Submitted by fluffykintail t3_11sqx12 in nyc
ejpusa t1_jcfepqv wrote
There are over 80,000 EMPTY apartments in NYC. My landlord bought out my old rental, sealed it up. For years now, has lost over $300,000 in rental income.
They just don’t care. Waiting for the laws to change.
NYC is the center of the world. To get a $700 a month studio is unrealistic. But that seems like a reality to posters on my Facebook feed. Anything more than that? Blame Airbnb.
Just don’t think that’s going to happen.
tiregroove t1_jcffvyk wrote
>For years now, has lost over $300,000 in rental income.
Imagine being a landlord *so wealthy* that you can afford to 'lose' this much money.
Please. Don't cry for these landlords, they're fucking scum trying to manipulate the market.
09-24-11 t1_jcfgi2p wrote
Even worse these properties are likely LLCs and they’re writing them off as business expense losses come tax time.
ChornWork2 t1_jcftvfg wrote
What do you mean? Sure, may result in a loss for the unit since zero revenue but some expenses means a loss. But all they can do with that is offset tax they may have from profit elsewhere. Still a negative for them.
JuniorAct7 t1_jcg0gly wrote
This is correct. They can only deduct rental losses against other passive income. It will lower their taxable income, but almost certainly not enough to offset the lost revenue.
kiklion t1_jcg7h5l wrote
It’s considered passive income and there is a cap on how much of that loss can pass through to offset your personal income.
Otherwise it just grows as a prior loss and the expenses are used to offset future revenue, but that only happens if they actually rent out the unit.
theageofnow t1_jcihh3n wrote
LLCs are pass-through entities, if the landlord owned the building as a direct partnership or in their own name (no incorporation), it would not affect their tax status or rate.
monkeysandmicrowaves t1_jcg5hb7 wrote
Are they able to deduct the market value of the rental, or just the taxes and maintenance costs? If it's the former, I think we've identified a big part of the problem.
theageofnow t1_jcihm5r wrote
You can’t deduct money you don’t earn. It’s not writing off an unpaid invoice using the accrual method. You can’t invoice a tenants that’s not there.
DepletedMitochondria t1_jcfrob4 wrote
I was just going to say
tsgram t1_jcfg8o0 wrote
Imagine having so much money that you can but extra of a vital resource (housing) and lend it out at a huge profit. It’s like back in the 1800s when some wealthy dick would buy up all the staple food in the port and gouge everyone who needed to eat on resell. Fuck landlords.
the_lamou t1_jcfjymi wrote
I mean, asshole landlords aside, who else would you rent apartments from? And if you say "everyone just buys their own," well... that's a really good idea for screwing over recent immigrants and the unbanked who can't qualify for a mortgage, plus all the petite that wouldn't be able to afford to buy even it prices fell by half.
99hoglagoons t1_jcfp49r wrote
Not-for profit housing and non-market housing is a thing that is utilized across the world to various degrees of success. This is not to be confused with subsidized social housing (like NYCHA).
We just lack the imagination here to even ask the right questions. Asshole landlords or ownership. Both of these are rooted in for-profit financial transactions. There are a lot of people financially vested in you believing these are the only options.
the_lamou t1_jcfu5cv wrote
Not-for profit housing and non-market housing is a thing, but the degrees of success it's used to across the world are "low." Every major city around the world is currently experiencing an affordability crisis (except Tokyo and some other large Japanese cities, but that's a while separate thing.) No one's got it worked out yet.
Personally, I would prefer that rather than handing control of all housing units to the people who did such a great job with the projects, we just fix our renting rules to be more equitable. Things like income-based rent regulations, first-come/first-served requirements in leasing, better tenant protections and maintenance requirements, more rent stabilization with fewer loopholes, limits on number of rental units owned, etc.
From a public policy perspective, I would much rather see a system that creates thousands of small landlords who have essentially built themselves a job than have that money to what would have to be a massive new program.
