Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by jjav » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:19 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #263

arcticfox wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of. I assure you I am not paying ~$30k in maintenance on my ~$400k house every year... that would be comical

Add it up and work it out; factor out the land if you must (e.g., pretend it’s a landlord business and you’re renting to yourself). Maintenance items add up, and some only happen every 20-30 years, it can hit hard. A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable.

> A new roof every 30 years at $10k is already noticeable

That'd be $333/year averaged out, two orders of magnitude away from 30K/year example of OP.

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

#292

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:29 AM UTC

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…

Are you telling me that places with low rents don't have greedy landlords and banks?

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

#293

Post by franga2000 » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:31 AM UTC

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…

And it's not like the actual value has decreased. You still own the same house. It's the same size, location, build quality... That's the value of the house to you. If you're not currently buying a house, the price of a house should be irrelevant to you.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:31 AM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #277

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…

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 t…

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:33 AM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #254

In other news, San Francisco rents are up $223 from a year ago, with median rent rising 11% year-over-year [1]. But hey, at least we’re safe from the dangers of gas stoves. /s [1] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-fran...

Inhaling combustion products isn't great... not sure why you'd link those things?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9819315/

"We found that 12.7% (95% CI = 6.3–19.3%) of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use. The proportion of childhood asthma that could be theoretically prevented if gas stove use was not present (e.g., state-specific PAFs) varied by state (Illinois = 21.1%; California = 20.1%; New York = 18.8%; Massachusetts = 15.4%; Pennsylvania = 13.5%). "

Indoor combustion seems like a very good thing to eliminate.

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

#296

Post by Braxton1980 » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:33 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

aynyc wrote: post #33

Just because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis, doesn’t mean it’s not a good start. We have to stop looking at magical solutions that will solve all our problems in one shot. We have to start somewhere.

> 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…

And what happens if all that new stock isn't needed?

Detroit?

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

#297

Post by kelnos » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:50 AM UTC

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…

I agree in principle that we shouldn't be bailing people out for the consequences of making purchases with their eyes open, but if something like this happened, a lot of people would be mad. And I get it.

The problem in this eventuality is mobility: if you buy a house for $400k, live there for, say, 5 years and the resale value of your house is at $300k, that's going to be a big problem if you have (or just want) to move. If you sell at $300k, you'll have about $50k left over (after repaying the bank) for a down payment on your new house, which means you can only afford a $250k house, which may well not meet your needs.

If someone is planning to live in that house long enough such that when they do want to sell it, they can move to a new place that meets their needs, at a price they can still afford, sure, great. We shouldn't be bailing those people out.

> 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.

That's absurd. Aside from people who buy too much house ('00s, anyone?) and regret it later, people pay the price they have to pay for the amount of space and location they believe they need. Most people -- very understandably -- don't know the dynamics of the housing market to the point that they'd be able to predict that their resale value might go down by 25% at some point in the future, because, historically, that's just not what home prices do. (And don't parrot the "past performance is no guarantee of the future" crap... yes, true, so what. Most people unfortunately can't plan their lives around that.)

These people aren't speculators... speculators are buying to flip, or to hold and resell, as investment properties. These are just regular folks who need a place to live and have -- regardless of prudence or correctness -- bought into the idea that owning their home is the next life stage, a proof of success and well-being. Calling people like that speculators shows a severe lack of understanding and empathy.

> It's called buyer's remorse. We accept it when it's a car or a TV, but suddenly when it's a house...

A car or a TV costs nowhere near as much as a house. Losing a car or a TV is not going to make someone homeless. Housing is a basic need, and housing security is essential in a healthy society. (Granted, in many places in the US, losing your car can lead to financial ruin as well, sadly, considering how crucial a car can be to many people for basic things like getting to work.)

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

#298

Post by kelnos » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:51 AM UTC

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #121

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…

Yeah, pretty sure a government won’t bail me out if I invested in a stock so much that it would crush me if the stock went down. If buying a house is an investment and not for living, then it should be treated like it is.

It isn't, though. Housing is a basic human need; investing in the stock market is not.

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

#299

Post by kelnos » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:53 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #257

bee_rider wrote: post #241

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. 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. 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.

It doesn't really matter why; what matters is that they do see things that way.

And I agree with you, it's a bad convention, and it causes tons of problems, and it's the result of recent decades of bad mortgage/housing/zoning policy. But we can't just wipe it away and pretend it was never there, and let the chips fall where they may. That's just heartless, and, well -- you talk about making society poorer -- that will make society much, much poorer, nearly overnight.

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

#300

Post by kelnos » Fri, Aug 01, 2025, 7:56 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #271

bee_rider wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/20…

> Are angry homeowners overthrowing governments and blocking homebuilding?

No, they're already in the government, have been for decades, and they're the ones responsible for anti-development policy.

> For example, re Texas, 9 out of 10 say housing prices are too high

Cute punchy polls like that make for nice sound bits, but don't tell the whole story. I'm sure if you followed that up with, "If the government were to enact new housing development property that would reduce the value of your home by 20% over the next 10 years, would you support it?", I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 (homeowners) would absolutely not.