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

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

gothamist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 450 posts

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

#391

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

no_wizard wrote: post #318
compiler-guy wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That big bag of cash won’t buy a community where you know most everyone and have friends of decades or more whom you support and support you in return. Social connections take a long time to build and are hard to replace with cash.

Then you need to square values here. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Everyone wants their home to be worth more and more year over year but doesn’t want to incur any obligation for it. How do you square that with the idea that communities and social connections are more important? Look at what California did with prop 13. It’s a disaster by all accounts. We need to switch models not create more complicated e…

Seems like you are opining for "everyone", including a huge number of retirees and families on very limited income like SS or disability.

Yet somehow I dont think those two personas make any amount of the "everyone" posting here on HN

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

#392

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

no_wizard wrote: post #224
conductr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I do agree. During ownership, it should appreciate as assets do. Then things like taxes get reset for the next owner based on whatever they pay. In this way, things reset transparently and still often enough as the normal duration of mortgage is something like 8 years. Not everyone is a buy and hold generation of ownership, people move for jobs and a million other reasons, but people that do choose to live i…

This is why I distinguished it as asset class vs asset. It should be primarily tied to the value of the land beneath plus some nominal appreciation for the building on top rather than assessed value of the building on top plus nominal appreciation of the land. Similar to the land value tax formula. This treats it closer to a commodity rather than its own asset class as it is today. This makes it more of a modest inve…

>>>> tied to the value of the land beneath >>>plus some nominal appreciation for the >>building on top

I'm not sure i agree with this take.

The building is clearly a depreciating asset. If left alone the house will eventually be worth nothing because a decrept properly carries liabilities instead (neighborhoid fire hazard, penalties , fees etc) So there no nominal value there.

Onward to the land. The only real reason for land to appreciate is because it ia scarce resource. But then you see that the land also has a carrying cost (taxes) that is fixed regardless of its use. Therein lies the dilemma. If land is an asset that generates expense , and then that expense only grows as time passes but theres no income associated with it, are you really seeing land appreciation when you sell, or are you simply recouping your carrying cost during the term it was held?

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

#393

Post by FireBeyond »

lazide wrote: post #389
FireBeyond wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit in the sense of credit bureaus is the extension of secured or unsecured credit. You pay upfront for the use of a home/apartment/condo - you are not being extended any kind of credit. For the same reason prepaid phones don't report to credit bureaus. That corner cases exist where you might be out money through the fault - or not - of the tenant doesn't make it a credit instrument. All of your examples are entir…

This comment is really weird. Because the comment you are replying to literally doesn’t say the things you seem to be replying to, and instead does actually say what you seem to think it should say? Did you read it before replying? For instance, I literally said a lease is ‘credit like’. Not actually credit. And that some landlords and employers might want to check your credit report before engaging with you to see h…

Okay, let's back it up to the simple part - which isn't to say anything about you, but things went in several different directions.

Right - leases are credit-like, somewhat. However, leaving aside the concept of eviction taking time (that to me is investment risk, not 'extending credit') - lease payments are made in advance, and when I was a tenant, every single one had a clause allowing for termination in the event that prompt payment was not made, in advance.

My objection there is that these payments should not be being reported to Credit Reporting Agencies because they're not credit.

And as supporting evidence, if they were credit, every tenant for decades would have every lease or rental agreement being reported as a matter of business. Why has that not happened? Because it's not credit. And now, some "innovative" companies are offering to work with Property Managers and landlords to offer it as a "service" to their tenants.

However, you look at things and very quickly you realize the benefit to the tenant is almost a side effect:

These services charge a fee to the tenant, a portion of which goes to the landlord (can you say kickback?), and if you look at the websites of these services, the "allow your tenants to record good payment history on their credit report" is but one bullet point. Every other bullet point talks about the benefits to you as a landlord.

You mentioned landlords doing credit checks to establish a sense of the tenant's fiscal responsibility. I think that is fine. As for evictions, damage, deposits being withheld, and so on - there's a need for that. And it exists, entirely separate to the CRAs.

This whole thread started because of one point, that I don't believe they should be able to report it as a credit tradeline, because it's not. And I still think the single biggest argument I have that that's the case is that it's only been in the last three or so years that this has been offered, when credit reporting has been around since the 1980s.

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

#394

Post by hakfoo »

ethanbond wrote: post #354
hakfoo wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making it too complex. Enforce owner-occupancy aggressively. You can own two housing units untaxed, as long as you can produce evidence you spent at least 30 days a year in each of them. This doesn't disrupt non-speculators-- even the modest rich with a single vacation home, or the snowbirds who have a home in Minnesota and a winter place in Arizona don't see an impact. Anything beyond that? Annual tax of 70%…

What you’re describing is far more complex than an LVT. Interstate records of property ownership and interstate reconciliation of “presence?” Do children or family members using a property for 30 days count?

We already have a fair amount of that infrastructure:

* Land ownership is generally public record, or at least orchestrated at local government levels for property tax assessment, school enrollment eligiblity, and other similar local services.

* Some states already have concepts of presence-- different tax regimes for part-year residents versus full-year.

I'd expect that this would end up being relevant in only a very narrow set of cases. Most cases are slam-dunk clearly "owner occupier" versus "investor-owned", and hopefully they'd put more than a HN post worth of effort trying to define rules that handle the ambiguous cases.

I tend to be a bit suspicious of the LVT, because it can create toxic consequences for individual landowners.

Sure, if I have an empty lot and a new Job Factory opens next door, a rising LVT creates incentive for me to build. But if I already had a house there, my LVT has tripled and my house is no longer affordable.