99hoglagoons t1_jcfzct9 wrote
Oh yeah. I was just putting the not-for-profit concept out there. Even if implemented today at a large scale, it would take decades to see any meaningful results. And it's not happening anyways.
> we just fix our renting rules to be more equitable.
This part is going to continue to be a mess. The 2018 IAI reform was well meaning and intended to prevent landlords from evicting long term tenants in order to deregulate units or just significantly jack up prices through various improvement clauses. Or as I call it: "The great dishwasher revolution of 2010-2018". I didn't know a single person who had a dishwasher in NYC prior to that time period, man.
End result of that reform? Landlords are hoarding apartments they deem unprofitable and are waiting for regulatory winds to change. You could throw in clauses to prevent this, but hand of capitalism is insatiable. They keep finding different ways to circumvent. Combine units to deregulate is the latest and greatest. That empty unit is waiting for an adjacent unit to become vacant so they can go to work.
> Every major city around the world is currently experiencing an affordability crisis
Direct result of almost zero interest loans that have turned real estate into a wealth hedging tool. The recent uptick in interest rates is the best thing that could happen to affordability, but even that will take a decade plus to play out, and most likely it will not be allowed to play out. Interest rates will drop to near zero again just in time for corporations to buy out the next round of foreclosures.
We've been through all of this before.
[deleted] t1_jcg0uu5 wrote
[deleted]
99hoglagoons t1_jcg1m3i wrote
> We live in a free market my friend.
I don't know where to even begin with this absolutist statement. NYC housing market is a pasta bowl of regulated and unregulated rules and regulations. Like, anyone living here should at least know the basics.
Are you typing this from Florida?
[deleted] t1_jcgmdtd wrote
[deleted]
99hoglagoons t1_jcgq1ui wrote
I own in the city. Not looking for a handout. But I also rented here for very long time and have sympathy for renters who have to deal with negligent landlords who will fuck you over by denying basic services or plain force you out in name of chasing the profits. Been there.
Places where not-for-profit housing exists, you are basically paying a COOP fee instead of rent, and that fee covers cost of all operating expenses. Underlying mortgage, common utilities, maintenance, etc. No private profit is levied on top of that. Over the years such housing becomes really inexpensive. This is not some commie plot to nationalize housing. Variations of this have existed for a century in NYC. For the last 2 decades+ we have been balls deep into "private for profit developers" will magically make housing more affordable. Not happening. Not here, or anywhere else that took this neoliberal approach.
columbo928s4 t1_jche1j4 wrote
no, actually we don't. we live in a mixed market economy
n3vd0g t1_jcfkhbc wrote
Government.
Edit: for the people who truly believe that current state of the rental market isn’t already the dystopian hellscape they believe gov owned housing would be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE Edit: Also, Adam Smith has some great words on the subject https://www.reddit.com/r/adamsmith/comments/zche7/ysk_adam_smith_spoke_of_landlords_as_cruel/
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcg6ybu wrote
NYC invests in the "right to shelter" to the tune of 5k per bed per month.
At those price levels, swimming pool amenities are possible even in Manhattan...
filenotfounderror t1_jcfrnpf wrote
imagine how fucked in the head you would have to be to think "the government owns all the rental housing" isnt some dystopian nightmare 10x worse than whatever already exists.
n3vd0g t1_jcfv2mn wrote
Youve clearly never heard of Austria 🙄
filenotfounderror t1_jcfx5qn wrote
i dont know what that means.
-
The government doesn't own all the rental property in Austria, though im sure it s subject to local laws.
-
The Austrian Government has nothing to do with the US government. I am not familiar with Austrian politics, but the US govt is almost entirely dysfunctional at every level, usually on purpose, for a variety of reasons.
-
i imagine the Austrian housing market in vastly different from the US housing market
-
Regulating the entire rental market in the US in such a fashion would probably destroy billions, probably trillions of dollars in wealth for mostly retired Americans because housing prices would instantly crater. So on top of being entirely politically unfeasible it also just bad policy. All your doing is stealing for one person to give to another.
n3vd0g t1_jcga0at wrote
-
Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html Not suggesting all, but would like a substantial amount.
