You must log in or register to comment.

njkid30 t1_je0skku wrote

Remember to tip your landlord folks


drinfernodds t1_je0xird wrote

I almost downvoted out of instinct. If anyone deserves to be tipped with religious cards disguised as dollar bills it's landlords.


Sybertron t1_je13i35 wrote

There was a tiktok landlord that put out a video saying that all landlords should expect tips and if you dont get it just include it in the rent price.

Warning, you will want to punch them in the face


The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_je1hjmx wrote

Yeah that video made me furious. I looked at some of their other videos though and to their credit, they're not wrong 100% of the time. They even have a video about how landlords should tip their good tenants in order to keep them, in the form of lowering rent, unit upgrades, etc.


djn24 t1_je1yq5z wrote

I lived in the same apartment in grad school for 3 years and my landlord never raised rent in that time. When I moved out they thanked me for being such a great tenant and gave me my deposit back on the spot. They told me they only raised rent between tenants to match the market but don't want to mess up a good relationship with a tenant they don't have to worry about.

It's ridiculous that this is now completely abnormal behavior.


mitsulang t1_je4v3ck wrote

I lived in the same house for nearly 10 years, and the landlord never raised the rent. He gave the same reasons. Why mess up a good relationship with a steadily paying tenant who doesn't mess up the property?


michaelist t1_je47ns1 wrote

I'm a landlord, and that account is for total scumbags. Treat people right.


Ilanaspax t1_je0fgzi wrote

This is what solving the housing crisis looks like right? Letting national equity firms suck up all the housing supply and then pretending they are doing the city they priced everyone out of a favor. 🤩


Byzantium-1204 t1_je0pkdg wrote

They need to enact laws where investment firms or other entities like Zillow are only allowed to own a small %. This is screwing over future home buyers. It’s ridiculous


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1ad7q wrote

You realize the share of investors in housing peaked in 2012-13?

And that Zillow famously wound down its home buying after taking significant losses on it, something big enough to make national news last summer?

And that small to midsized landlords make just as much profit per unit as large landlords?

There is only one solution and it's getting New York City to build enough housing so their residents stop moving here. If that happened, Jersey City's high building rate would lead to stable prices just as it did in Minneapolis. Problem is Minneapolis is the largest city in their region and Jersey City is not even close. As for Hoboken they don't build enough either and it's no surprise there are no neighborhoods like Greenville or Bergen Lafayette or McGinley Square still standing there.


Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_je1fy9q wrote

>There is only one solution and it's getting New York City to build enough housing so their residents stop moving here.

100%, only it needs to be the suburbs as well as the city. The town I grew up in on Long Island is 35 minutes from Penn station, has two rail stops, and zero multifamily development.


smrb t1_jegsz81 wrote

or perhaps new york should adjust/waive the city tax rates so people making over 400k don't flee to JC


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_jegxbih wrote

If that were the issue rents in NYC would be cratering as all the rich people moved out. Yet NYC rents are much higher than here.


Ilanaspax t1_je0rbef wrote

But then how is Fulop going to get all his free home renovations if he’s not bending over backwards for developers?


AccountantOfFraud t1_je16e76 wrote

Why stop at investment firms and not landlords who own multiple properties?


objectimpermanence t1_je1qqdc wrote

That would be pointless. The vast majority of housing is owned by individuals. And 70% of rental properties are owned by people who own just one or two properties. Source.

The underlying problem is that there is simply not enough housing in the places where people want to live. When demand outpaces supply, prices go up. It’s really simple stuff.


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1u64b wrote

How is it pointless?

> Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data.

Seems like you can get more properties on the market by going after those who own more than one.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1xo8z wrote

Rentals are still needed, people who just moved and young students need a place to stay, people getting out of domestic abuse and such need a place to stay, also there should still be an option available for those who don't want to deal with maintenance if we're talking about an ideal society. The real problem is rent growth. If there was enough supply to stop rent growth then not only does renting becomes more appealing, there is also no reason to "invest in housing" at that point driving the investors out naturally.


