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

Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

denverite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 391 posts

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#191

Post by beeflet »

Alive-in-2025 wrote: post #186
standardUser wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

You never know what your house or apartment or condo is worth, even to you. Maybe you can afford $400k barely, but you'll be hugely squeezed. Or maybe you'd get a bigger place if prices had dropped for your family size. You hope conditions won't change. You can look at the current market trends to try to value it. But things will change in the next few years probably. You can guess, but you'll never "know with pretty…

Take out an insurance policy then, not my problem

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#192

Post by 14 »

standardUser wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis It does. Twenty thousand units represent about 5% of Denver's housing stock [1]. Commit to adding this many units to the housing stock every year for the next 10 years and you'll have solved the housing crisis. (You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater, but that's a separate issue.) [1] http://censusreporter.org/pr…

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

While at the end of the day I don’t think people should be bailed out, I don’t agree that everyone who over paid is a speculator. Many people are just wanting to own their own home. The market has been crazy for the last 5 years. Many people are just buying to own not to flip it for a huge profit. So when a new home owner buys something and suddenly the value drops $100k and the bank wants the money I do feel slightly sorry for them.

For the person who ownes multiple houses and buys simply to rent and flip a profit well I have very little sympathy for them. They are the true speculators.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#193

Post by beeflet »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #116
davidw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument always comes up when discussing a specific place. "Everyone would move to ________ because it is the best place in the spiral arm of the Milky Way", where ________ is Boulder, Bend, Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Hawai'i, Santa Fe, etc.... etc.... It cannot be true for all of them. So they all need to build and people will figure out where they actually want to live. Bozeman, Montana, a…

If everyone could live where they wanted to live, then ya, why wouldn't everyone want to live in the best cities? If you have fixed demand, then you can definitely "build" your way out of a housing crisis. Bozeman, for example, doesn't have many jobs, so you can't really live there if you don't bring your own money. A big city like Seattle or Denver... they have lots of jobs, so they will grow at least to the point t…

Even if you can observe this induced demand locally in a city or two, the net supply is going up.

Globally, demand isn't even fixed. It's proportional to the population size, which we would expect to shrink.

The only way this could work in the opposite direction is that you build enough that it becomes feasible for everyone to live in a few supercities where demand keeps growing due to network effects, and the supply outside of the supercities is useless.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#194

Post by larsiusprime »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can work on reducing the barriers to building more housing of any kind while also advocating for more social housing development One of the NIMBY lobby's greatest wins was putting these options on the ends of a policy spectrum. They're not. They're complementary. If it's cheaper to build, it's cheaper to build social housing. And if you have a vibrant construction sector, you can build more public housing faster…

Probably the best thing you could do in terms of social housing construction would be to have the government put up some capital to buy land and build new housing on that land, then immediately sell it and use the proceeds to do it again and again with exponential growth because it's actually profitable. But that's also what construction companies would be doing regardless except for the subsidy, at which point you m…

Could also just exempt the value of the buildings from taxation

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#196

Post by Supermancho »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
staringback wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course.

> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?

>> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course

> Source? Why of course?

Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealth sources).

The pattern of smaller, high density housing, is the most efficient way to build profit in a population center. As density increases, central hubs appear. Land (specifically residential land) skyrockets in value as it's most scarce, within and immediate^1 and surrounding areas. 1 family paying rent on the land is less efficient than 1xN. The investment necessary to risk and realize those N returns are out of the reach of any entity other than a conglomerate. Singular elite investors generally do not engage in that risk, although there have been historic outliers. Cities also find it more expedient to eminent domain aging single family homes, more than taking on the corporate owned high density housing, further entrenching their relative durability. Despite the highly variable timelines, American cities have followed the common pattern of density housing owned by corporations replacing single family homes, in population centers, for a very long time.

^1 For some value of immediate, based on available mass transit and other environmental factors

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#197

Post by jmye »

FireBeyond wrote: post #78
jmye wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird comment. What do you think you need an MD for, in your primary care visit, that an NP can’t do? What do you actually know about their education? What do you actually know about licensing? How much time, in a day, do you think doctors are spending on “insurance”, and what specific experience leads you to believe that? (Because the actual answer is “near zero for literally any provider who isn’t completely…

You can be an NP in as few as 4-5 years out of high school with some courses. That’s to me the definition of not knowing what you don’t know. I’m a critical care paramedic who has corrected many NPs on fairly fundamental learning. I’ve found that nurses with significant field experience do very well, but there are plenty of courses who will “zero to hero” you fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, PAs go through a prog…

> NPs are not subject to oversight.

Sorry, this is fundamentally incorrect. To the point I can only assume you’ve made up every other thing you’ve said. Though I’m fascinated by a paramedic having opinions on someone else’s medical training.

The world would be better if we had less strident opinions on things we know we don’t know anything about.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#198

Post by tamimio »

Rents are high because landlords are greedy and are paying already inflated house prices.

Owning is expensive because banks are greedy, pumping out the created credit for mortgages, which is an imaginary number based on no actual value, because somehow banks are allowed to create money!

Here's the plot twist: you spend 30 years or even more (in Canada that has reached 70 years!) to pay the mortgage only to find out that you actually don't own the house and you're on a perpetual rent called property taxes.

And unless the root issue is resolved by banning banks' Ponzi fraudulent schemes, and implementing a policy to change housing into a depreciated asset just like Japan did, nothing will change substantially and will only change marginally to prevent people from going out rioting in the streets.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#199

Post by bombcar »

russell_h wrote: post #176
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some loans require PMI if your outstanding balance is larger than the current value. PMI is very expensive and, unlike a TV or car, you might be forced to give up your house because it devalued too far and you can no longer afford mortgage and PMI. I'm not saying we shouldn't make housing affordable, but it's worth considering the impact for everyone.

I don't think lenders have any ability to retroactively require PMI; certainly no mortgage I've ever signed permitted this.

Correct - though the dirty secret is some percentage of the economy is run on rolling loans against house equity, and prices stagnating or dropping would slow that down.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#200

Post by bombcar »

dragonwriter wrote: post #188
dastbe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In non-recourse states, you'd expect to see defaults as people leave the keys in the mail to reduce their housing costs by moving next door at the reduced price or rent. More broadly, people don't like seeing their wealth go down. At the trade-off of never being able to get a mortgage again, unless that's the bailout these homeowners get. Almost everyone will either sit tight or rent/sell at a loss. That being said…

> At the trade-off of never being able to get a mortgage again That's not the effect of abandoning a mortgage (or using the leverage provided by that option to secure lender approval for a short sale) in a non-recourse state. (Source: been there, done that, have a new mortgage since.)

The costs and hassle of moving kept me in an underwater house that I mathematically should have walked on; eventually it wasn’t underwater and the mortgage was paid the entire time because I couldn’t be arsed to move.

The potential credit hit wasn’t even a consideration.

Post reply on HN