-
Excuses. No reason we can’t work for a better government
-
Yeah in that it regulates stock to maintain affordability and availability and allows for government ownership of dignified low income housing
-
You really think the current rental prices aren’t already theft from one generation to another? Regardless, this is what social security is supposed to be for. We shouldn’t be encouraging owning rental properties as a means to retirement. Retirement should be a guaranteed right, but not like this. Regardless, this is unsustainable and I’m not going to cry over lost profits since society would still be for the better. Like come on man
JX_JR t1_jchuqus wrote
New York's city government owns and manages 178,684 units, about 6% of the housing stock. They manage it exceptionally poorly, nobody wants to live there, and they are routinely sued for their inability to keep units in repair and supplied with heat and hot water.
[deleted] t1_jchuo4v wrote
[deleted]
drpvn t1_jcflhjl wrote
This is some dystopian shit.
n3vd0g t1_jcfv63q wrote
Yeah, Austria is soooo dystopian
the_lamou t1_jcfxrt0 wrote
Most of Austria's social housing stock isn't owned by the government, but rather by private companies who operate a landlords within a tightly regulated system. It's no different than NYC's affordable housing lottery, albeit with a larger percentage of new units being allocated and better regulation. But it's not remotely accurate to say "the government owns the housing." Private landlords own the housing. They just lease it under the government's watch.
n3vd0g t1_jcg9358 wrote
> Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html
Yet still a substantial amount is owned by the government and the program is wildly successful. It is very very different.
the_lamou t1_jcgchn9 wrote
It's about half of all subsidized units, and has been in major drawdown mode for a while, shifting more units from government-owned to private-owned-but-regulated.
Their biggest advantage when it comes to housing prices is the ability to grow outwards. The city is essentially surrounded entirely by farmland, and as their population grew they were able to easily build new developments on what was formerly empty fields on the outskirts of the city. This is where a lot of the subsidized units come from - relatively recent new development undertaken as a public/private partnership.
NYC is not only incredibly densely populated (about 3x Vienna) but that population density extends out throughout the immediate metro area. For NYC to replicate it would require either deploying large swaths of small homes in the outer borroughs and converting them to midrises (which will cost billions upon billions of dollars and piss off a ton of long-time New Yorkers,) OR start building city-subsidized units in Duchess County and out near Dover, NJ.
n3vd0g t1_jcgm66t wrote
> It's about half of all subsidized units, and has been in major drawdown mode for a while, shifting more units from government-owned to private-owned-but-regulated.
If this is true, then it doesn't seem to be doing them any favors. Housing prices are rising sharply as a result. https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Austria/Price-History
> NYC is not only incredibly densely populated (about 3x Vienna) but that population density extends out throughout the immediate metro area. For NYC to replicate it would require either deploying large swaths of small homes in the outer borroughs and converting them to midrises (which will cost billions upon billions of dollars and piss off a ton of long-time New Yorkers,)
So just do nothing then? That's your solution? Our country is in crisis and all we seem to do is virtue signal about homelessness while only actually caring about landowners. Do you know how much we spent on the Iraq war alone? Billions upon billions is quite literally nothing to the American government and that money would be cycled into people's pockets as people would be employed during this process to build these things.
the_lamou t1_jcgyrqt wrote
>Housing prices are rising sharply
Housing prices are rising sharply everywhere because we literally cannot keep up with demand. What do you want the government to do about that? Forcibly seize land and force people to build houses on it? Or would you rather we sterilize half the population to prevent demand growth?
Home prices generally go up over time, if for no other reason than inflation goes up over time, and there's absolutely no way to stop that short of extremely unpleasant solutions.
>So just do nothing then? That's your solution?