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1ya2o wrote

Go ahead and tell me the group of people who lobby against increasing housing supply


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1zhik wrote

No clue what you're getting at. Housing supply should be increased regardless of who lobbies against it


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1zta9 wrote

Sure, and at the same time we can tax people who own more than one property to encourage them to sell and add to the supply.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je25hfe wrote

I'd agree, though I'd rather rich homeowners downtown don't get to escape. I would make the tax on "everyone" but add a 500k deduction for primary residence


rubensinclair t1_je1z6i5 wrote

If we had a government that worked, we could make it illegal for corporations and foreign investment firms to buy up single-family homes.


djn24 t1_je1z4ic wrote

We also need incentives/funding out there to just start mass developing single family homes in less urban areas. New York is pushing through orders that will force communities on the outskirts of urban sprawl to start developing more housing, which should hopefully help to offset this crunch in a few years.


LateralEntry t1_je10l7o wrote

I actually am glad to see all the giant skyscrapers going up. As much as everyone complains, we desperately need more housing


No-Practice-8038 t1_je1oz98 wrote

We need less of them and more affordable housing. Especially for working poor and lower middle class.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1yjox wrote

There is no theory by which less of them results in lower rents for you and me.

People move here from NYC because of lower income taxes and more space; people also move here from outside the NYC metro because of better job opportunities. Location is the #1 determinant of whether someone moves, not whether there is new housing there. This is why gobs of millionaires live in crumbling old buildings in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.

If you don't build the yuppie fishtanks, the yuppies will simply outbid for your housing. Don't be mistaken and think they'll simply stay away - that's what they thought in San Francisco (and Manhattan and Brooklyn), and then the rich moved into the old housing, because they care about location and proximity to jobs, not whether the housing is new. They can always move in and gut renovate the inside, after all, or the landlord does it to take advantage of the higher rent they can pay.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_je1huw9 wrote

Those buildings are only viable if rents continue to go upwards. If banks had any reason to doubt future trajectory they wouldn’t be financing it.

Nobody invests in something they plan to lose money in, and those buildings are expensive to build and even more expensive in the long run to maintain.


Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_je1fhah wrote

The equity vultures are feeding at a housing shortage massacre caused by decades of rent control and exclusionary zoning, enacted and preserved by people trying to freeze the status quo.

New York State just defeated a measure that was trying to increase density in transit suburbs. This is what has caused high housing costs.


xTheShrike t1_je0k464 wrote

Ultimately this is what is going to happen. The large firms can operate at a loss, push out the smaller landlords, and buy up their properties. This is what happens every single time.


jersey-city-park t1_je0mj38 wrote

Property taxes: ~30% increase YOY

Inflation: 8% increase YOY

Interest rates: 0.25% March 2022 to 5% March 2023

WhY Is ReNt GoInG Up


Ilanaspax t1_je0q93w wrote

Did you read the article? Because it details how these giant corporate landlords have essentially monopolized the rental market using an app and it has little to do with property taxes. Their goal is profit not providing housing which is why letting them build rentals so freely all over JC was a slap in the face to its existing residents.


jersey-city-park t1_je10q72 wrote

> Because it details how these giant corporate landlords have essentially monopolized the rental market using an app

Allegedly. Anyone that ignores the economic factors just has their head up their own ass


Jahooodie t1_je14neu wrote

But why not both!


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1axcq wrote

Because any time you say "supply and demand" on this subreddit certain people's heads explode. Yet they have no problem understanding it when it comes to food or car production. No one in their right mind would argue to stop the production of new cars to bring down car prices.

Collusion is bad, and also supply and demand is real.


Jahooodie t1_je1nu2v wrote

So you're saying the collusion has finally become an issue Mr. Powell?


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1w0um wrote

It should certainly be investigated and action taken against them, how much it would help remains to be seen.


paul-e-walnts t1_je0zdyv wrote

Yes, the article says “part of the problem, some say….” is what you’ve pointed out.


HappyArtichoke7729 t1_je0rph0 wrote

Building more rentals relieves pressure on rent.

Getting rid of the Realpage monopoly would also relieve a lot more pressure on rent.

