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

Rent collections are down in New York

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 594 posts

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#151

Post by mx7zysuj4xew »

itake wrote: post #86
cherry_tree wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landlords typically have insurance coverage for damage by tenants, including lost rent.

It’s hard for new landlords. People that bought houses to rent compete against property owners of paid off homes or people with 3% mortgages. Tacking on optional insurance products on a property that’s already in the red further encourages landlords to push up rents prices.

Well yeah, it's also hard for any random person to start an oil conglomerate having to compete against ExxonMobil

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#152

Post by pixelatedindex »

jjav wrote: post #129
pixelatedindex wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t help that the landlords want to squeeze the renter for what they are worth. It’s weird to me that shitty landlords are normalized but shitty tenants get a (rightfully) bad rap. These laws become the way they are because landlords brought it upon themselves for the most part - they’re keeping assets that have massively increased in price and want to extract more and more out of the tenant. If you have a home t…

> These laws become the way they are because landlords brought it upon themselves for the most part These laws seem quite unrelated to the problems. There needs to be laws to protect the renter against bad landlords and there needs to be laws to protect the landlord against bad tenants. Nowhere there it implies there should be insane laws that make no sense. Such as creating a system where someone can skip paying ren…

I’m not denying any of that. If you don’t pay rent it makes sense that you’re evicted. This is completely okay with me, and the city should change their rules around it.

The issue is that housing is a necessity, and the relationship isn’t an equal one. A landlord can usually absorb vacancy, repairs, or a bad investment decision; a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#153

Post by inigyou »

itake wrote: post #134
craftkiller wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sf’s rent control also means tenants can’t leave They have exactly as much freedom to leave as they would without rent control. They _choose_ to stay because rent control has made it advantageous to stay. The way you phrased it implies you're suggesting this is a bad thing for renters but that is strictly a positive. Without rent control they'd have zero affordable options, with rent control they have 1 affordable…

Rent control drives up rent prices for everyone. So yes, if you have rent control in a city, it would create an environment with zero affordable options.

Obviously it does not drive up the rent price of the person who is paying less rent. That's the whole point. The residents of SF have voted to prevent you from taking their apartments, so if you don't want to bid very competitively for an already empty apartment, you'll just have to take an apartment somewhere else.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#154

Post by [deleted] »

naturalmovement wrote: post #120
DanHulton wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing on that list sounds like a particular hardship. Your "Oh, and" is unfortunate and ought to be addressed, but then again, that was intended as your cherry-topper, not your main course. This is people's _homes_ we're talking about here, not a baseball card where privileging the owner is without too much consequence. If you lack the empathy to understand why this is a special case, maybe don't be a landlord.

Actually landlords have a reasonable expectation you don't turn _their home_ into a crack house and no one should be forced to rent to scumbags.

[deleted]

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#155

Post by derektank »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #111
nikkwong wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an insanely bad take. > For instance not renting to the first qualifying tenant is a common root for discrimination. Why wouldn’t you rent to the first qualifying candidate? You should be able to select freely who you want to have live in your house. If you're a building owner, there are reasons that you might want to be able to have freedom of choice in choosing who you have live in your building. When the g…

> You should be able to select freely who you want to have live in your house. If you're a building owner, there are reasons that you might want to be able to have freedom of choice in choosing who you have live in your building. That’s basically discrimination? Make a strict selection criteria, that’s fine. The city also has affordable housing for people who don’t qualify. You set what works for you, why do you care…

Yes, discrimination based upon characteristics that aren't immutable is perfectly fine and something we do every day. I discriminate against my neighbor who invited me over drinks in favor of my best friend who invited me to his birthday. I discriminate against the potential hire who doesn’t have experience in this line of work in favor of the person who’s a nationally renowned expert. I discriminate against a tenant with a history of failing to make rent in favor of someone who consistently provides payment every month. People are different and valuing one over another in specific contexts is hardly scandalous. It only becomes a proble if you decide to discriminate against someone based upon immutable characteristics such as their race, sex, national origin, etc. because you’re not treating them as an individual.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#156

Post by inigyou »

itake wrote: post #126
majormajor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sf’s rent control also means tenants can’t leave (locking up more housing, reducing supply, forcing everyone else to pay more), thus continue to discourage rent controlled tenants from moving since moving means even higher prices. This is disingenuous. In the absence of rent control (or prop 13 for property owners) you famously get a situation where tenants ALSO can't afford to leave... but have to anyway. Why shou…

> Why should anyone be forced to leave just because someone richer wants to move in? This triggers my other frustration: empty nesters. They continue to live in great 3-4 bedroom homes that are amazing to raise a family in (near job centers, plenty of bedrooms, tight community, near good schools). This forces people like myself to spend 85+ minutes in a car (away from my family, friends etc) everyday while I drive pa…

Maybe you could offer a trade. Swap your home for theirs and pay them some rent for it.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#157

Post by inigyou »

ekelsen wrote: post #102
archagon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can afford to live in my city. I’m living in it right now! The nice thing is that I don’t get pushed out by arbitrary economic fluctuations completely out of my control.

If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control. That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?

Why shouldn't everyone get everything for free that can be provided for free? Forcing other people to pay a cost because you paid a cost is just sour grapes.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#158

Post by nikkwong »

alexashka wrote: post #138
nikkwong wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not rare. I repeat. It's not rare. I am a landlord in Seattle with ~55 active tenants/leases. Let's just say that I know of many landlords in the circles I run in that have absolutely stopped renting to leftie types because they've had so many issues over the last few years with many of them over litigating everything; and deciding not to pay rent over the smallest non-issues, or just not paying rent at all. I c…

> have a hatred for even well-meaning small landlords In what way are you well meaning? You're only doing it for money. The people not paying you rent are also only doing it for money. Sucks when people behave like you, huh.

Yes I’m doing it for the money, I have to be compensated for my time and the financial investment obviously. People who decide to deceive me break not only a social contract but also a legal contract and a commitment they made at the time of signing a lease. If everyone acted like them, there would be no stable housing available for anyone. Talk about a bad take…

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#159

Post by inigyou »

majormajor wrote: post #122
ekelsen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control. That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?

> If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control. > That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free? Protecting its constituents from the whims of out-of-town money seems like an excellent purpose for a local government. Especially if some of that money wants to move in so badly that it can be very profitably taxed! Why shouldn't local government try…

Because I'm rich, and I want to live in SF dagnabbit, and how dare the (checks notes) existing residents of SF vote to block me from taking one of their apartments that I obviously deserve to live in more than they do because I'm rich?

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#160

Post by asdff »

itake wrote: post #78
woodruffw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an economic floor for the price of housing: the amortized cost of the building and its maintenance, plus taxes and overhead imposed by governments, utilities, mortgages, etc. In other words: even in a plentiful housing market, there will always be someone who struggles to pay rent (including transiently), because a rational housing market can't offer $0 rents. Tenant protection laws exist to protect that pers…

Yeah… these laws for private landlords to subsidize housing for other families. If you only have 1 rental property and your tenant doesn’t pay, that’s a 100% loss of revenue while your family personally bears the cost of supporting this other family. Whereas corporate landlords can absorb these losses by raising rents on 100 doors to cover the families that refuse to pay

Maybe the lesson is just to not be so overleveraged.
Post reply on HN