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

A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

gothamist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 450 posts

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#411

Post by bombcar »

Jensson wrote: post #359
codedokode wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to create a fair system you should also build infrastructure otherwise it is unfair when someone lives near the subway in a historical part of the city and someone has to live near the forest among ugly modern high-rise buildings.

That is how things are done all over Europe though. The state plans a new suburb by also planning bus stops, roads, subways, trains, parks, shopping malls and schools within walking distance etc. That ensures there are no really bad homes so even the cheap homes are in nice livable areas. It isn't expensive to build such areas, so there is no reason not to do it except if you want to punish the poor.

Almost by definition the cheapest homes will be the “worst” homes so the goal is to make them as less bad as you can.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#412

Post by bombcar »

no_wizard wrote: post #303
bombcar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of things are side-effects of "tenant's rights" laws. Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. The problem is that this is antithetical to higher density, because you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex. You can have condos perhaps, but not everyone can afford to get into one, or even wants to. And if…

I always found this funny, because housing is required for all of us but tenants rights is controversial where as all the incentives we give to builders / owners / landlords isn’t questioned nearly the same. Perhaps we should adjust those incentives more instead to align with tenants and occupancy home owners and stop treating everything about housing as investments

The thirty year fixed mortgage has been a disaster for the housing market.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#413

Post by bombcar »

bbor wrote: post #384
loeg wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What value do they provide, other than having a bunch of money upfront? Providing capital is useful! You can't just ignore that.

Why don’t they issue a loan then, and get paid back with interest? It’s insane that our system, by design, has an underclass that is earning WAY less because they can’t afford the entry price for a home, so all their rent for years and years goes into someone else’s pocket instead of their own equity. IMO

For the same reason the banks won’t lend to the same people. Sure, some renters can qualify for a home loan and choose not to, but not all can.

And it’s much much much easier to eventually evict someone and lose thousands than to try to get loaned money back from someone who is judgement proof, losing hundreds of thousands.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#414

Post by ethanbond »

hakfoo wrote: post #394
ethanbond wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re describing is far more complex than an LVT. Interstate records of property ownership and interstate reconciliation of “presence?” Do children or family members using a property for 30 days count?

We already have a fair amount of that infrastructure: * Land ownership is generally public record, or at least orchestrated at local government levels for property tax assessment, school enrollment eligiblity, and other similar local services. * Some states already have concepts of presence-- different tax regimes for part-year residents versus full-year. I'd expect that this would end up being relevant in only a ver…

People have tried this. It’s extremely extremely hard to do in practice even when you’re only trying to measure whether a unit is vacant and don’t need to know where else they’ve been or what else they own.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#415

Post by flavius29663 »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #248
flavius29663 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good analogy. When you are sick, you need to get treatment, you're time constrained and usually space constrained too (you wouldn't travel 3 states out if you need an urgent procedure). With housing it's more flexible: you can commute longer each day. You can just not move to a city where you know the "salary/cost of living" is not working in your favor. You can also time these decisions: go to NYC when…

> With housing it's more flexible: you can commute longer each day. You can just not move to a city where you know the "salary/cost of living" is not working in your favor. You can also time these decisions: go to NYC when you are in your 20s, live with some roommates to get some savings and then when you get older you can move to a more spacious city. You can be flexible about the space you need too: from 1 bedroom…

I am a renter myself, and I don't watch Fox. I much rather prefer living in cities(and I lived in expensive ones) where I can budget my rent on the free market, rather than be at the mercy of black markets, wait lists of 20 years and decrepit buildings that barely pass code.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#416

Post by HDThoreaun »

jebarker wrote: post #388
davidw wrote: post #149

New report dropped recently that vacancy rates there are like 2% or less. That is far, far below healthy levels. NYC needs more housing, as does much of the US in places where the jobs are.

I'm not familiar with NYC other than a few visits, but my impression is that the city is already very densely populated. Where would new housing go? Is it just more skyscrapers?

