ever happened to the class action suit against 3% fees... did that ever go anywhere [2023 recollection]?

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#164
post #154
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex Why? What value do they provide, other than having a bunch of money upfront? I’d argue there are many, many ways to fund building construction other than for-profit ownership

> What value do they provide, other than having a bunch of money upfront? Providing capital is useful! You can't just ignore that.

Yes, but that's what banks and mortgages are for already.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#165
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of things are side-effects of "tenant's rights" laws. Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. The problem is that this is antithetical to higher density, because you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex. You can have condos perhaps, but not everyone can afford to get into one, or even wants to. And if…

The solution is strengthening the social housing sector. If anybody would be able to rent housing from the state, nobody would be dependent on private landlords (though private landlords could still fill niches like short-time rentals). As it is though, the social housing sector is woefully underfunded, leading to sometimes decades-long waiting lists (at least where I live, in the Netherlands).

We also have the clown situation where you are deemed fit to rent for €1200 a month, but the banks won’t give you a €900 a month mortgage for the same sort of housing.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land Value Tax: Make it financially unfeasible to speculate, to withhold units from the market, and to withhold unused land from the market. Let prices freely fluctuate with the market. Increases in rent derived from externalities (i.e. Amazon HQ2 setting up shop nearby or a new subway station) go back into public coffers, while increases in rent derived from landlord actions (i.e. renovations, building bigger, bette…

I'm in Texas, a state with pretty high property tax. We've also seen a ton of appreciation in recent years. Booming economy, transplants from other states, then the COVID factor. We also have a near free market on rent; I've been a landlord and not aware of any limitations. There are a couple limits on property taxes (namely a cap of 10% increase per year on "homesteads", and an Agriculture exemption for rural proper…

Thanks for posting this view: I had read the "Land Value Tax"-side of the argument before (and somewhat agree with it), but I hadn't seen someone post good reasons _not_ to support LVT. I think your reply - and your other replies - are pretty good reasons

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#167
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have housing be affordable and an investment. You need to decouple the two. Fundamentally these are in disagreement. If you believe that landlords should control the world then keep believing this idea that housing should also be an investment. I don’t think housing should be an investment. It is impossible for something to be a good investment and affordable. They go against one another.

> It is impossible for something to be a good investment and affordable. They go against one another. Why do you think that's the case? Many companies are a good investment, while they still provide affordable products. Something can be cheap in an absolute sense, while still providing a good return on investment.

Look, for something to be a good investment for everyone you have to perpetually have the asset go up in value.

Can you see how that is not affordable? Things that go up in value forever are not affordable...

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#168
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of things are side-effects of "tenant's rights" laws. Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. The problem is that this is antithetical to higher density, because you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex. You can have condos perhaps, but not everyone can afford to get into one, or even wants to. And if…

The solution is strengthening the social housing sector. If anybody would be able to rent housing from the state, nobody would be dependent on private landlords (though private landlords could still fill niches like short-time rentals). As it is though, the social housing sector is woefully underfunded, leading to sometimes decades-long waiting lists (at least where I live, in the Netherlands).

If we're talking about this sort of solutions, we must nevertheless implement a means to manage demand. After all, it's impossible to house the entire Netherlands in Amsterdam.

In countries where housing was socialized they had a system of residency. You couldn't move to another city, without a permit. If you live in Tholen, you shouldn't be able to move to Amsterdam, unless you mary someone from there or if society determines there's a social need for more workers in the capital.

After all, you can't socialize things while maintaining bourgeois concepts like "freedom of movement". You can't eat the cake and have it too, right?

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#169
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but as far as I'm aware, somebody with no credit history is basically indistinguishable from somebody with "good" history. As it should be. Why would you want to allow someone to be judged for _not_ having been in debt in the past? You can always ask for references if they rented before, that might help somewhat.

Because businesses need to make money to exist. Credit history == has successfully made other people money in the past, and if past behavior is indicative of future behavior, they likely will to someone else too.

I don't think this really has any relationship. You can open an account and never use it, and your credit score is just as good as someone who borrowed $10,000 at 30% APR and makes the minimum payment every month. Probably better, because lower "credit utilization".

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#170
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because businesses need to make money to exist. Credit history == has successfully made other people money in the past, and if past behavior is indicative of future behavior, they likely will to someone else too.

If I pay a landlord rent every month, I make them money. I don’t need to take on any debt for that.

You will be happy to know that the big property management companies are willing to charge you an extra per-month fee to report your rent payment history to credit reporting agencies.

To some extent, renting an apartment does take on some debt. You're basically being loaned the property in exchange for making interest payments.

Post reply on HN