Increasing law enforcement would also relieve pressure on rent, by arresting landlords who are breaking the rent control laws.

Disallowing more housing to be built is dumb, and part of the reason we're in this mess. (Not the entire reason)

But we will leave things exactly as they are now, because these large corporations are the ones funding our politicians' careers.


Ilanaspax t1_je0se5z wrote

It’s SO weird how out of all those solutions for affordable housing the only one that ever gets executed involves developers getting more money 🤔

oh well I guess we’ll trust the process and just let them keep polluting the city with luxury rentals and pricing out the existing population until we finally figure this out


moobycow t1_je11yyf wrote

Maybe so, but could you explain a mechanism by which building less stuff and having less homes available in an area of high demand makes them more affordable?


GeorgeWBush2016 t1_je1mbw5 wrote

I'm genuinely interested in hearing your solution.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1z7i1 wrote

Apparently, the 4% rent control on >30 year old buildings that's already in place isn't the solution, based on how they pretend it doesn't exist.


objectimpermanence t1_je0sgmu wrote

Well gee, I wonder why housing is significantly more affordable relative to local incomes in places like Houston and other Sunbelt cities, where large corporate landlords are basically allowed to build whatever they want with relatively minimal interference.

It’s almost as if there is some other economic factor at play here. Certainly Texas landlords aren’t less greedy than landlords are here.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je13w9i wrote

Lmao Houston rents have been skyrocketing for more than a decade.

My college apartment that I paid $200 a month for in 2006 is listed now for l 2k a month and it still looks like the windows don't close all the way. You can find cheap rent in Katy or Clear Lake but that's like saying you can find cheap rent in Allentown.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1b6zi wrote

Say again with a straight face that Houston rents are as bad as NYC? That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. Please do tell me where I can buy a 300k house in this area and find a rental for 1100 a month.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je1drlx wrote

Are you lost? Are you illiterate? We're not talking about NYC, we're talking about new jersey, and where did I say that rents in Houston were as bad as nyc?


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1i4pl wrote

  1. Northern NJ and NYC are in the same housing market. People living in NYC move here all the time (not to mention other states). It's because NYC doesn't build nearly enough for their population.

  2. You disagreed with the statement that "housing is significantly more affordable relative to local incomes in places like Houston" and implied you have to go to Katy to find rent below 2k, which is just completely false and easily disproven with a quick trip to Zillow. Literally yesterday I considered moving to Houston for much cheaper housing prices.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je1s2t4 wrote

You can find plenty of places in the heights for less than 2k, too.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1wxqf wrote

The median 1 bed in the heights on Hotpads is 1850, cheapest is 1500.

In Houston the median is 1350 and you can easily find listings for 900-1100 in a walkable area like Montrose. Need to pay 1.5x the price to live in the Heights


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je1z152 wrote

Which is about the relation between the respective area median income


objectimpermanence t1_je1dwpj wrote

Your $200/month (wtf?) apartment was definitely more of an exception than a rule. Marketwide, rents there haven’t gone up anywhere close to 10x since 2006.

Prices have been going up in Houston, but not nearly as much as they have been in the NYC metro area.

A solidly middle class family earning <$100k in Houston can still afford to own or rent a decent home in a decent neighborhood. Good luck doing that in most other coastal cities where NIMBYs rule the roost.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je1fkzg wrote

That's because Harris County is four times the size of NYC. You can find a decently affordable home out in Paterson, too.


objectimpermanence t1_je1o8nc wrote

Paterson is not affordable relative to local incomes. Median household income in Paterson is only $48k, which is less than it is in Houston.

Open up Zillow and you will find very few habitable homes on the market in Paterson for under $300k.


LoneStarTallBoi t1_je1rp2j wrote

And south park and Lawndale are also not affordable, relative to local household incomes. You can make a statistic do whatever you want.


