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

201–210 of 391 posts

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

#201

Post by teaearlgraycold »

tamimio wrote: post #198

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 t…

As someone that rents I have little sympathy for people paying property taxes annually that are less than what I have to pay in one month.

There should of course be sanity in the system. If you’re retired and can’t the afford property taxes on your home it’s not okay to squeeze you for that little bit of money.

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

#202

Post by lbourdages »

tamimio wrote: post #198

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 t…

70 years? That's just plain false.

This website from the government of Canada here says the max term is 25 years, or 30 if it is your first property: https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...

Edit: ah, I missed one part. You can have longer terms if you have more than 20% cash down. TIL.

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

#203

Post by bombcar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induced demand can only function if there's a scarcity to begin with, and it's premised on increased supply increasing affordability (that's the mechanism by which it works), but these axiomatic derivations don't matter because we have case studies (in MN, in TX, and now CO, a story we're literally commenting on). Empirical observations win.

> Induced demand can only function if there's a scarcity to begin with I don't believe this is true, assuming scarcity = shortage. Ad absurdum , if Denver overbuilt such that one could pick up a parcel for a song, you'd see opportunistic demand where there previously was none.

But there’s an obvious limit somewhere, Denver with 5 billion units might still see demand, perhaps even ten billion (need that second house of course!) but once Denver has 20 billion dwelling units demand will have leveled off, no matter how much more supply is added.

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

#204

Post by bufferoverflow »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #201
tamimio wrote: post #198

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 t…

As someone that rents I have little sympathy for people paying property taxes annually that are less than what I have to pay in one month. There should of course be sanity in the system. If you’re retired and can’t the afford property taxes on your home it’s not okay to squeeze you for that little bit of money.

You're not making any sense. Someone paid for a house, they fully expect to pay a lot less than renters do. That's the point of buying a house.

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

#205

Post by seanmcdirmid »

beeflet wrote: post #193
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Housing stock definitely goes up in those cities that have the demand. Other cities drain out as a consequence and housing is razed in the cities that are no longer popular, like Buffalo and Detroit.

Do we really want that? Of course, housing has to be maintained and has a lifespan (the Japanese are good at rebuilding housing stock after 20-30 years), and so it can simply die off in the places that are no longer popular, but it seems like a waste of infrastructure investments that then have to be re-done in the new hot places.

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

#206

Post by bombcar »

toast0 wrote: post #141
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Induced demand can only function if there's a scarcity to begin with I don't believe this is true, assuming scarcity = shortage. Ad absurdum , if Denver overbuilt such that one could pick up a parcel for a song, you'd see opportunistic demand where there previously was none.

There's places all over where land, and sometimes land with buildings gets very inexpensive because there's not much demand. Here's a listing for a parcel for $9000, that's been listed for over a year[1]. Denver seems like a nicer place than Detroit, IMHO, but it's possible for there to be more supply than demand. I suspect at 5% annual growth in units, you would be able to reach the point where there's not enough de…

In some places where well and septic costs say $25k to install, you can get land with working well and septic for $25k or less; the land is free.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #86
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.) That is only if you believe that more capacity does not induce more demand, which really…

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…

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by akudha »

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…

How is it fair to compare buying a house to buying a TV? One costs 500$ and the other costs 500k plus ongoing costs like repairs and taxes. Not saying you’re wrong, just that the comparison isn’t apt

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

#209

Post by bombcar »

phkahler wrote: post #185
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…

Nope. Smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution. Most people who rent cant afford to buy, but rent is a worse deal long term.

It’s actually quite hard to definitively quantify if renting or owning is better in a given area/scenario.

Obviously the case near me where the mortgage payment on a house would be $2600/mo but the rent for the identical one next door is $2000 is going to swing heavily toward renting, but there’s more to it than just that.

Maintenance is huge and real and people just seem to ignore it on the “own” side, but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of.

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

#210

Post by sokoloff »

Schnitz wrote: post #184
standardUser wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there are political considerations, but we are talking about a scenario where the only damage done is that the buyer must continue to live in the home they purchased at the price they purchased it for, and where the recipient of government benefits is a household capable of purchasing a house, presumably at the height of the market. Is a tax dollar better spent placating grumpy homeowners who already have a p…

It’s a valid point of view. That said, for most homeowners it is as simple as: My house is multiples More expensive than my next expensive asset. Loosing all the equity in my home will affect my lifestyle and financial future negatively, a lot. I will therefore continue to vote against whatever brings home values down. There really isn’t an easy and elegant way out where you neither pay off the haves nor pitch the ha…

> nor pitch the have nots majority against the haves

There are almost twice as many owner-occupied homes ("haves") as not ("have nots").

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

Post reply on HN