Rents reach ‘insane’ levels across US with no end in sight

[EyeBRollin]

Yes supply is eaten up by excess dollars

Lol. Committed to a wrong narrative.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Pretty much any big city is super expensive unless you live way out in the suburbs and commute 1+ hours to work daily...

Now even places like Jacksonville, FL and other smaller cities are starting to become prohibitively expensive in terms of buying houses...

Rents have exploded to over 2K a month for a modest house. It's completely out of control.

Expensive yes, but NYC and California are a special case. DMV is as well. But we have the conspiracy theorists blaming the Fed for those markets, which is pigheaded.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Expensive yes, but NYC and California are a special case. DMV is as well. But we have the conspiracy theorists blaming the Fed for those markets, which is pigheaded.

They have always been expensive but the Fed hasn't helped either. You can't print $3 trillion in a few months time and think that isn't going to have a major effect on prices of everything at some point.

 

[RickTheToad]

Seems like giving the banks the dualistic ability to assign value to your home, purchase your home at their predetermined value, and then turn around and sell your home at whatever price they want, is a pretty monumentally flawed system

The fix is simple; but it will never happen:

Tax the ever living hell out of any single family home that isn’t a primary residence or any rental property that isn’t 90% full. All of a sudden, it becomes a lot less attractive to own real estate solely for investment. This also helps to cut down rent costs because landlords would be penalized for having underfilled units from obscene pricing.

Rents reach 'insane' levels across US with no end in sight

Rents have exploded across the country, causing many to fall behind on payments, dig deep into their savings or downsize to subpar units.

apnews.com

This would be socialism.. How did that work out in East Germany, Cuba and USSR? Rents go up because the cost to acquire the building and maintain the building goes up. Property taxes go up, utilities goes up, insurance goes, trash collection goes up, etc. If the rent stays the same, who do you expect to pay for these additional fees? The landlord? If there is not enough money to cover the costs to run the building and make a profit, why would any private landlord rent out apartments and houses? There would be no point. Government housing? Have you seen how poor they are run? Drug use, crime, rape, etc. Landlords provide a service; a safe place to live and utilize shelter. Just like you go to the grocery store or get gas for your vehicle; they deserve the right to earn a return on their investment.

Don't like the game? No problem! Save up the down payment (25%), save for emergencies (another 10%-15%), and you can own your own home or buy an investment property? Don't have enough money for the down payment? Save.

Average price in metro NYC is around $600k. Here's what an investor needs to buy that property:

25% down for the mortgage - $150,000
15% for emergencies / repairs (roof, HVAC, etc) - $90,000
2% for ongoing annual costs (maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc.) = $12,000
Total investment - $252,000

Stop b!tching and do something about it.

 

[SargeMaximus]

Lol. Committed to a wrong narrative.

This is what happens when everyone wants to move to the same area where there are limited houses.

Amazing.

 

[EyeBRollin]

They have always been expensive but the Fed hasn't helped either. You can't print $3 trillion in a few months time and think that isn't going to have a major effect on prices of everything at some point.

Like I said the Fed has nothing to do with NYC and California housing market. Whether you trade in dollars, chicken, or gold, they will be expensive relative to the rest of the country.

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is what happens when everyone wants to move to the same area where there are limited houses.

This statement is correct.. so I don’t get why you think printing money has anything to do with this. Housing prices are fully dictated by geography, supply, and market demographics. We can’t create more available land in Manhattan or the Bay Area.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Like I said the Fed has nothing to do with NYC and California housing market. Whether you trade in dollars, chicken, or gold, they will be expensive relative to the rest of the country.

Of course it will be, doesn't explain why rents are skyrocketing to the levels they are across the country tho

 

[EyeBRollin]

Of course it will be, doesn't explain why rents are skyrocketing to the levels they are across the country tho

They are not skyrocketing equally (markets are localized) and there are other factors at play, such as landlords getting screwed during the pandemic by eviction moratoriums.

 

[RickTheToad]

Of course it will be, doesn't explain why rents are skyrocketing to the levels they are across the country tho

I already posted why. However, @EyeBRollin mentions that many landlords are now being more selective and adding a risk premiums due to the government's actions of temporarily taking private property from some without just cause or compensation. Many landlords, including myself, would rather have a vacant unit than a troublesome tenant. NY and CA are unique in the fact that landlords and new investments by large builders for multi-family buildings are not being built due to the new regulations and restrictions made by local politicians. This, in turn, increases demand and lowers availability of new housing. Less housing availability equals higher rates.