Ilanaspax t1_je0tenb wrote

We should find out if their Mayor also did an entire ad campaign begging developers to build and see how much we have in common!


objectimpermanence t1_je0xfzi wrote


No developer is making a decision to a build a multi-million dollar building based on a cheesy ad campaign.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1beze wrote

What's insane about that commenter is they keep insisting Fulop is handing out tax breaks when in reality he eliminated that practice. Just absolutely devoid of any touch with reality.


Ilanaspax t1_je1odxu wrote

sound out the words slowly and you might get to the part where I said “by the city at the time”


Ilanaspax t1_je0zgn7 wrote

ah so we agree that the tax abatements being handed out like candy by the city at the time were completely unnecessary?

If only Fulop had known ahead of time that trying to make JC enticing to transplants was going to create an alleged housing shortage that could only be solved by building more luxury rentals with insane rent increases every year.

I’m sure he had no idea 🥹…but I’m sure he’s pleased with his multiple home renovations by Dixon.


paul-e-walnts t1_je1r171 wrote

What’s insane to me is that people expect the city on the other side of the Hudson from Manhattan to somehow not attract people to live here.

What is the alternative to accommodating demand for housing, Keep JC as shitty as possible to make it unappealing for everyone?


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1zpp3 wrote

That is an actual "solution" people always bring up. "Fire your gun, that'll sure keep them away!"

These people have clearly never heard the countless stories of people making 100k+ in Brooklyn who are all like "yeah when I moved out here I heard gunshots all the time." If they can't afford the housing closer to their job they'll come here whether we like it or not, can either build new housing for them or let them take over existing housing.


Ilanaspax t1_je2dpr1 wrote

It is insane they needed to make an ad campaign when NYC is right there. Kind of makes you wonder why they did it doesn’t it?

So crazy how our only solution to the housing crisis is making it so only rich transplants can afford to live here and existing residents relocate and enjoy none of the “improvements”.


paul-e-walnts t1_je2jgt4 wrote

You think an ad campaign got people to move here? Can you show me this ad campaign?


Ilanaspax t1_jef4p61 wrote

The sole reason? No. Do I believe they deliberately courted high income folks to price out working class residents?Absolutely and it was extremely transparent at the time.

City spent 1.2 million on the ad campaign in 2014 after giving out tax abatements for luxury high rises. It’s SO weird how 10 years later there isn’t enough affordable housing and the only solution is more luxury rentals 🤔


SpringInternational5 t1_je0o4wr wrote

property taxes are bs, as are crazy high rent increases. Landlords should work with tenants on this issue.


jersey-city-park t1_je13vpb wrote

Most landlords are going to pass the increase to the cost to the tenant. Imagine not only having to pay 30% increase in property tax, but getting fucked with interest on your mortgage


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1753q wrote

Mortgage interest is deductible and also how would they get fucked by interest in the first place? We've had rates at near zero for years now. The interest of which is also included in the rent payment.

Most landlords are living off their tenants with the sole reason that they were lucky to have capital.


objectimpermanence t1_je2uvhi wrote

> Mortgage interest is deductible and also how would they get fucked by interest in the first place?

Just because mortgage interest is deductible doesn’t mean it it’s a cost that doesn’t matter. There are plenty of limitations on the deduction and it’s not a dollar for dollar reduction in tax liability.

Also, multi-family properties aren’t always financed with fixed rate debt. Those with floating rate debt are already feeling the pinch. And some fixed rate debt has a term as short as 5 or 10 years, which means that a decent percentage of borrowers will be forced to refinance every year at dramatically higher rates than their previous financing.

Some will be forced to default. Projects that penciled out with near zero interest rates could easily be underwater in a higher rate environment.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1b6cm wrote

> We've had rates at near zero for years now

What? Avg interest rates for 30 yr right now are 7%. In what world is that "near zero"?


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1gigh wrote

Maybe try going back further than a year, my guy.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1igvi wrote

Okay, how about since 1971, my guy.

The lowest they've ever been in recorded history was during an unprecedented pandemic, and even then the lowest average for 30 year was mid 2s.

Absolutely no one worth their word would categorize this as "near zero for years."


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1ix4u wrote

Jesus Christ, man. It is a fucking phrase.