Vast majority of Queens is single family housing. All of these could become 5 story walkups easily, especially the western parts and stuff close to the subway. Doesnt have to be skyscrapers.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#417

Post by no_wizard »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #392
no_wizard wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I distinguished it as asset class vs asset. It should be primarily tied to the value of the land beneath plus some nominal appreciation for the building on top rather than assessed value of the building on top plus nominal appreciation of the land. Similar to the land value tax formula. This treats it closer to a commodity rather than its own asset class as it is today. This makes it more of a modest inve…

>>>> tied to the value of the land beneath >>>plus some nominal appreciation for the >>building on top I'm not sure i agree with this take. The building is clearly a depreciating asset. If left alone the house will eventually be worth nothing because a decrept properly carries liabilities instead (neighborhoid fire hazard, penalties , fees etc) So there no nominal value there. Onward to the land. The only real reason…

This will explain it better than I can: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#418

Post by tzs »

bombcar wrote: post #410
tzs wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that approach just defer the tax until the property was sold? If so I wonder if that can create the opposite of the problem of elderly people being forced out by rising taxes. Namely someone who wants to move out but can't afford to because after all the deferred taxes are paid from the proceeds of a sale they won't have enough left for another place.

That’s easy enough to create a deferral around, and allow the lien to transfer. Again, these things are already done in other states, and it doesn’t have to be perfection, just better than it currently is.

Do you mean transfer the lien to your new property? A lot of seniors move to different states which might complicate things.

There's another way that is better than it currently is, without the downside of building a potentially large debt if the senior manages to live a long time after retirement before finally needing to move.

That's exemptions and/or freezes. E.g., here in Washington if you are at least 61 and have a disposable income under 70% of your county median income they freeze the assessed value of your property and exempt you from part of the state-wide property tax. On a $400k assessed value home that would cut the taxes from $3400/year to $2200/year in my county. The 70% threshold is $65k.

There are more exemptions at 60% ($56k) and 50% ($46k) that remove more of the state-wide tax and also some of county and city taxes. For those below the 50% threshold in my county that would reduce the tax on a $400k assessed home to $900/year.

Washington does also have a tax deferral program, but that is aimed to low income in general rather than seniors. I think it is meant for cases where you have a temporary reduction of income but are expected to recover.

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#419

Post by lazide »

techbrovanguard wrote: post #118
bombcar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of things are side-effects of "tenant's rights" laws. Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. The problem is that this is antithetical to higher density, because you need landlords of some form if you have anything denser than a duplex. You can have condos perhaps, but not everyone can afford to get into one, or even wants to. And if…

> Some may consider it the end-goal, to be fair - as eventually you'd drive landlords completely out of business. Great! Housing should never have been allowed to become a commodity.

The pro of it being a commodity (widely available, easily traded, of easily quantifiable quality and accessible quantity) is important to get what you say you want! For 'sellers', it actually makes life a bit harder as they have much smaller profit margins in general and need to get very good at what they do to compete. If you think making housing not a commodity is going to make it easier to access, you're not paying attention.

It may produce more bespoke, custom houses though. But they'll only go to those who can afford to do a LOT more to get it.

The reason why that listing has a $15k broker fee is exactly BECAUSE of the weird and hard to deal with reality that is a rent controlled apartment in NYC.

There are probably other off the books type things going on too, IMO.

If you want something transparent and easy to get for the average person, making it a commodity with clear rules is exactly what you want! If you want to incentivize gaming the system, the other direction encourages that.

Regardless of if it is a commodity or not, there needs to be constant vigilance regarding manipulation, scams, etc. Scams and manipulations are easier to hide when goods AREN'T commodities. There are some amazing horror stories (on both 'sides' of the economy) behind NYC rent controlled apartments and living in NYC in general.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity]

From the link:

"1 : an economic good: such as a : a product of agriculture or mining agricultural commodities like grain and corn b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment reported the damaged commodities to officials c : a mass-produced unspecialized product commodity chemicals commodity memory chips 2 a : something useful or valued that valuable commodity, patience also : THING, ENTITY b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office … —Charles Lamb 3 : a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price 4 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry. —Film Quarterly 5 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT"

Re: A rent-stabilized 1 bedroom apartment for $1,100 In NYC? broker's fee is $15K

#420

Post by lazide »

FireBeyond wrote: post #393
lazide wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is really weird. Because the comment you are replying to literally doesn’t say the things you seem to be replying to, and instead does actually say what you seem to think it should say? Did you read it before replying? For instance, I literally said a lease is ‘credit like’. Not actually credit. And that some landlords and employers might want to check your credit report before engaging with you to see h…

Okay, let's back it up to the simple part - which isn't to say anything about you, but things went in several different directions. Right - leases are credit-like, somewhat. However, leaving aside the concept of eviction taking time (that to me is investment risk, not 'extending credit') - lease payments are made in advance, and when I was a tenant, every single one had a clause allowing for termination in the event…

Ah, I see.

You REALLY need a lease to not be a type of credit, and hence not be within the scope of a credit reporting agency? Or included in a credit score?

Though, notably, not like anyone necessarily needs to care if it fits the nominal term on their sign if they want to take on new business right? (though various regulations can of course come into play in some cases)

Hell, a ton of their revenue now seems to come straight from 'credit monitoring' services which are only thinly veiled scams near as I can tell.

The issue I have with the argument you're making, is that as you yourself note - investment risk is fundamentally the umbrella under which credit risk lives. And that is the same umbrella that landlord/tenant risk lives under. And in fact, the risk that a landlord takes on with a tenant is SO CLOSE to the risk that someone takes on with lending someone money, that it's an ALMOST artificial distinction.

Near as I can tell mostly due to historical reasons.

Renting existed long before standardized currency (and hence the ability to loan someone currency). And since having a roof over ones head is rather fundamental to being able to survive at all in most places, the power dynamic is prone to abuse in many concrete ways unique to property.

But, for example, leasing a car is 100% tracked by credit reporting agencies on a credit report. And the difference between leasing a car and leasing a house is... the car can move? and isn't generally a primary residence for anyone. and is cheaper.

So actually aren't renters being screwed here, because paying their rent on time could actually help them build a better credit score by showing they CAN do credit-like activities on time - without having to go into 'debt'?

In fact, wouldn't it actually HELP renters move to owning (by having lower costs to borrow on their mortgage), if they could build a better credit score by renting? And it seems like companies have picked up on that, which is why they're offering it for a fee.

One of the biggest complaints I've heard from folks (and felt myself) for instance, is that paying an equivalent amount in rent does nothing to qualify oneself for paying a similar mortgage. But if reported on credit and included in credit score, it would.

So if you really don't want the credit agencies to be reporting on it, I guess the question is - why?

Too much centralization in an already too powerful set of entities?

Too much transparency in an area prone to really screw some people who have a hard time behaving? After all, the downside would be someone who can't pay their rent would also have a hard time getting a mortgage, but that generally already happens.

Too much absolutism/numericalism for something that "shouldn't be"?

Think they're a bunch of assholes who need to die?

I can see some reasons why you'd object, I'm just not buying the reason you're using on it's face. It's like saying home depot can't sell furniture because they're a 'home improvement' store, and furniture doesn't improve the home itself, but just the experience of living in it. And that no one would benefit from buying furniture there.

And besides that there are other places who specialize in selling furniture.

Which okay maybe? But perhaps you just hate Home Depot? Or maybe you own a furniture store?

I can certainly empathize if that is the case! I don't know though.

Unfortunately, they do provide a lot of value in specific situations which others are unable to do, which is why they continue to do pretty well. Lame.

It also isn't clear that them also just selling furniture and 'eating' all the local furniture stores like almost everything else they have done is anything anyone is going to work hard to stop, and maybe Home Depot is good enough.

Post reply on HN