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

111–120 of 391 posts

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

#111

Post by JumpCrisscross »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #108
jeffbee wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want equity in real estate nobody is stopping you. The problem is when people get this idea that we need to discourage investors from building very greatly desired rental housing.

I'm pretty sure investors are persuaded by money and little else — if renting is profitable they'll build rentals.

> if renting is profitable they'll build rentals

The point is it's difficult and expensive to build in America. The core competency of construction in most cities is knowing how to grease the community boards', planners', affordable-housing advocates' and permitting offices' palms.

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

#112

Post by JumpCrisscross »

MangoToupe wrote: post #57
next_xibalba wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're telling me if an additional, say, 100k units came on the market in Denver in the next year, housing prices wouldn't fall dramatically such that all working people could afford housing? Working people should be able to afford housing near where they work. So let's press the gas pedal on building. The mentally ill and drug addicted should be subject to mandatory treatment or jail until such time as their unde…

> all working people could afford housing? Hey, if that's the metric you're pushing for, good for you. I'm pushing for housing as a human right. I never caught the calvinist bug of "torture the non-productive until they conform and perform" method of population management.

> housing as a human right

Why not just shelter?

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by apwell23 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #106
1270018080 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "fuck you got mine" attitude so many homeowners have and deliberate supply restriction to increase property values makes it a smart investment on paper, at the cost of screwing everyone else coming after you.

I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.

then it wouldn't be "smartest investment"

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

#116

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

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 that all those jobs have people working them...but then a city like that attracts even more jobs (the way cities work since they concentrate talent, which attracts more businesses looking for that talent), more people, it could grow from a million people to 10 or 20 million easily.

> And it's very much the kind of small place where "everyone wants to live there".

MT is a bad place if you need to work for a living: high housing prices, jobs don't pay very well if you can find them at all. My mom moved to Helena in the late 90s and found that out first hand. If WFH took off as expected, then you definitely could make a good life in Bozeman or Missoula or Butte, but alas, the opposite happened and we regressed greatly.

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

#117

Post by tptacek »

akavi wrote: post #107
FireBeyond wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are NP mills that will take you from high school, put you through an accelerated RN and prereqs and basically have you as an independent provider in just a few years out of high school (well, 4-5), that’s ridiculous.

Is there any evidence that _8_ years of post-secondary education (plus 3-7 years of residency at poverty wages) actually improves medical outcomes? 5 years could be plenty?

NPs are supervised, as are doctors on rotation, so it's 7 years before clinical practice for a doctor.

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

#118

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision...we shouldn't be bailing out speeculators

When the speculators vote, yes, you need to bail out the speculators.

> It's called buyer's remorse

It's called building consensus. At the end of the day, if it costs making homeowners whole to gain their buy in to solve the housing crisis, that's money well spent.

I'm not saying what I'm proposing is fair or even palatable. But it's functional. If solving the housing crisis is more important than aesthetics, it's a good move.

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

#119

Post by DaveZale »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #44
DaveZale wrote: post #3

Living in So CO, I smh at what's going on up there. The cost of living elsewhere in the state can be 1/3 to 1/2 the price. The govt and corporate employers could easily decentralize and stay in CO.

How far south are you? I lived in Colorado Springs for a few years as a ski bum and all my friends in Denver used to mock me driving back and forth, but my rent was almost $500 cheaper living in Springs. You're 100% right though.

just a little west of Pueblo. We're about 1/3 of the cost of living in the Denver area.

We get plenty of migrants from the Denver area and elsewhere.

Of course, the sales tax and other taxes are going up. Probably heading to a truly rural area with a nice community soon. I lived in many big cities over the years. They are toxic and unsafe. I know that because I worked in public health. If you look at the morbidity and mortality by zip code, you'll see yourself. Affordable city living has a dark side.

Not to say that city life isn't great when you're in your 20s or 30s. It is fun and jobs are everywhere. But I've seen enough fatal car crashes for a lifetime.

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

#120

Post by seanmcdirmid »

FredPret wrote: post #77
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…

That's why you have to allow large-scale building everywhere. Then the market will find its own level. The inverse of this situation is that everyone lives somewhere they consider unpleasant because the rent is affordable there. The megacities you mention are enormously economically productive per capita. All sorts of efficiencies pop up when a huge number of people live near one another.

> The megacities you mention are enormously economically productive per capita. All sorts of efficiencies pop up when a huge number of people live near one another.

It isn't a bad thing. NYC and Hong Kong are nice cities, they should exist. But don't expect housing prices to fall because you add more density if demand isn't fixed, the opposite often happens instead (people want to live in megacities even though housing costs are high). And that isn't really a bad thing, like gentrifying a blighted neighborhood will drive up housing prices as well.

Post reply on HN