Its also called refinancing, you schlub.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1jueg wrote

>how dare you hold me accountable for the misinformation I spread & the words that I use

  • you

grow up, pussy.


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1n5cl wrote

Zero interest-rate policy - Wikipedia

Still schlubby. Arguing 2% vs 0% lmao


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1w7ra wrote

You continue to show how uneducated you are, as you post a wikipedia article about Japan's interest-rate policy with a note about what the Fed's position was after The Great Recession. Moreover, you're comparing the fed's rate vs mortgage interest that a consumer exposed to which are not mutually exclusive.

Why don't you speak to any of your successful friends, or anyone who has worked in finance/accounting, if they think a 2% difference in mortgage interest is significant or not :]

Not only a pussy, but also showing signs of a brittle ego. Keep it up!


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1x55a wrote

> and in the United States from December 2008 through December 2015.

Literally in the very first paragraph. Embarassingly schlubby

> conditions with a very low nominal interest rate,

Very low nominal interest rate. C'mon schlub.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1xpc0 wrote

Explain to me why you think the central bank's rate is the same as what a mortgage rate is


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1y2uk wrote

Where did I say they were the same?


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je1yp3z wrote

> Mortgage interest is deductible and also how would they get fucked by interest in the first place? We've had rates at near zero for years now.

English is hard for you, huh?

In a conversation where everyone is speaking about mortgage interest rates, and following the very sentence when you call out mortgage interest rates. Colloquially, and properly in the English language, there is a correlation between sentences in one paragraph.

If that wasn't your intention, then you should work on your grammar.

Does all this thinking hurt your whittle brain?


AccountantOfFraud t1_je1zj1q wrote

You know the interest that the Fed sets has an effect on the mortgage rates, right? Very schlubby.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je4ze1f wrote

Yes but it's disingenuous at best to relate the interest rates the fed sets to what a consumer's mortgage interest rate actively is.

Your comment was that [mortgage] rates have been near zero for years now, which is objectively wrong. Show me any consumers who have a near zero mortgage interest rate.

Honestly, you kind of come off as someone with a mental disorder or some level of autism so I'm not continue to make fun of you.

How brittle you are makes it too easy.


AccountantOfFraud t1_je520i1 wrote

Dawg, it is literally tied. You are arguing semantics, which is super schlubby.


Informal_Bat_722 t1_je5aqh0 wrote

Something being tied =/= something being mutually exclusive.

Your statement is objectively wrong, I don't know how else to say this.

Have a modicum of self-respect.


thebruns t1_je11llz wrote

Dont most of the large buildings have 30 year tax exemptions?


jersey-city-park t1_je13dls wrote

Yes and no. Long story short JC hasnt given out a tax abatement since 2016, terminated some abatements agreements in 2020, and most vary in length from 5 years to 30


el_tigrox t1_je14ydt wrote

Some claim it, others have it. A lot of the newer buildings don’t have tax abatements partly because Fulop and others worked to stop the practice in some parts of the city.

All I know is Equity Residential has been caught lying about Portside Towers and they continue to be antagonistic to anyone that questions them in their buildings.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1bqvp wrote

What is this? A pair of comments with actual facts about the city tax abatement program instead of randomly generated nonsense? Mind blown


el_tigrox t1_je1cgdx wrote

Human checking in! You can actually look at tax abatement data and information here - it's a couple years old, but will give you a good look at what's out there:


So if your building claims that they are raising because taxes went up - double check here to make sure that's true!


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1cmh4 wrote

The "taxes" excuse is the laziest one the apologists have. For some reason they never seem to explain why landlords in places the taxes didn't go up also raised rents.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_je1i33o wrote

Don’t forget labor. Minimum wage is going up, and there’s a shortage of labor in pretty much all blue collar jobs.

Labor costs for a typical building are way outpacing inflation right now. From door staff to plumbers.


xTheShrike t1_je0jo88 wrote

Didn't most property taxes go up 25% recently?


thebruns t1_je11gmu wrote

Dont most of the large buildings have 30 year tax exemptions?