No, it's not. I've outlined several solutions throughout this thread. Some are temporary stop-gaps. Others are actual solutions. But the only long-term solution is to build more housing (probably outside the city) and increase wages. That's it. It's not magic, and it's the only thing that'll really work. Supplement that with subsidization for people incapable of working, and you're done. BUT that might mean that you live in Poughkeepsie and have an hour and 45 minute commute into the city. Which, frankly, you can already do.
>Do you know how much we spent on the Iraq war alone?
Yeah. About two trillion dollars direct by the federal government. What I don't understand is how you think federal spending has any bearing on state and city spending.
But even assuming that this comparison made sense, let's say you wanted to build some apartments in NYC. We'll assume that the average zoning district in NYC is R6, and we use the smallest possible minimum lot size as a proxy for average apartment land cost. So that's 1,700 square feet, of which at least 40% has to be open space, leaving us with a building of 1020 square feet. That allows you to build about 1.5 units of housing per zoning regulations at a land cost of about $78,000 per unit.
NYC is (conservatively) short 1,000,000 units. That's about $8 billion JUST in land cost. Even if we upzone like crazy, and can cut that in half, we're talking $4 billion in current land cost. And if the city actually tried to do this, the land cost would go up significantly due to supply and demand pressure.
The actual building is going to cost about $350 per square foot. At 1.5 units per 1020 square feet, we're talking about an extra $240,000 per unit. So now we're at $316,000 in costs per unit, or 1/3rd of a trillion dollars, and that's being extremely conservative. Even if you assume the federal government pays for all or part of it, that solves one small problem in one small corner of the country while doing nothing to address everywhere else. And if you take this model and sissy it throughout the US, that $300 billion turns into $30 trillion easy, which is about double the annual US federal budget.
Plus, your plan requires us to forcibly kick people out of their family homes to make room for other people, which is a truly shitty thing to do.
One possible way around this is a combination of the Austrian system with the Athenian antiparochi system: the city partners with developers to go to low-density homeowners and say "you give us your land to develop, we build multifamily housing on it, in return you get a couple of units in the new building to do with what you want, some of the units are market rate, and half are subsidized housing, and we'll also upzone the property to make sure the developer has enough profit motive to handle the building." Combine that with a gradual upzoning of neighborhoods from the center out and within a decade or two, we might get to a point where supply meets demand.
In the meantime, we should continue fighting for a living wage. And, if you want cheap rent, you may just have to live outside the city, because unfortunately there are not enough units for everyone that wants one, and the only fair way of dividing resources when demand exceeds supply is to price some people out. Because no matter how good it may feel, hysterics on Reddit don't actually stove anything.
n3vd0g t1_jch17z5 wrote
> Because no matter how good it may feel, hysterics on Reddit don't actually stove anything.
Lol hysterics? So rude jfc
> Housing prices are rising sharply everywhere because we literally cannot keep up with demand. What do you want the government to do about that? Forcibly seize land and force people to build houses on it? Or would you rather we sterilize half the population to prevent demand growth? Home prices generally go up over time, if for no other reason than inflation goes up over time, and there's absolutely no way to stop that short of extremely unpleasant solutions.
First off, you're gonna claim hysterics while putting that genocide straw man on me? ok. Second, yeah, I have no problem with seizing land that people are just sitting on. It's called eminent domain and I support it when necessary. inb4 "it's been abused in the past"
> Plus, your plan requires us to forcibly kick people out of their family homes to make room for other people, which is a truly shitty thing to do.
When did I ever say I'm kicking families out. Since when is a giant landlord that owns multiple buildings in nyc a "single family"? Again, straw man. It's naive to think this doesn't happen already anyways. It happens by landlords on a scale that is plainly ridiculous. And many times, the landlords don't even do substantional renovations or add units. They paint over shit, fix a few cabinets, add some appliances and hike the rent up by another grand a month.
> Yeah. About two trillion dollars direct by the federal government. What I don't understand is how you think federal spending has any bearing on state and city spending.
