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

581–590 of 594 posts

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#581

Post by mapt »

bberenberg wrote: post #415
mapt wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax property values. We could talk about the merits of Georgeism but honestly let's set that aside - conventional property taxes are sufficient here. Most of Manhattan apparently has cough ), they're a tiny fractional "decommodification" of property as asset, because the money collected from the owners is spent on the residents. Most of this money passes through directly into higher rents, and we shouldn't care about…

Am I understanding your point correctly as you hoping that an increase in tax rates drives property values down enough thay aggregate tax amounts are reduced? The practical rental math in NYC is simple. Buy a $1M coop in a building with near zero costs. HOA will be at least 2k per month with the majority of that being property taxes. Thats your base rent. If you have a loan, add that to the base. You will not get che…

NYC is home to ~half of the co-op housing in the United States. This is a relatively unusual arrangement. Co-ops generally forbid renting / subletting, they practically ban REITs, new resident-owners go before a board to get approval. They should be considered the same as owner-occupied housing, and for long-term owner-occupied houses where the asset value isn't a big deal, higher property taxes are on average a wash - they pay higher amounts for higher levels of public services. Perhaps your $2k/month goes to $3k/month but transit becomes free, trash collection becomes effective, and the schools become better. Or in the alternate universe your $2k a month goes to $3k a month and then we hand residents a $12k check at the end of the year.

Either way, vacancy gets punished, landlords can't treat the city's housing like gold boullion, and the price of housing is fractionally more tied to the cost of living than the future economic outlook in potentia.

Picture a conventional Ponzi scheme operating in the Lower East Side, which has scaled to be 30% of the city's economy. Whole industries have risen up around this scheme, it's essentially printing money in a way that seems like it might be legal if you squint, and you're not trying to regulate/tax it. It's growing so fast that it's actually causing problematic inflation for the rest of the city.

Can you afford to let it grow unchecked, indefinitely?

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#582

Post by mapt »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #424
polnurfer wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax more

Ever heard of the tale of the goose that laid golden eggs? Imagine progressively feeding the goose less, so as to have a greater profit margin on the golden eggs it laid. No particular percentage of feed reduction seemed too harmful, until one day it died unexpectedly.

a certain share A of the prospective benefit of housing is in potential asset price appreciation, and a certain share B is in the utility value of the home.

The systems that contribute towards A are mutually reinforcing, vicious spirals in a neoliberal capitalist world. Just like in the art world, there is no hard objective value to vacant housing, and many purchases are made on debt. It's worth whatever the last guy paid, and so the banks will loan you 80% (or more) of whatever the last guy paid. This is a form of money creation. We have collectively bid up the housing stock, completely separated from the utility value, at a rate we generally expect to be competitive to loaning real operating businesses money to invest in actual operations.

If you tax ALL of the prospective value, and price sinks down all the way to B, you can still have profitable private housing development in a steady state. Unmet demand is a thing that exists. Yes getting to B overnight probably represents a crash in your overall asset investment picture, but getting 1/10th of the way there, locally, less so. Phasing it in over time, less so. If you're expecting 5% and you get 4.5% that's still a return.

The thing about this type of redistribution is, it's just a way better more functional economy than the idea of conventional price setting with the addition of rent control, or than the status quo. Rent control tears incentive structures and makes willing landlords into unwilling landlords who are instructed to be creative in how miserable they make their tenants; Its supposed goal of affordability simply shifts costs from older tenants to newer tenants. The status quo where property taxes are very low and so A is significantly greater than B simply doesn't establish those incentives of mutually agreeable economic exchange to a great degree in the first place. "I bought a house as an investment. Rent it out? I mean... there are upsides and downsides."

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#583

Post by youre-wrong3 »

eru wrote: post #578
youre-wrong3 wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone manages the lifts lights and exterior. So it must be public housing by your logic.

Huh? HDB, which is an arm of the government, manages lifts, light and exterior. The condo management companies are not arms of the government. What is so hard about this? Is there something I'm not understanding?