Since politicians of any party do not really work for a paycheck or are business owners, they do not understand the complexity in renting units out. Many want to offer more housing, but without the gov't guarantee of payment. The entire risk is on the landlord and in at least these two states along with Illinois and some areas of Minnesota it's not worth the risk; thus they leave. Just look at St. Paul, MN and compare there to Minneapolis, MN. In St. Paul, they passed a voter approved referendum on rent protections and new building rent restrictions, the builders just left, converted the building to commercial or delaying the completion of the project. They are now trying to backpedal on this, but the damage is done. Over in Minneapolis, these restrictions are not there and there has been an increase in new buildings and rents are stable.

I understand it's hard to please everyone, however, when the politicians try the landlord's hands, there's little incentive to invest and build affordable housing.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I already posted why. However, @EyeBRollin mentions that many landlords are now being more selective and adding a risk premiums due to the government's actions of temporarily taking private property from some without just cause or compensation. Many landlords, including myself, would rather have a vacant unit than a troublesome tenant. NY and CA are unique in the fact that landlords and new investments by large builders for multi-family buildings are not being built due to the new regulations and restrictions made by local politicians. This, in turn, increases demand and lowers availability of new housing. Less housing availability equals higher rates.

Since politicians of any party do not really work for a paycheck or are business owners, they do not understand the complexity in renting units out. Many want to offer more housing, but without the gov't guarantee of payment. The entire risk is on the landlord and in at least these two states along with Illinois and some areas of Minnesota it's not worth the risk; thus they leave. Just look at St. Paul, MN and compare there to Minneapolis, MN. In St. Paul, they passed a voter approved referendum on rent protections and new building rent restrictions, the builders just left, converted the building to commercial or delaying the completion of the project. They are now trying to backpedal on this, but the damage is done. Over in Minneapolis, these restrictions are not there and there has been an increase in new buildings and rents are stable.

I understand it's hard to please everyone, however, when the politicians try the landlord's hands, there's little incentive to invest and build affordable housing.

I mostly agree with this post. Other than to say a lot of it has to do with geography and zoning. The amount of land is finite, so the only option is to increase density by building up. Some places this is not feasible, hazardous, or just some municipalities prefer not to have the skyline and traffic that comes with it.

As for politicians- stop blaming everything on politicians. It’s a cop out excuse. There are many American politicians especially of the elephant party that are business owners.

 

[RickTheToad]

I mostly agree with this post. Other than to say a lot of it has to do with geography and zoning. The amount of land is finite, so the only option is to increase density by building up. Some places this is not feasible, hazardous, or just some municipalities prefer not to have the skyline and traffic that comes with it.

As for politicians- stop blaming everything on politicians. It’s a cop out excuse. There are many American politicians especially of the elephant party that are business owners.

Not in NYC (sans Staten Island), and most of Fairfield County, CT. Housing has a cost, people want it for free. They say it's a right, it's not. Someone has to pay for it. If they want the government to pay for it, fine, let them. However, have you seen how well the government runs public housing in NYC? I know the one's that I knew in Queens were crime and drug ridden. The one's in Bridgeport are controlled by the Bloods or Crips. So, yes, it's comes down to public policy. Public policy is made by the people who hold office. Doubtful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be living in any of these tough areas or know anything about the landlord ends of things. Oh right, she actually grew up in the affluent town of Yorktown Heights in Westchester; not NYC. So she doesn't know the struggles of people on both sides of the aisle. She makes 180k for speaking and telling people what they want to hear; not the truth.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Not in NYC (sans Staten Island), and most of Fairfield County, CT. Housing has a cost, people want it for free. They say it's a right, it's not. Someone has to pay for it. If they want the government to pay for it, fine, let them. However, have you seen how well the government runs public housing in NYC? I know the one's that I knew in Queens were crime and drug ridden. The one's in Bridgeport are controlled by the Bloods or Crips. So, yes, it's comes down to public policy. Public policy is made by the people who hold office. Doubtful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be living in any of these tough areas or know anything about the landlord ends of things. Oh right, she actually grew up in the affluent town of Yorktown Heights in Westchester; not NYC. So she doesn't know the struggles of people on both sides of the aisle. She makes 180k for speaking and telling people what they want to hear; not the truth.