Locking the LVT to the current owner might prevent that toxicity, but it also encourage all sorts of evasion strategies.

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

#395

Post by ensignavenger »

vr46 wrote: post #45
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds terrible. What "section of Germany" are you in? Berlin?

Hamburg. The previous tenants left a mess, the landlord put in a new kitchen for us, new fences around the boundary, new back patio tiles. Ventilation is a problem as extractor fans need replacing and I’ve replaced a bunch of electric switches and sockets, but no fun. Classmates with income only from the job centre are unable to find a place to live, although that’s hardly better anywhere. In London the rents are ast…

So are you a landlord, a tenant or both? Are you a UK lanlord.living in Hamburg and renting?

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

#396

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #323
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's literally not a crime You're using a specific definition of "crime" that is different than the one the people you're arguing against are using, and that makes the argument not apt. Being shameful for causing harm is also what calling something a crime can mean. See: https://ibb.co/xS3wnhg

Right, you are using a second or forth definition of crime, changing to that despite the original context of the first definition. I'm the one who originally said it's not a hate crime, as much as people act like it is. That you would then accuse me of trying to play games with definitions is really quite remarkable. But lets go along with your desire to get away with using your definition instead of the original way…

> Right, you are using a second or forth definition

Wait until you hear about the verbs "sanction" and "dust". Words being able to have multiple common meanings is just facts.

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

#397

Post by tzs »

conductr wrote: post #97
ethanbond wrote: post #59

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…

Here in Washington state we have a pretty good system for helping elderly people not get forced out due to rising property taxes.

If you are at least 61, and your disposable income is less than 70% of the median income for your county you get two forms of property tax relief:

1. The assessed value of your property is frozen at the value of the first year you signed up for the tax relief. If your disposable income goes about the threshold for a year but comes back down the next you won't lose your frozen assessment. If you go above the threshold for two consecutive years you do lose the freeze. When it comes back down again you get a new freeze at whatever the current assessment is.

2. You are exempt from all "excess property taxes" and part of the state property tax that is for schools. An "excess property tax" generally means voter-approved levies, such as local school taxes.

If your disposable income is under 60% of the median income for your county but above 50% in addition to #1 and #2, you get:

3. You are exempt from regular property taxes on the maximum of $50k or 35% of the property value, but not more than $70k. For example for a $400k property you'd be exempt for $70k, so your regular property taxes would be computed as if your property was assessed at $330k.

If your disposable is under 50% of the median income for your county, in addition to #1 and #2, instead of #3 you get:

#4. You are exempt from regular property taxes on the maximum of $60k or 60% of the property value. For a $400k property this would mean regular property taxes would be based on a value of $160k.

In my county the 70/60/50% thresholds are $65k/$56k/$46k.

In my county a $400k assessed value home for someone below the $46k threshold would have an annual tax of $900, compared to around $3400 for someone not in the tax relief program. Here is a breakdown of the two (with some rounding):

  $300 $ 760 fire
  $240 $1000 state general
       $ 930 local school
  $140 $ 360 county road
  $100 $ 260 county
  $ 50 $ 130 stormwater management
  $ 40 $ 111 regional library
  $  7 $  18 PUD
  $  2 $   2 noxious weed
Someone below the 70% threshold but not below the 60% threshold would pay about $2200, so still a big savings over the normal amount.

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

#398

Post by throw__away7391 »

jkachmar wrote: post #338
throw__away7391 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. In the US, sure. Compared to cities outside the US it is horrible. Less walkable than most, food is ok if you know where to go but nothing special and also super expensive like everything else, aggressive drug addicts wandering the streets, high crime including random acts of violence for literally no reason at all, incessant aggressive honking at all hours of the night, even when you are paying $5k a month for…

i live in NYC and have traveled to plenty of other international cities. none of the things that you're saying are true compared to my experiences (or those of my friends) in any way that i can think of as meaningful. the only city i've been to that feels like it's captured the same "vibe" as NYC, for me, has been Paris. Tokyo was more impressive in its sprawl and history (and obviously cleanliness), but there is a s…

I was born in Manhattan and lived in the city for over a decade and still own an apartment downtown. I know a thing or two about the place. It's cool that you get a vibe from being a transplant here for a couple years, that has literally nothing to do with anything I said. The lawlessness is also quite a different experience for women--I am guessing having random guys off the street try to force your door open and follow you into your building or corner you on a subway or follow you around riding a bike aggressively catcalling you is probably not something you are dealing with on a regular basis.

The day I left I moved out over a pool of dried blood from a stabbing in front of my door the night before. I've lived in over 20 countries since then and not experience anything similar except maybe in Canada, which has similar drug problems as the US.

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

#399

Post by tzs »

bombcar wrote: post #104
conductr wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Property tax on owner-occupied residential property everywhere should have a "replace it with a lien against the property" option - some states have it. The exact situation you're referring to caused Prop 13 in CA, and something has to be done before something like that gets enacted.

Doesn't that approach just defer the tax until the property was sold?

If so I wonder if that can create the opposite of the problem of elderly people being forced out by rising taxes. Namely someone who wants to move out but can't afford to because after all the deferred taxes are paid from the proceeds of a sale they won't have enough left for another place.

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

#400

Post by tzs »

no_wizard wrote: post #315
Ntrails wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view is to simply allow property taxes to be deferred until sale or death. Alternatives exist (eg taxable value set by what you paid not marked to market)

Why not just tax the land value and disregard the things in top of it entirely?

One reason would be that it is the things on top of the land that determine how much of various government built and maintained infrastructure is needed.
Post reply on HN