You do realize that part of a state's budget comes directly from federal allocations too, correct? You know how government works right? Like, not all infrastructure spending in a state is solely financed by that state.
I mean, whatever man. It's not like either of us will get our way anyways
the_lamou t1_jch3dag wrote
>First off, you're gonna claim hysterics while putting that genocide straw man on me? ok.
Check your sarcasm detector, buddy.
​
>Second, yeah, I have no problem with seizing land that people are just sitting on
Well, if by "just sitting on" you mean "living in with their families," and you're still ok with it, that's a pretty shitty attitude. Not to get all hyperbolic on you or anything, but maybe we shouldn't endorse forcibly seizing people's family land given this country's history.
​
>When did I ever say I'm kicking families out. Since when is a giant landlord that owns multiple buildings in nyc a "single family"?
You didn't say that, but nevertheless that's what it's going to take. Why would we seize a giant landlord's multiple densely-zoned buildings? Those are already providing plenty of housing, and demolishing them isn't likely to increase density in any meaningful fashion.
No, the only way to get the city to have enough residential units is to go out to Queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx, go to the neighborhoods which are currently single-family, duplex, and triplex homes, demolish every single one of them, and replace them with 4+ story 12+ unit housing. I know you're dead set on making this entirely an "ooga booga big landlord" problem, but it isn't. Big landlords build big buildings because that's how they maximize returns. The current housing shortage is a SMALL landlord, family-owned small building problem.
​
>It's naive to think this doesn't happen already. It happens by landlords anyways on a scale that is plainly ridiculous.
Sorry, WHAT happens? You need to provide a little more clarity, because the "it" here can refer to a number of different things.
​
>And many times, the landlords don't even do substantional renovations or add units. They paint over shit, fix a few cabinets, add some appliances and hike the rent up by another grand a month.
What do renovations have to do with substantial new development? You're going all over the place, because I suspect what you want isn't actually affordable housing. What you want is a bright, spacious, freshly-renovated apartment with all the latest amenities, in a cool neighborhood, for 1/10th market rate.
​
>You do realize that part of a state's budget comes directly from federal allocations too, correct? You know how government works right? Like, not all infrastructure spending in a state is solely financed by that state.
Yes, I actually am very well of where infrastructure spending comes from. Given that I actually showed you the math, which you seem to not have understood in the least, I would say I likely understand it a lit better than you do. For example, I understand that in FY2019 (the last year before shit hit the fan,) the federal government provided about $711 billion dollars in grants to states. Which would pay for a massive upzoning and new construction project in two major cities, while leaving zero federal dollars for any other state programs. You ready to tell people they're going to have to give up their Medicaid so that you can have a shiny, new apartment?
drpvn t1_jcfxit9 wrote
Oh shit I was in Vienna once and it was really pretty although insanely expensive and a random guy on Reddit just suggested that the Austrian government acts as a landlord so I guess I have no choice but to agree that landlords should be banned
n3vd0g t1_jcg95n0 wrote
Vienna’s city government owns and manages 220,000 housing units, which represent about 25 percent of the city’s housing stock. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html
drpvn t1_jcgb2d5 wrote
Well there it is, I am now forced to admit that landlords should be made illegal.
What’s the first step? Passing legislation that requires all landlords to either stop renting property or turn over their property to the state?
n3vd0g t1_jcgn9d9 wrote
I like what Adam Smith has to say on the subject https://www.reddit.com/r/adamsmith/comments/zche7/ysk_adam_smith_spoke_of_landlords_as_cruel/
drpvn t1_jcgvjaj wrote
Seriously, what’s the first step? Does the legislature need to pass a law that requires all landlords to either stop renting property or turn over their property to the state?
tsgram t1_jcfn6vd wrote
Maybe landlords in a less predatory way, or a govt agency (yea….. I know that would be super corrupt in this country), or maybe if we hit the reset button on housing economics we don’t also need banks leeching people’s money to the extent they do because housing becomes more affordable.
the_lamou t1_jcfsg6c wrote
Right, so the issue isn't "landlords," per se. The issue is predatory behavior and unaffordable rents. Banning landlords might solve the predatory behavior issue (although, considering the number of scandals NYC's affordable housing lottery has had, I wouldn't be quite so sure.) But it definitely wouldn't solve the affordability crisis, because there are simply not enough units for everyone that wants one, and the prices that people think are "affordable" are hilariously low. Like, not remotely realistic virtually anywhere in the country, let alone in the unofficial capital of the world.