BillyCrocker72 t1_je1advg wrote

But even if large buildings have exemptions, landlords who do not would still affect the market by passing their property taxes increases to rent. Collectively owing a property in Jersey City became more expensive regardless if some had or had not exemptions.

I live in my property in JC (32% tax increase btw), but if I was renting it out, I would surely pass these costs to my tenant. The aggregate effect of people doing the same would without a question put pressure on rent, even of tax abated properties


Miringanes t1_je14rqp wrote

Not in the way you’re thinking. They make payments, mostly to the municipality.


thebruns t1_je1e0l5 wrote

Did those payments go up 25%?


Miringanes t1_je2lkkd wrote

Not sure, they aren’t necessarily fixed, and sometimes they are even more than what the tax rate is but a developer might lock into them because it’s a known rather than a variable like a tax would be.

So in theory, yes, they could’ve went up, but also they could’ve been at a higher tax rate than what the average person was paying all along and now there is rate parity.


DPedia t1_je16fp3 wrote

Plus the additional $25-per-unit monthly "solid waste" fee on our water bills that definitely was not a tax increase, no sir.

Nobody needs to be shedding any tears for landlords, but the cost of everything is rising.


Byzantium-1204 t1_je0pcvn wrote

No there were two huge increases o e due to BOE and another due to the city budget. Each increase were around 30 percent


xTheShrike t1_je0ruwf wrote

My property taxes went up 25% last quarter......


Ilanaspax t1_je0r6ot wrote

Don’t forget about the 10 million JC lost because our city council approved the budget too late :)


ezmolaw t1_je1714c wrote

Don’t many of the lux high rises have 10+ year abatements? I imagine the mom & pop landlord feels the rise in property taxes, inflation etc way more. Too bad much of the housing now is new corporate owned/rented units. Once those abatements go in those high rises I imagine rents to skyrocket even more.


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1c0u4 wrote

Here's a tip: your "mom and pop landlord" is also raising rents and already was well before the recent property tax increase. Look at old small buildings on StreetEasy. Look at the rent history. Bonus points for looking at NYC units where no such tax hike occurred yet the rent went up all the same.


jcnative t1_je3cg88 wrote

No, the city stopped abatements to downtown maybe 7-10 years ago. Most of the abatements downtown are expiring the next few years, with some exceptions like Crystal Point. There used to be a good map here but doesn't work any more Mapping Abatements in Jersey City – Civic Parent - that has links to spreadsheets with the data incl expiry dates.


akowz t1_je478wt wrote

I dont think this is true. Your reference was posted in 2015, so thats why you wouldn't have any of the newer buildings. But jersey city has been granting abatements since then and many run for decades from now. Examples below:

(A 2022 construction project loses its previously-granted 20 year abatement after inactivity)

(Tax abatement until 2040 for Crystal Point)

(The new Haus25 has an abatement until 2047)


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_je1i8b8 wrote

Abatements are logarithmic. The bulls of the abatement is in the first several years then there’s a long tail.


CryptographerPale595 t1_je13zkr wrote

90 Columbus had a bunch of dif renewal options and the smallest increase was 9%. I thought that was bad but 20-30 is ridiculous


smrb t1_jegslto wrote

yeah im trying to negotiate with them right now. they wont even waive the amenity fee


exgaint t1_je1xia8 wrote

This will be my 3rd year living near grove st. rent went from 3127 -> 3850 -> 4800


itgtg313 t1_je2xq5i wrote

Is it a problem for you? If yes, why are you still living there then, there are other options much below your current rent.


outcome--independent t1_je3343l wrote

Sometimes it's not easy to pick up and go. I'm sure they'll do what's best for them.


mitsulang t1_je4vfkf wrote

I'm guilty of the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" mentality, when it comes to many things. I have to check myself often, because you're right, it's not always easy to just uproot and go elsewhere (job, home, etc). It can be a real financial, mental, and physical problem.


PizzaPoopFuck t1_je36r96 wrote

When I was a kid in Hoboken they would just burn the building down at 3:00 am with your family inside. Good times.


