Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.