As for banks leeching money, I genuinely don't know what you mean. Are you saying you should be able to get a long-term loan without paying interest?
DepletedMitochondria t1_jcfrroa wrote
I mean that's how the original robber barons made their money, they were sitting on natural monopolies in rail, oil, and steel. Bribed the government to give them the contracts
[deleted] t1_jcfp7tu wrote
[deleted]
one_pierog t1_jcftu7g wrote
Student housing is extremely easy to address with university-owned options, which has the bonus of making things a hell of a lot easier. Dorms are already very common at the sort of schools one would attend from across the country.
MarbleFox_ t1_jcgcr4k wrote
> Imagine owning a home, getting sent on military deployment and that home just sitting empty rather than it be legal to rent it out while away.
I’m not sure I see the problem here. Besides, how many active military personnel without families also own homes?
> Imagine your children are accepted to a great college far away but they can’t go because you can’t afford to buy a second home near that college.
No one said universities can’t have dorms.
> The problem is the shortage of housing units.
The shortage of housing units is certainly a problem, but the price inflation landlording necessarily creates is also a major problem.
Double-Ad4986 t1_jcgc7qn wrote
exactly. it should be illegal to have these apt's not be used here. we should write legislation that if a building or unit stay unoccupied for more than 2 yrs then it's either able to get bought out or it's fined heavily for every single month that it's continued to be unoccupied for.
ChornWork2 t1_jcfti73 wrote
There is non-zero cost to dealing with a renter. If a landlord is refusing to rent out a price controlled unit, it is telling about how far off from market that price is at.
Enduring price controls are simply bad policy. All for measures that give renters more price protections beyond the initial lease term, but they shouldn't be perpetual. E.g., tenant has right to three renewals beyond current term of lease with rent increase capped at X%.
survive_los_angeles t1_jcftrq7 wrote
some of them have some looooooooooooong money. shit that family that owned dumbo had all that property for decades and decades before dumbo got developed. no skin off their nose to wait a generation or two for an area to develop or squeeze a market to higher rents --
Getoutofthekitchenn t1_jchsls6 wrote
I don't think anyone is "crying for these landlords"
I also don't think that sweeping generalizations about what makes a landlord are beneficial to anyone, particularly the thousands of duplex, 3 and 4 family owned homes in and around the city. Being a landlord does not by default make someone rich, nor does it make them shitty.
This narrative has been beat to death and is really hurting small landlords who are one non paying tenant away from mortgage default. Or using this as their retirement income..
ejpusa t1_jcfgy1z wrote
Yes and no. They’re developers. They take financial risk to resurrect neighborhoods. Remember you DID NOT go past Ave A in the early 80s, you just didn’t do that.
Dumbo? Deserted.
Williamsburg? Used to see cars there on fire at 3 AM. Not anymore.
Yes, we all hate developers, some go bankrupt, others build Industry City.
Franklin Avenue, way back when, I saw bodies in the street, another shooting, going to the Deli. Now? It’s hipster central.
A 2 edge sword awaits as they call it.
PS I try to lay low from humans, defer to AI. Much smarter than us. It just is. Life got too complicated, AI seems to do just fine. The more complex and complicated, it loves that kind of stuff. And zero emotional involvement. Not perfect, but sure close.
AI should really take over managing the city. It’s inevitable.
:-)
[deleted] t1_jcfp6jc wrote
[deleted]
ejpusa t1_jcfri3o wrote
We’re an AI startup. It’s crazy time. We have to hide out.