PostPostMinimalist t1_je1aphe wrote

Challenge: Find a single thread containing the word “rent” that also doesn’t contain either “soar” or “skyrocket”


K04free t1_je1elqi wrote

If rent is too high in Jersey city or Hoboken, try moving to Manhattan.


planet-doom t1_je40rz5 wrote

Have you tried? Cause Jersey City is worse than most neighbors in neighborhoods in Nyc now


K04free t1_je4tftu wrote

I moved from a 2 bed, 2 bath 1100 square foot apartment in Dumbo. Rent was going to be $5400 if I renewed and the building had 0 amenities.

I got a similar apartment in JC for $1000 less per month plus tax savings. My girlfriend and I were both able to cancel our equinox memberships ($180 a month) as well. Worked out to approximately $2000 month saving between the two of us. We signed for 2 years


planet-doom t1_je6ppe2 wrote

i mean, it’s dumbo. One of the most expensive neighborhoods in Nyc. Looking at mid market apartments between Jersey and UES or UWS or further away in Brooklyn all shows comparable number now. This wasn’t the case 4 years ago


K04free t1_je6tsf9 wrote

Point I’m getting at for modern apartment layouts (2 bed, 2 bath, open kitchen, washer + dryer, amenity building), JC is still far cheaper.

If the layout and features don’t matter as much, you could probably find something cheaper but not comparable in NYC. Thing is lots of the far away points in Brooklyn and upper Manhattan are further away from downtown JC


m3ssinaround t1_je2h878 wrote

My rental property increased in value so the taxes went up, because the value went up it now costs more to insure the property. Also because the value of the property increased the HOA increased. I did some math and passed the difference onto my tenant. I showed him the numbers and told him it is what it is, I'm not making anymore money. The problem is some landlords will add a few numbers so they can make more.


oatmealparty t1_je1hn8f wrote

Are there any precedent for what is an unconscionable rent increase?


Inevitable-Exam-3208 t1_je15za0 wrote

Didn't Solomon say high rests were caused by Airbnb?? Now that there's barely any left should rents be going down.... according to him?


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1cdrm wrote

The goalposts will always move. They won't settle until it's illegal to build anything. Then the rich people from Brooklyn will buy everything up instead of moving into new construction, and they'll still be pretending restricting supply works.


mad_dog_94 OP t1_je1fbhu wrote

restricting supply doesnt work, but neither does entrusting basically all new construction to giant companies who definitely are for sure 100% legitimate and above board. it also doesnt help that the budget for the city is completely mismanaged


JeromePowellAdmirer t1_je1ilri wrote

Of course we shouldn't entrust all new construction to giant companies.

That's just another form of restricted supply.

Missing middle housing should be legalized (and now is legalized across good portions of the city, and a number of small projects have been approved).

Why aren't those affordable, you ask? Because even small local developers play by supply and demand. Joe from down the street does not have any special interest in giving you a sweet deal. Plus they have to pay high land costs even if their construction winds up cheaper and they don't have amenities.

It's also the same principle behind new cars not being affordable while used cars are, you need to make enough new stuff that people start moving out of the old ones, thus lowering the price.


mad_dog_94 OP t1_je1erwn wrote

airbnb didnt help, but not for the reasons we think. if it was actually a bunch of people that just rented out their space i wouldnt care, but it was megacorps buying up massive amounts of properties. also theyre always gonna move the goalpoasts so there isnt gonna be a win ever


wolfiex0 t1_je38a0i wrote

Went from $2800 to being offered $3600 for lease renewal after being in the same place for 3 years. Laughable. We’re leaving!


DeepFriedAsses t1_je53p4t wrote

I checked rents the other day as well as like 3 months ago and there was at least a $500 average increase


MrHarryPits t1_je27cei wrote

where can we check which buildings are rent controlled?


VengefulMigit t1_je6yfwt wrote

In Hoboken, if the building is older than 30 yrs old, its subject to rent control. The increase is indexed to the CPI rate/inflation from 3 months prior to the end of a lease. Assuming there wasn't some type of exemption filed & approved by town hall.