Those people are elected from the community. Can’t vouch for AOC, but Senator Booker did live in Brick Towers for a decade, which was a real shvt hole before they demolished it. The argument for housing being a “right” is where those crime and drug ridden folks will go without shelter. (aka: they’ll be on the streets, destroying more than just our property values, and sucking up even more than their current share of law enforcement resources)

Which option do you prefer?

 

[RickTheToad]

Those people are elected from the community. Can’t vouch for AOC, but Senator Booker did live in Brick Towers for a decade, which was a real shvt hole before they demolished it. The argument for housing being a “right” is where those crime and drug ridden folks will go without shelter. (aka: they’ll be on the streets, destroying more than just our property values, and sucking up even more than their current share of law enforcement resources)

Which option do you prefer?

Seems they are doing this already.. Here's a crazy idea, get a f*cking job and stop relying on the gov't to pay for a person's rent, food, utilities, medical, daycare, etc. I know this, as I had tenants in Bridgeport that I inherited before the pandemic. I hate kicking people out, but when a tenant is late or doesn't pay their share of the rent (a few hundred dollars), but has a new iPhone, iPad, etc., I have little sympathy.

As for the homeless situation, there is a solution. The city uses the run down buildings, raises them, and builds new one's with federal and state funds (there are programs for this). Add a police sub-station there, add cameras everywhere, require people to have random in person drug tests and that is how one makes change. This is what they do in Europe.. Not sure why it wouldn't work here in the USA.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Seems they are doing this already.. Here's a crazy idea, get a f*cking job and stop relying on the gov't to pay for a person's rent, food, utilities, medical, daycare, etc. I know this, as I had tenants in Bridgeport that I inherited before the pandemic. I hate kicking people out, but when a tenant is late or doesn't pay their share of the rent (a few hundred dollars), but has a new iPhone, iPad, etc., I have little sympathy.

As for the homeless situation, there is a solution. The city uses the run down buildings, raises them, and builds new one's with federal and state funds (there are programs for this). Add a police sub-station there, add cameras everywhere, require people to have random in person drug tests and that is how one makes change. This is what they do in Europe.. Not sure why it wouldn't work here in the USA.

Its a pretty simple choice. The low income will either be on the streets or they will be in public housing. The social cost is what the rest of us end up paying for either way. And if you think minimum wage job affords market rent in any major metro in the USA you are dreaming.

 

[RickTheToad]

Its a pretty simple choice. The low income will either be on the streets or they will be in public housing. The social cost is what the rest of us end up paying for either way. And if you think minimum wage job affords market rent in any major metro in the USA you are dreaming.

Min. wage is supposed to be a stepping stone. People are not supposed to be on it long term. Most people in public housing are on public assistance, so they do not pay the full amount of the rent due.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Min. wage is supposed to be a stepping stone. People are not supposed to be on it long term.

That is not what FDR said when minimum wage was created in the 1930s. On the contrary. I know people have a fuzzy view of history some times.

Yes, they need public assistance because minimum wage does not afford market rent anywhere in the country. So who are taxpayers actually subsidizing- the labor or the employer?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Those people are elected from the community. Can’t vouch for AOC, but Senator Booker did live in Brick Towers for a decade, which was a real shvt hole before they demolished it. The argument for housing being a “right” is where those crime and drug ridden folks will go without shelter. (aka: they’ll be on the streets, destroying more than just our property values, and sucking up even more than their current share of law enforcement resources)

Which option do you prefer?

She got elected cause men thought she was hot most likely...same as some of those other MILF politicians like Marjorie Green and Kelly Loeffler

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

I'm looking to move soon. Anyone know of cities that have reasonable cost of living/rent? Must have a pop. of at least 500,000 or so. I'm thinking of any of the major cities in NC.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm looking to move soon. Anyone know of cities that have reasonable cost of living/rent? Must have a pop. of at least 500,000 or so. I'm thinking of any of the major cities in NC.

What are you looking for in a city? Do you work remotely?