:-)
Decent-Delay5760 t1_jcg70fl wrote
Crypto scam didn’t work out?
ejpusa t1_jcg81pv wrote
Actually BTC Is zooming since December. Did you catch it? Up another $400 today.
The bank collapse was the perfect storm.
> Worldwide Spending on AI-Centric Systems Forecast to Reach $154 Billion in 2023, According to IDC.
hellokitaminx t1_jcfmtcv wrote
Girl what are you talking about lmfao
chale122 t1_jcfz4pz wrote
fuck is wrong with you
ejpusa t1_jcg0zbg wrote
Yes, we’re prototyping AI systems to make city living more manageable. Also healthcare.
The new ChatGPT 4 is mind blowing.
I’ll leave with this quote from the CEO himself:
> Google CEO: A.I. is more important than fire or electricity.
Suggestion? Don’t fight it, learn it. Like today. There is no going back.
chale122 t1_jcg1w24 wrote
bot or ad?
CactusBoyScout t1_jcfnpe0 wrote
500,000 people moved here in one decade while only 100,000 new units were built. Even if every Airbnb and every empty unit returned to long-term renters, we’d still have a housing shortage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_housing_shortage
WikiSummarizerBot t1_jcfnr70 wrote
New York City housing shortage
>For many decades, the New York metropolitan area has suffered from an increasing shortage of housing. As a result, New York City has the second-highest rents of any city in the United States. Shortage has long been usual. World War I and World War II left housing shortages that persisted in peacetime.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
azdak t1_jcgqlul wrote
just because you cant totally eliminate a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things
CactusBoyScout t1_jcgy80t wrote
Yeah I’m just saying let’s focus on the larger issue: the shortage of housing.
The aforementioned vacant units and Airbnb units aren’t nearly as big of a problem as NYC’s chronic under building of housing.
theageofnow t1_jciib84 wrote
The success and profitability of AirBnB is due to the demand for lodging, temporary and permanent, shadowing the small amount of supply. If apartments (and hostels, SROs, and other options) were abundant and plentiful and easy to come by, then far fewer people would be using AirBnBs as temporary housing.
ejpusa t1_jcfomj4 wrote
NYC is very, very, very simple.
If you want the amenities the city provides, you need to make more money.
You can find an apartment upstate for the price of a single dinner in NYC. There’s your option.
So can we can wrap up the conversation. Just head North, to a prison town. Apartments are many.
As my friend from one of those “other cities” is fond of saying: OMG, does every girl look like a super model in NYC? How can you survive this on a daily basis? This is INSANE!
But we did drop him off in the Meat Packing District, may have had something to do with it.
Needless to say, NYC ain’t going to be cheap. The amenities are many.
:-)
CactusBoyScout t1_jcfs9r6 wrote
Telling people to just move elsewhere hasn’t worked so far. Good luck with that strategy.
DutchmanNY t1_jcfx0d4 wrote
It's really the only answer. Everyone can't just live wherever they want. You gotta pay to play. (Unless you're seeking asylum of course)
CactusBoyScout t1_jcfylhm wrote
Unfortunately virtually every major city says the same thing and that’s why this is a problem nationwide. People can’t just all move to Utica where the lackluster economy is the reason for the cheap rent.
Every city/state that saw the slightest influx of people during the pandemic is now saying the same thing: Don’t come here.
It’s not a realistic response to increased demand. Just have to build more housing.
ejpusa t1_jcg1lgn wrote
On Zillow my UES is a sea of rentals. The average income is well into the 6 figures.
People want $700 a month apartment, it’s unrealistic, but it’s their hill to die on for them.
