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

271–280 of 391 posts

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

#271

Post by graeme »

bee_rider wrote: post #260
graeme wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that. Why? If it makes society as a whole much poorer. The convention is fairly recent and the cause of enormous problems.

Because policies they cause huge financial harm to normal people become unpopular, and don’t spread as a result. And also because it is bad for society if we modify the rules in ways that makes it harder to plan ahead.

Realistically basically no one is aware of the details of zoning policy or the mechanics.

Are there pitchforks in Denver or Austin? Are angry homeowners overthrowing governments and blocking homebuilding?

People seem to complain that housing costs too much. The straightforward bet is that lower prices would be popular.

For example, re Texas, 9 out of 10 say housing prices are too high: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/08/texas-housing-afford...

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

#272

Post by missedthecue »

graeme wrote: post #259
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…

This article suggests rents are high because we make it difficult to build homes. Are Denver landlords less greedy than landlords in Seattle?

Prices going up is corporate greed. Prices going down is corporate generosity. Basic economics.

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

#274

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

bombcar wrote: post #209
phkahler wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, a lot of the loan payments go towards your own equity, whereas all of the rent goes to someone else's.

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

#275

Post by teaearlgraycold »

nandomrumber wrote: post #247
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, as a renter, are paying the property tax. The cost is passed on to the end-user.

Of course. And rents should be lower. House prices should be lower. But I don’t care for the cries of people who think they are wronged by property taxes. Most of those home owners are benefiting from those taxes.

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

#276

Post by naasking »

deathanatos wrote: post #267
akudha wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because if you're buying a house for a house , then it (mostly, generally¹) doesn't matter that the housing market has moved downwards and you'll be underwater until you pay down a bit on the house. You still have a house! So long as you can afford the mortgage — something you should have already planned for given you bought the house — you can still afford it. You might have remorse at having paid +$100k right befor…

I think you're neglecting to account for a big risk. If the house retains or increases in value, the bank can just take the house to recoup what you owe them of you can no longer pay the mortgage due to ill health, accidents, etc. What do you think happens if the houses value drops a lot and you can no longer pay what you owe? You don't just lose the house, you're in a much, much deeper hole. How property values go substantially changes the risk calculus of owning a home with a mortgage.

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

#277

Post by threatofrain »

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…

If we go to a place where homes cost $400k then we're all buying at $400k, regardless of whether people understand speculation or markets. Once you allow enough people with deep pockets to do speculation or price arbitrage... then we're all paying it.

It's not that we shouldn't desire cheaper homes, but we should realize that people who paid $400k are largely not speculators. They bought what the market was willing to offer.

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

#278

Post by jvanderbot »

smus wrote: post #264
dingnuts wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people call buying a house to live in an investment but that's because they don't know the technical term is a "hedge" so you know: most localities do treat the house you live in very differently from a tax perspective than they do any additional properties you might have, because everyone is born short housing, until they own 1 place to live. so yes, the proposed bailouts up thread would be for people who bought a h…

Many people have places to live without owning a house. Me for example!

Ah a counter example to a probablistic argument. Whodathunkit

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

#279

Post by tghccxs »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #157
chrsw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the big problem with treating your home as an investment. People who just want a place to live near where they work now have to play this game too. And it's not cheap game.

That was what rentals were supposed to be. And then there was also such a thing as a "starter home". From what I see in Omaha, it's the developers that got greedy — figuring they could get more dosh turning a higher-end home than a starter home on the same lot.

That’s not greedy though? Are you greedy if you build more valuable software and then charge more for it?

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

#280

Post by Ballas »

bee_rider wrote: post #241
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…

But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that. Also, if continuing the building ends up requiring some policy change (supported by changing laws and regulations)… it seems reasonable to protect normal people, doing normal things, from massive financial chaos that is explicitly caused by the government changing policies on them. At least f…

> But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings.

And that is a big part of the problem. You cannot have it both ways, if housing is an investment, it will eventually lead to poorer outcomes for anybody that needs a house and does not inherit one.

Post reply on HN