If the criteria to be public housing is that someone manages the lifts, lights, and exterior. Then all apartment blocks are public housing. Condos and HDBs are all public housing.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#584

Post by youre-wrong3 »

bluebarbet wrote: post #575
youre-wrong3 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can say the same about your “contributions” You can’t go calling things they are not.

For the benefit of any others (miraculously) still reading, I will repeat the statement of fact that you continue stubbornly to deny against all evidence: "'social housing' is a general term that implies subsidization and affordability rather than any one specific ownership model". Others will make up their mind. Over and out.

For the benefit of any others. Bluebarbet has never been to Singapore and ultimately doesn’t know what he’s talking about. HDBs are not public housing. It’s land control because Singapore is so tiny.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#585

Post by saalweachter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #573
saalweachter wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your suggestion "we should do the status quo, except the bridge and tunnel commuters should be confined to tiny high-rise enclaves clustered around train stations strung out over a hundred miles"?

My suggestion is that we should get rid of zoning density restrictions and allow the market to respond to high housing costs in a sensible way instead of the nonsensible way it's being forced to right now. It's the people who like density restrictions who keep trying to force people to build high rises next to train stations. But that's the thing that doesn't work, because high rises cost significantly more per unit…

If NYC lifts all its density restrictions, why do you need people commuting inward over a hundred mile radius?

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#586

Post by tovej »

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #583
eru wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? HDB, which is an arm of the government, manages lifts, light and exterior. The condo management companies are not arms of the government. What is so hard about this? Is there something I'm not understanding?

If the criteria to be public housing is that someone manages the lifts, lights, and exterior. Then all apartment blocks are public housing. Condos and HDBs are all public housing.

The criteria for social housing is that the government subsidized it.

That's all.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#587

Post by nikkwong »

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 would definitely take it, personally. I have never increased rent on any of my tenants in Seattle, ever. I've had some tenants for 7 years+.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#588

Post by AnthonyMouse »

saalweachter wrote: post #585
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suggestion is that we should get rid of zoning density restrictions and allow the market to respond to high housing costs in a sensible way instead of the nonsensible way it's being forced to right now. It's the people who like density restrictions who keep trying to force people to build high rises next to train stations. But that's the thing that doesn't work, because high rises cost significantly more per unit…

If NYC lifts all its density restrictions, why do you need people commuting inward over a hundred mile radius?

High rise buildings cost significantly more per unit to build than mid rise buildings or single family homes. They would continue to exist or even increase in number in places like Manhattan because some people are willing to pay the extra cost to have even a slightly shorter commute, and then the cost of land closer to that area will still be higher than it costs further away because of expected future growth. Building mid rise buildings reduces the effective scarcity of land, doesn't eliminate it.

So the availability of housing 100 miles away still affects the price, because there are still people (e.g. retirees who only go into the city once a month) who would choose a longer distance for a lower rent, or who prefer to live in a lower density area even for a similar cost, and giving them a place to get that means they're not bidding up the price in the city.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#589

Post by youre-wrong3 »

tovej wrote: post #586
youre-wrong3 wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the criteria to be public housing is that someone manages the lifts, lights, and exterior. Then all apartment blocks are public housing. Condos and HDBs are all public housing.

The criteria for social housing is that the government subsidized it. That's all.

Pushing the goalpost to justify your classification.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#590

Post by eru »

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #583
eru wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? HDB, which is an arm of the government, manages lifts, light and exterior. The condo management companies are not arms of the government. What is so hard about this? Is there something I'm not understanding?

If the criteria to be public housing is that someone manages the lifts, lights, and exterior. Then all apartment blocks are public housing. Condos and HDBs are all public housing.

Your logic is infallible. Of course, your premise is rubbish.

It's not about whether 'someone' is managing these things. Even an owner-occupier is managing their own lights and exteriors.

A useful criterion is whether the government (or an arm of the government) is managing these things. Like HDB, but unlike your typical condo management organisation. It's far from the only criterion, but it's a useful indicator.

Post reply on HN