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

481–490 of 594 posts

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#481

Post by digitaltrees »

phil21 wrote: post #466
hdgvhicv wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a landlord can charge 1200 instead of 1000 why wouldn’t they? They’ll charge the maximum they can get away with, costs are irrelevant Two landlords, one with a mortgage, one without, will charge the same amount for the same property.

> If a landlord can charge 1200 instead of 1000 why wouldn’t they? They’ll charge the maximum they can get away with, costs are irrelevant This is rarely true. Only universally true for large corporate landlords where there is an entire corporate structure maximizing every dollar due to personal incentives put in place by executives/ownership. Small landlords (yes, even those with 6 buildings) are almost never min/ma…

This is right. Increased costs are either passed on to tenants or decrease the landlord’s cash flow. Those are the only two options. I don’t have any data on which occurs more frequently. But what is true is an increase in expenses means less debt service is available so purchase prices come down.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#482

Post by [deleted] »

tomhow wrote: post #30
JCTheDenthog wrote: post #5

[flagged]

We've banned this account. Don't register accounts to post vile comments like this. We don't care what the source is; we care about the insinuation and the agenda, and everything it pattern-matches with. We've already banned a previous account of yours for one of the most egregious comments ever seen here. Please stop wasting everyone's time. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=486231…

[deleted]

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#483

Post by toast0 »

inigyou wrote: post #382
toast0 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there's lots, but lease says no X, tenant insits on doing X seems like a reasonable thing to evict about, but not a reasonable thing to ask the police to adjudicate. At least as long as 'no X' is a reasonably moral thing to restrict. So no pets, no working on cars in the parking lot, no smoking, no loud noises/no more than N police noise complaints, etc. At least my moral code allows one to form a contract t…

Why is it moral to restrict random stuff in a rental contract? Would no programming be moral to you?

I don't see why that would be an immoral restriction.

I don't think it's a reasonable restriction, but unreasonableness doesn't make it immoral. At the same time, if you make an agreement not to program in a rental and then you program, shouldn't you need to stop or leave? I might have moral concerns about how one enforces a restriction against programming, it's probably intrusive

Now, if your question is no programmers and/or no overnight guests who are programmers and/or you can have six tenants in the unit, but no more than three who are unmaried programmers... Then my moral compass is pointing towards no. Restricting the practicing of a profession on premesis seems fine, descriminating against the practitioners is ick.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#484

Post by sph »

nikkwong wrote: post #247
lovich wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah, having 6 buildings(not houses, if were being precise with terminology here) with multiple units in each, is not a small time landlord. If you can live entirely off the rental income then you are a full time landlord and can at best claim that you aren't a large corporate landlord, but you don't get to invoke the idea that you are some sort of mom and pop situation renting out a spare unit, which is what people a…

I'm the OP—just chiming in, I can just hardly live off the rental income I make, but its a lot less than my salary as a senior SDE. Yes what I am is not analogous to someone renting out a few extra rooms. I just think my experience is analogous to that of a small time landlord in that I know each tenant very well and we have good relationships—and I manually handle each part of their tenant experience. To add more de…

Now, where could the world’s tiniest violin be? Garfield!

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#485

Post by Auracle »

dh2022 wrote: post #150
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…

Honest question - how do you know a potential tenant is “leftie type”?

Dyed hair, nose rings, tattoos, short hair on women, effeminate type looks on men, etc.

People on the fair ends of political spectrums tend to change their plumage to show their affiliation.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#486

Post by digitaltrees »

maeln wrote: post #352
digitaltrees wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities. America has enough land. We could build new infrastructure, give people lots of land or build houses like we did in the 40s and 50s. Of the price of a house was brought down to 1x the annual salary of the median individual income some of these problems wouldn’t exist. We need to flood the system with investment and inven…

> The solution is pretty simple: build and unreasonable amount of housing. And entirely new cities. So it is not simple. "Just build more" always comes up in those discussions, and while it does help (and has been proven to help), it is not the definite answer for the housing issues. Build a new city from the ground up with a bunch of cheap modern housing, walkable and all modern goodies and ... nobody will move. Peo…

I don’t agree. Orlando was nothing. Raleigh research triangle park was nothing. Silicon Valley was nothing until they were. Each of them were built from a single seed project: Disney, State grant of free land and two roads being built, NASA facility respectively.

We could also recognize that at certain levels of development single family residences are no longer viable. The government should use eminent domain to take entire blocks back for redevelopment vertically. They should be required to give the home owners triple the value of The property they are taking in the form of replacement square footage or a property in the new development and one or more properties elsewhere. Imagine ing each nimby stood to have a windfall in the form of multiple properties they could rent or sell in exchange for giving up their property. There would be a lot less resistance. Not no resistance but a lot less.

Build the infrastructure, plan the city grid like we used to, incentivize employers to move headquarters there, build new factories, create special economic zones. There are tons of options.

We could increase supply and demand by having a “grow to 1 billion Americans” project. We would create a path to citizenship for people with a requirement that they help build and/or finance the build of homes store fronts etc. create a targeted immigration plan so the new metro is comprised of a broad range of culture, ages, income levels and skills so cultural mixing occurs and assimilation into the shared American experience is facilitated. Make the new metros operate on lower minimum wage, grant 5 year tax abatement for individuals, give the land away for free. Then once the city is established in 20 years do the same thing.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#487

Post by halfxing »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #448
halfxing wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your experience as a renter is not the same as the experience of a landlord. If you've been on your first job for a month and you pinky swear to pay rent on time and the next candidate has been on their job for 3 years then I'll take that candidate every time. It's a risk calculation. You are more likely to lose your job than the other candidate, and when you do and can't pay rent anymore and won't leave then that is…

If everyone did that then how’s the person with a new job able to get a home? They might not all do it but it severely affects choices. You also have more capacity to absorb a short vacancy in case this person is to lose their job. Can’t derisk your way out of everything. It sounds like you never had to deal with shitty landlords, or didn’t really struggle too much in life.

> If everyone did that then how’s the person with a new job able to get a home?

That's exactly my point. If the regulations weren't so insane and burdensome (see other posters' points on not being able to evict promptly for nonpayment, for example) then the person with the brand new job would be able to quickly rent a home because it's not an undue risk for a landlord.

You can't ask landlords on the one hand to open their home to anyone, and on the other hand deny them the right to remove tenants that don't hold up their end of the bargain. Do you not see how that's completely unfair?

> You also have more capacity to absorb a short vacancy in case this person is to lose their job.

That is not a universal truth. Landlords have debt service/mortgage payments, taxes, maintenance, insurance and other payments. Especially smaller landlords actually do not - at all - have the capacity to absorb a vacancy or (even worse) a non-paying tenant.

> Can’t derisk your way out of everything.

Yes, but unduly moving risk from one party (tenant) to the other party (landlord) is certainly not the way to go either. If I just take your car and you don't have any recourse to get it back for 6+ months because the courts are backlogged and everyone else goes "well, you have a car, so you must be wealthy, what are you complaining about?" how would that make you feel?

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#488

Post by halfxing »

inigyou wrote: post #384
halfxing wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly do you "force" the deadbeat broke tenant that trashed your house to return it to its original condition?

Keep their deposit

A deposit doesn't even cover the legal fees to evict a tenant (which can be north of $10,000 between lawyer, filing fees, and so on).

Add to that loss of rents for multiple months (while the landlord has to pay mortgage, insurance, taxes) and damages to property, and now you're asking a landlord to pay tens of thousands of dollars of their money.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#489

Post by ekelsen »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #444
ekelsen wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could sign a longer lease and get the stability you desire. Negotiate a five year lease and stability is yours.

None of the landlords I’ve rented from wanted to do that. Sample size of like 8.

I've done it multiple times. Everytime I wanted to do it, it was possible.

If you offer to sign a 5 year lease at current prices, then yeah, can see why they might not go for that.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#490

Post by halfxing »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #451
arwineap wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$600,000 asset vs a $3000 deposit

It’s not like they don’t have insurance (they do) to cover the cost of damages.

No. There is no insurance in the world that covers the cost of eviction, loss of rents, or intentional damage/vandalism.

Throwing around general statements like these when you don't actually know about the topic doesn't help the conversation.

Post reply on HN