NYC has the greatest amenities in the world, to have that all $0? Just don’t that’s possible. Figure that should average out to about $50 extra a day vs living in Cincinnati.
tonka737 t1_jci9sfy wrote
Wouldn't Dubai have greater amenities?
theageofnow t1_jciifd4 wrote
Upstate towns with prisons probably have higher rents than those that don’t even have any major employer like that
ejpusa t1_jd8539h wrote
Makes sense, but does not work out that way. These communities can be so soul crushing. Rents reflect that. It's really rural America, not many people are rushing to work in maximum security prisons, most people want to work for Apple. Those jobs just don't exist in those communities. There is nothing. Just the prisons.
filenotfounderror t1_jcfr9ik wrote
Thats extremely unlikely. Maybe it could theoretically rent for that it wasnt regulated, but it obviously is, so the actual rent he could collect on the unit is a fraction of that.
Its sealed up because the cost to renovate the unit is likely so much higher than the rent he could legally charge that he would never recoup the cost.
and having someone in the unit that may not even be legally habitable, or just barely habitable, to collect bread crumbs and field 20x service calls a week is not worth the hassle.
He likely bought it with an understanding that the laws likely will change at some point. But he could also be wrong and they might not change, or at least not in a time frame he can take advantage of.
ejpusa t1_jcfry95 wrote
It’s a mega real estate developer, they build skyscrapers. They can wait years until the numbers work out for them. They’re in no rush.
It’s a family thing. They look ahead generations.
My sink gets stopped up? A phone call and a full plumbing crew is at my door, usually in an hour. I got lucky.
;-)
jay5627 t1_jcfwrw4 wrote
How many of the 80k apartments are in liveable shape?
ejpusa t1_jcfzyba wrote
Who knows? My last apartment, now totally sealed up almost 4 years now.
People are freaking out that they want to pay no more than $700 a month for a NYC apartments. Anything else is robbery! And blame it all on Airbnb.
Just think that’s unrealistic.
What is your number? 1 bedroom, UES, awesome neighborhood, pretty much zero issues.
What should be the rent?
jay5627 t1_jcg1m2a wrote
People throw out large numbers to make a point, but a sizeable amount of those units are in really bad shape, and financially not worth it for the owner to fix since they won't be able to recoup the costs because of the rent control/stabilization laws.
People freak out about a lot of things, doesn't make them right. I do think we're mostly aligned, though.
Current market, if it's a walk up, no doorman, around $2500. With amenities, I'd say $3500
sketchingthebook t1_jcizg2l wrote
Honest question from a setting where I cannot easily Google: don’t landlords have some leeway to un-stabilize a vacant apartment?
jay5627 t1_jckbqkn wrote
high rent and high income used to be two big ways they would become unregulated, which is no longer a possibility after the changes in 2019. 421-A abatements would have to expire, or owners would have to combine units to deregulate them. I believe they can also put a lot of money into renovations and then raise the rent a % of the money they put into the reno
ejpusa t1_jcg2thv wrote
I agree, but there are MANY people posting away about real estate that think anything over $700 is INSANITY! And are you on meds?
New Yorkers love to fight about real estate. We’ve been doing it 1640.
;-)
sbenfsonw t1_jcgzelm wrote
$700 will never be realistic, more people will just move over if prices drop to keep demand high enough
theageofnow t1_jcihcfu wrote
There are 3.5 million units of housing, there should be more, so much more that vacancy rises above 10% and rents start to collapse like they did in Fall 2020.
Spirited_Touch6898 t1_jczq289 wrote
The real story, that old rental needs a shit ton of renovations if it cost $700. So after 80k in renovations, you can raise rent $50 to 750$/month of rent. You can invest same 80k in a savings account at 5%, and get half of that income with no risk of a deadbeat tenant, or risk of servicing the apartment, I'm guessing the hitting costs alone cost $100/month. You could also get more $$ investing into the dozens of REITs trading in the stock market. If I was a landlord, I would only rent out those apartments as a favor to somebody I know. Remember how the tenants during covid were braggin on Reddit they were screwing over the landlords, well its payback time. One scumbag, who prolly makes over 100k working an office job, stopped paying his rent "in solidarity" with all the other neighbors who stopped paying rent cause they were laid off.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments