Report: The State of Housing in the Richmond Region 2023

Submitted by opienandm t3_10nez2c in rva

This is the summary report prepared by the Partnership for Affordable Housing. It’s a 247 page PDF which focuses on more recent data and trends. The key takeaways are on the first two pages of content, but it’s still a lot to digest so here’s the TL/DR:

  • The housing market was hot 2020-2022
  • People are moving into the Richmond region
  • There is still significant racial disparity in home ownership
  • The price of the average single family home increased significantly, squeezing out first time homebuyers
  • Rental unit supply has increased slightly, but
  • Rental unit affordability has decreased and
  • Rental unit supply growth has not kept pace with the increase in demand.

Links to housing summaries for each locality are available at the bottom of this page

91

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gowhatyourself t1_j68gx6g wrote

If anyone wants a kind of "on the ground" perspective on housing I did a pretty thorough post about it a little while ago.

https://old.reddit.com/r/rva/comments/101bxgh/rva_real_estate_outlook_2023_behold_a_pale_gray/

Something I don't usually go into because there really is no easy way to talk about it is the racial disparity issue mentioned in the OP. There are a number of reasons why this is a problem outside of my bubble in real estate, but there are also some reasons for why this is a problem within the industry. I have personally dealt with agents who expressed some pretty racist shit thinking that they were safe to talk that way since I'm a white realtor. Lots of agents saying things like "you know how THOSE people are". I've seen black clients of mine straight up ignored when we go to an open house or new home model. I've heard landlords say they don't want to rent to minorities when discussing rentals. The point is it's not some isolated occurrence. It happens way more often than people realize and even if people aren't openly saying it it's going to actively influence how they are treated throughout the process and whether or not offers are accepted or deals are struck.

This is why when a buyer "love letter" is brought up on reddit I lose my shit and tell people to stop fucking doing it because it opens the door to discrimination that is absofuckinglutely happening behind closed doors. That's the point of the letter and included photo. You are asking someone to engage in discrimination in your favor.

"Okay why does that matter?"

If you are a minority you may run into the problem of fighting an uphill battle for a few reasons. You may not have an offer accepted as easily if your name sounds a certain way. In a competitive environment that might mean you need to offer more up front in order to compensate which means the threshold for affordability might be higher than if you were white. It handicaps your purchasing power.

You may end up with an agent that took you on as a client but won't dedicate the kind of attention and time it might take for you to get what you want because that agent is just going through the motions and churning through volume. Same goes for some lenders. Maybe you get a higher rate or that lender drags their feet and won't respond as quickly as they would for another buyer. You may not be taken as seriously as a white buyer.

If you've listed your home offers might come in lower because people will assign a lower value to your home if they know you are a minority. This includes the process of getting an appraisal. This is an actual thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/business/black-homeowners-appraisal-discrimination-lawsuit/index.html

If your home is appraised lower or you don't get what most would consider fair market value you may not have the equity you need from the sale to get into your next home. Maybe your offers won't be as competitive.

Agents don't get a pass for this either. Minority agents earn significantly less than white agents for a lot of the same reasons. There are absolutely conversations that happen behind closed doors about certain brokerages and agents that coincidentally happen to be minority owned. Those agents are also dealing with some of the problems I mentioned. A big part of that is a perceived lack of credibility or knowledge because of what they look like, or assumptions about how they will conduct themselves in a transaction.

Like most things having to do with race there is very rarely that one thing that someone can point to and say "That's racist!". It's death by a thousand cuts. A slip of the tongue here a lack of attention there. It adds up. It's real.

I've read comments from other agents on here stating that they haven't personally seen or dealt with that kind of thing before. Maybe that's true or maybe they aren't as attuned to it as I am. My wife is a minority and our kids are mixed so maybe my radar is up more than most because of that.

I don't want this giant block of text to serve as discouragement for anyone looking at buying or selling. God knows you've probably already dealt with this kind of shit in other aspects of your life. I just want other people to be aware that this is a problem that doesn't get the attention it deserves in this industry and that some of us know it actually happens.

76

notrealbutreally175 t1_j68nwz2 wrote

This is so true. My mom’s white, Dads Hispanic. When they searched for rentals, places would tell my dad they have no availability. But when my mom would call the same place, they suddenly had openings

25

opienandm OP t1_j68iqeh wrote

Thank you for providing some grounding for the still significant systemic drivers of housing disparity. In short, it is far more difficult for black and/or Hispanic people to obtain affordable housing of any type than the “average” person. AFAIK, nobody is addressing this directly.

16

gowhatyourself t1_j69c59t wrote

There are some groups that try to bring it up from time to time. I know there have been some productive discussions on how the industry handles some of these things despite the history real estate has with things like redlining and blockbusting. Skirting fair housing laws is absolutely still a thing and many brokers are starting to come down hard on it especially with regard to the buyer love letter thing.

It's really a difficult thing to address because even if you sort the industry side of it out you still have buyers and sellers who are more than willing to casually engage in racist behavior. Sort of like the big galaxy brained response to my post saying I'm a bad agent because I'm not okay discrimination or something.

4

plummbob t1_j6ajo1w wrote

A frustrating but utterly predictable result of constrained supply. People will absolutely use non-price ways of sorting buyers/renters if they face limited competition and/or growing demand.

​

We basically need to 'compete the racism out' of these people.

1

gowhatyourself t1_j6alqkx wrote

> People will absolutely use non-price ways of sorting buyers/renters if they face limited competition and/or growing demand.

Limited consequences for their actions too unfortunately.

2

spidermansaysherp t1_j68i80h wrote

You're not doing your responsibility as a real estate agent if you don't encourage your clients to write a "love letter" and include a photo if it will help that specific client. An individual client doesn't need to care about the larger discriminatory system when they are trying to buy a house for their own family. People don't want an agent that cares about all possible homebuyers, they want an agent that cares about themselves as a homebuyer. This is the foundation of the principal-agent problem and everyone should take all steps they can to give themselves the best chance they can to get the house they want in this market.

−34

goosey65 t1_j68jgrf wrote

While one individual choice can’t change a systematic issue on its own, we, as individuals, can have and should have personal ethics that impact our larger decisions.

In recent years, many in the real estate industry have pushed against writing to the home owners. Also, this person didn’t say they didn’t tell their clients not to, he said he pushes back when people talk about it on Reddit.

13

spidermansaysherp t1_j69cybe wrote

I agree with everything you said. The economic reality of the housing market does make it harder for individuals to care about others though because it unfortunately is a zero-sum game currently.

Also, sure, this poster has only warned people on reddit, but that leaves two scenarios:

  1. They tell people on reddit not to it and they also tell their clients not to do it. In my opinion, I don't think that is working in a client's best interest based on what's currently legal. I can't speak to professional or ethics norms because I don't work in that industry.

  2. They tell people on reddit not to do it and then tell their clients to do it. Maybe a good strategy, but people on reddit would probably not be happy to hear this.

−4

gowhatyourself t1_j69s4hf wrote

> Also, sure, this poster has only warns people on reddit, but that leaves two scenarios: > > They tell people on reddit not to it and they also tell their clients not to do it. In my opinion, I don't think that is working in a client's best interest based on what's currently legal. I can't speak to professional or ethics norms because I don't work in that industry.

As I've already said that as an agent I'm not supposed to have anything to do with buyer love letters. I tell buyers they are a dumb idea that could backfire badly on them because they could just as easily be discriminated against. My broker does not approve of it. The NAR and RAR absolutely do not approve of it and have sent out numerous bulletins and emails saying they do not approve of it and do not want people to engage in the practice. I'm pretty sure HUD has even come out and said they can put you in legal jeopardy over fair housing laws. Agents who are using them regardless of all of these warnings are not agents I would advise working with for the same reason I wouldn't suggest working with agents who skirt other best practices, procedures, or laws.

I also tell my sellers that we should not accept letters under any circumstances and that I will be telling agents submitting letters that they will not be looked at or reviewed by the seller. I have picked up the phone and lit people up who sent me letters after stating up front that I do not want to see them.

Most agents agree with this position! Many will specifically state in listing agent-only comments that buyer letters will not be reviewed or passed on to the seller and that they do not want to receive them. Including them could negatively effect the perception of your offer. I'm not an outlier here. Suggesting that I am not working in the best interests of my clients is nuts considering that engaging in this kind of behavior can actively work against the interests of a client, put you in jeopardy with your brokerage/RAR/HUD, and even leave your buyer open to being discriminated against.

Or I'm making all of this up in an effort to misdirect the entire RVA reddit real estate market to give my buyers the unfair advantage. Totally plausible of course. Sure. Why not.

6

spidermansaysherp t1_j6a10ua wrote

Whatever dude, doesn't affect my livelihood in any way. Writing letters worked for me and lots of people I know. I don't agree with you and that's fine.

−6

gowhatyourself t1_j6afuym wrote

> Whatever dude, doesn't affect my livelihood in any way. Writing letters ::insert discriminating behavior that benefits you here:: worked for me and lots of people I know . I don't agree with you and that's fine.

3

[deleted] t1_j693grl wrote

[deleted]

12

spidermansaysherp t1_j6991pa wrote

Then change the policy or law, a real estate agent is supposed to represent their client, not all possible clients.

−2

gowhatyourself t1_j69cnza wrote

It is the policy of most brokerages that you do not get involved with buyer love letters. Many states have banned the practice. The NAR has repeatedly told people to stop doing it. What you are suggesting I do is ignore all of this even though there is just as much of a chance it could backfire. It is a monumentally stupid take.

6

khuldrim t1_j68kdo5 wrote

The letter writing thing is a whole can of unprofessional worms and if I were selling an deceived one straight into the trash it would go because if I opened it and there was a picture of a minority family and I didn’t pick their bid I’m opening myself up to legal action.

9

Suchaweirdlife t1_j68yunh wrote

We recently sold a house in Northside and one of the offers included a love letter. I was totally disgusted by the tactic and it completely turned me off. The love letter writer did not get the house

4

bastard__stepchild t1_j69b8ne wrote

Good on you. I think I would feel the same way. Reminds me of some “good ol boy system” type shit

4

spidermansaysherp t1_j69djhx wrote

Thank you for sharing your anecdote. Based on my anecdotal experience, we did write a letter and did get our house during the pandemic.

Not many ways to differentiate offers when people are submitting bids waiving inspections and 50k above asking.

0

plummbob t1_j6cuglq wrote

> everyone should take all steps they can to give themselves the best chance they can to get the house they want in this market.

​

​

why artificial shortages lead to discrimination and inefficient allocation 101.

​

​

if its anything other than "that is the best price," then the we need more housing competition.

2

spidermansaysherp t1_j6d20rt wrote

Yeah sure, sales have no emotional component at all. Humans are just logic machines. /s

−1

plummbob t1_j6dn4xd wrote

People express that component in the prices they offer. Shit like racism and other forms of discrimination can basically be priced out of the market with enough competition..... as firms don't have the market power to hold out or use non-price forms of discrimination.

2

Newyew22 t1_j68cexx wrote

Thank you so much for posting this. It’s so helpful to have this data handy when talking through the evolution (devolution?) of the region’s market.

18

sleevieb t1_j68fmvg wrote

Does it talk about corporations buying houses and apartment buildings only to keep them vacant to restrict supply and increase rent?

Or rent pricing services and websites that isolate illegal collusion while propegating it city, state, and nation wide?

13

Charlesinrichmond t1_j68qsjt wrote

Edited to make it easier to comprehend for those who can't:

The idea that corporations buying houses IS THE PROBLEM is literally completely wrong and a myth. It also makes no mathematical sense, it's like telling someone not to work to earn more money by sitting on the couch and playing xbox.

If they make money by leaving them empty, imagine how much money they would make by destroying them! Or never buying them in the first place! Think of the billions you've made from the apartments you are renting for zero! It's completely ridiculous isn't it?

It's popular enough though to now have a new article in the Atlantic debunking it

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/housing-crisis-hedge-funds-private-equity-scapegoat/672839/

the software bit has a grain of truth, but it's way way overblown, it only applies to certain large companies who have a small share of the market

11

fresh__hell t1_j68xeqa wrote

Opinion piece by a writer with such wonderful articles like “Buses shouldn’t be free” and “the billionaire’s dilemma” and “everyone shouldn’t have a say”. Some real appeal to authority shit opinions there.

Housing/shelter is commodified by entities so wealthy that of course it seems illogical to a regular person that can’t gobble up vacant homes. BlackRock can play the long game, someone under threat of homelessness can’t. Multi-billions is unfathomable wealth, and they absorb every single “affordable” property like it’s nothing, manipulate and inflate the market, and no matter what they make out like bandits. I don’t know what kind of person goes to bat for economy melting corporate greed other than someone invested in their schemes, foh

5

plummbob t1_j6akx0i wrote

>Housing/shelter is commodified by entities so wealthy that of course it seems illogical to a regular person that can’t gobble up vacant homes.

​

bruh, housing was "commodified" since the invention of housing. A house is literally combination of commodity goods -- timber, drywall, romex, concrete, nails,etc. Even the trim or 'luxury items' are mass produced, "commodified" products.

Appealing to somekind of other, "the corporations" or "foreigners" or whatever I always see, is garbage, neither backed by the data (low vacancy rates) or economic intuition. No, they are not buying them to keep them empty because the opportunity cost is huge (ie, lost rental income).

4

fresh__hell t1_j6b67b5 wrote

There’s a lot of problems out there man. There are more than 20x the amount of empty homes in the US than there are homeless people. The younger generations are fucked because of profit incentives, and now the cartel ass algorithms are squeezing every paycheck because rent is being decided by soulless code. Yeah it costs money to make houses no shit.

Zillow or BlackRock can buy 1,000 houses, and that’s just a drop in the bucket to them. They can swallow up an entire community like it’s nothing, and then what? they effectively control the regional markets? (I realize there are zillow lawsuits going on, fingers crossed) Isn’t that like, fucked? Most of this younger generation struggles to just pay rent, let alone save up for a down payment before a mortgage. I feel like this is grade school, literal monopoly board game logic. We’re literally the most prosperous nation on the planet and the majority of people are just fucked. God forbid they dream of owning a home. Ah fuck it.

−1

plummbob t1_j6b7r7x wrote

>The younger generations are fucked because of profit incentives, and now the cartel ass algorithms are squeezing every paycheck because rent is being decided by soulless code. Yeah it costs money to make houses no shit.

​

​

profit incentives are what build homes in the first place --nobody builds a home to loose money. think about why profits are rising, but supply is not.

​

consider the inputs to housing: its not like the drywall, nail, lumber and concrete manufacturers are sharing these windfall profits. so the physical inputs to housing are more or less unchanged real prices. its a regulatory bottleneck. --- my neighborhood has seen home prices 2x in the last 5 years, yet the city hasn't legalized one additional home here. in fact, the quantity of homes in my neighborhood hasn't changed in 80 years. 80 years, and not one additional home. thats crazy

​

​

​

>Zillow or BlackRock can buy 1,000 houses, and that’s just a drop in the bucket to them. They can swallow up an entire community like it’s nothing, and then what? they effectively control the regional markets?

​

​

it actually doesn't change anything. since those homes already commanded monopoly level profits, zillow owning them doesn't confer additional rents. because if they did, the landlords would already be charging those prices.

​

zillow faces the same rental market that the landlords do, so demand isn't really changing. ie -- the people zillow rents to and the people the landlords rent are the same, so they are both cost constrained in the same way.

​

​

>I feel like this is grade school, literal monopoly board game logic. We’re literally the most prosperous nation on the planet and the majority of people are just fucked.

​

​

Its not really wrong. NIMBY's basically control the city council and entrenched landlords/home owners are able to extract massive rents simply because they have their thumb on the supply. They know that if they legalize housing more broadly, prices will fall. So they purposely keep supply so constrained....and often limited to expensive large-scale development.... they purposely lag supply to maintain their extra-normal profits.

​

​

Its basically regulatory capture by homeowners against renters.

5

fresh__hell t1_j6beglm wrote

I appreciate this reply. There are cold hard truths to confront, and plenty of ideas about how it should work, it's just disappointing that this is what we're resigned to.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69409f wrote

this is a word salad of stupidity contradicted by facts. I'm sorry if they don't suit your prejudices.

Some of us have found being competent and accurate to be good for themselves and society. People spewing Trumpian nonsense like that in your post irritate me, whether it's rightist idiocy or leftist idiocy it's still Idiocracy type stupidity.

−7

fresh__hell t1_j69908u wrote

…what?

Rightist Trumpian nonsense? No dude, i’m saying giant corporations are destroying the housing market, and they’re deliberately buying propagandist opinion-piece writers to say “corporations aren’t really the problem, people are scapegoating!!”

Pretty sure Trump (and every facet of the capitalist power structure) is pro-corporation. Also, don’t ever post an opinion piece calling it an article

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69ia4p wrote

yep, you sound just like Trump. Spouting authoritative nonsense in the hope people who don't think will love the slogans and take it seriously.

Your take is very Idiocracy, congrats

−8

Vapid_Ingenue t1_j691qfo wrote

So, B. Wayne Hughes, the billionaire owner of American Homes 4 Rent, the guy that owns over 53,000 suburban family homes and rents them all out - he's just a myth?

−2

kubigjay t1_j6969xy wrote

No, the part about him owning 53,000 homes and keeping them empty is the myth.

11

Charlesinrichmond t1_j693pew wrote

maybe? I have no idea who that is. Nor do I even plan on googling him, because it has literally nothing to do with what I posted? How on god's green earth does that tiny amount of houses relate to anything I said?

1

Vapid_Ingenue t1_j694e09 wrote

Your first sentence literally says corporations buying houses is completely wrong and a myth, but it has nothing to do with what you posted? Okay, Charles. Enjoy your weekend

−4

Charlesinrichmond t1_j694q5z wrote

oh my god, I admit I didn't spell it out at a 5th grade level, I had assumed some basic ability to reason. In context of the link which explains you'd think it was freaking obvious. I apologize and will edit it so the point is even more clear for those with limited reading comprehension

−3

Vapid_Ingenue t1_j69clu3 wrote

Yes, Charles. Very stupid of me to expect you were capable of forming a coherent sentence. Or to assume you are the type of person who means what they say. I'm sorry to have let you down 😔

4

opienandm OP t1_j68jgvb wrote

I’m familiar with the second question, but I’m curious if you have any data on the first which would help to estimate the impact. With the vacancy rate so low, I’m not sure that’s an issue in the Richmond region.

7

STREAMOFCONSCIOUSN3S t1_j68y54d wrote

Wow, look at those Asian household incomes compared to everyone else, especially in Henrico county. We need to figure out what they're doing special and copy them.

6

okcknight t1_j699mq2 wrote

Asian families tend to put a strong emphasis on higher education especially in technical STEM fields, which tend to be the higher paying jobs.

7

jracka t1_j6b83uy wrote

Asians also live in a two parent household more than any other.

"The living arrangements of children vary by their racial and ethnic background. A vast majority of Asian children (85%) today live with two married parents, as is the case for most white children (74%) and Hispanic children (61%). The share among black children who live with married parents is markedly lower—36% of black children live with married parents. "

It's something that doesn't get talked about, but it should be

6

sleevieb t1_j6awz07 wrote

Discriminatory immigration policing from Reagan where you need an advanced degree to get here from places like India, Bengali , Pakistan etc or more recently an h1b1 visa sponsor, usually from a tech company or probably like cap one/CarMax in this town.

1

plummbob t1_j6aleji wrote

>unit supply growth has not kept pace with the increase in demand.

​

​

​

Every house in my neighborhood is on a 1/3 acre lot and have seen home prices nearly 2x what they were about 5 years, and nearly 5x cost of the houses original real construction costs. But the city has not legalized one additional unit since 1950, when the neighborhood was complete. 5 fold price increase, 0 supply increase.

​

That is an elasticity of supply of....0. Perfectly inelastic. The city simply does not allow enough to housing to be built. Its baffling and frustrating.

6

Charlesinrichmond t1_j68rqyp wrote

"Black homeownership rates increased slightly, from 47% to 49%, but still lag behind white homeownership at 70%."

we really need to do better on this front. Not sure how. Maybe better low income housing loan programs? What we have is perhaps too complicated for the people it's aimed at, we need something simpler

5

gowhatyourself t1_j69d1hf wrote

I mean we have programs and grants and what not but it's been tricky to deploy due to how competitive everything has been the last few years. What good is grant money if you can't get someone to accept an offer because you state you are using a VHDA loan vs someone coming in hot with conventional? It helps the buyer but can also weaken the offer so it's a catch 22.

9

Jellyfishes_OW t1_j6ajpbk wrote

Do NOT use VHDA. We did. They still owe us over $1100 from where we refinanced. We've been fighting them for over a year at this point.

2

blackdragon8577 t1_j6ezxnd wrote

That is what disgusts me about these "love letters" to home owners trying to manipulate them into taking less money than their home is worth. Or, much more likey, prey on their bigotry to violate federal laws.

My sister did it in a notoriously racist area. Of course she includes a picture of her new baby with her and her husband.

Letting the homeowner see they are white and have a child. Either of which is easily a violation of the fair housing act. Not to mention sexuality.

I'm sure she also mentioned how she is a church member in good standing in the community and other bullshit. Third violation.

It's such a despicable practice that allows the easy propagation of bigotry and prejudice against protected classes.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6fgcui wrote

it does allow easy bigotry, but no violations if your sister or any other random person does it. First amendment applies

Possible violation if a real estate agent does it.

1

blackdragon8577 t1_j6fvyj5 wrote

It is a violation if the homeowner decides to accept her offer over another person's based on any of the protected classes.

My sister specifically might not be in violation, but it is morally wrong.

Just because it isn't specifically illegal doesn't mean that it isn't still wrong.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6ijazk wrote

no it isn't. An obligation of some sort that is being violated is required. And I agree it could be wrong, but it's not a violation, 2 different issues.

Source: went to law school

1

blackdragon8577 t1_j6irp77 wrote

Ok, genuinely curious here. If a homeowner has two offers. One for $150,000 and one for $200,000.

The lower offer sends one of these letters revealing that they are white, have kids, and go to a local evangelical church.

The higher offer does not send anything additional. Just the monetary offer.

If the homeowner accepts the lesser offer because they know that the lower offer is from a white person would that not be illegal?

And if it is not, then what has to happen in order for it to be illegal?

Does the homeowner also need to know that the higher offer is from a person of color and decide to not sell to them based on that?

Or is it that the realty agent is the one that would be held at fault for the homeowner being racist?

IDK, I am super confused based on your reply.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6iwi1r wrote

no, wouldn't be illegal. Probably can't be made illegal, because of free speech. Any more than we could make say being a socialist illegal.

Now what can be done is nibbling around the edges - ie disallowing agents to work with them sort of thing.

Basically, govt can regulate commerce, but not viewpoint.

It's a lot to put in a reddit thread. But basically being a racist is legal, even though it's stupid. Can't regulate that due to bill of rights. But we can regulate commercial transactions. So the agents can't do the stuff that the individuals can. Does that make sense? We are never going to be perfect, so structurally we err on the side of more freedom

see this:

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2022/03/federal-judge-blocks-oregons-first-in-nation-ban-on-homebuyer-love-letters.html

1

blackdragon8577 t1_j6jg2xv wrote

So, what you are saying is that a private homeowner can be racist, sexist, or whatever kind of bigot they want. And they can choose to openly discriminate against other people using that bigoted world view when selling their home.

However, as soon as a real estate agent gets involved, that is where the laws start to kick in because that agent is a legal entity in a commercial transaction instead of a regular citizen selling something to a regular citizen.

(I know you aren't condoning the bigotry we are talking about here, but I just like to make sure I understand.)

No law can prevent an individual from being racist and acting according to their racism, as long as they are doing it as a private citizen. The moment they move into a commercial enterprise, operating under a business license, using a realtor, etc. they are then beholden to the law.

Which is why a private seller can do whatever they want.

But let's say that a seller was going through a real estate agent. The seller makes it very clear that they will not sell their home to a black person. The agent brings the offers to the seller and the top bid also has one of these love letters in them revealing that the family buying the home is black.

The seller refuses that offer and instructs the realty agent to accept a lower offer from another family because they refuse to sell to a black person.

In this instance, would someone be in violation of the law? If so, who?

Or does the real estate agent need to be the one actually committing the racial discrimination?

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_j68qd8z wrote

quote from RTD on this Affordable Housing paper

"average apartment in the region went for nearly $1,400 at the beginning of 2022, a $300 increase from two years prior. The steepest rent increases were in counties, especially among apartments with two or three bedrooms."

You'd think the rent increases were in the city from what you read here. Or that apartments were 2k...

4

defnotthepresident t1_j69fbvs wrote

I'm sorry is your position that $1400 for the average apartment is normal, fine, doable for everyone?

7

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69jc81 wrote

My position is that it's much cheaper than most.

Per CNBC. At the end of 2022, the median U.S. rent was $2,305, which was nearly 5% higher than a year earlier. But when compared to the end of the first half of 2022, that median rent had declined almost 6%, the report shows.

4

defnotthepresident t1_j69yipj wrote

Oh well as long as other people are suffering more then we're doing just dandy

10

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6947sv wrote

I see stupid people are downvoting facts from the literal Partnership For Affordable Housing.

Next the idiots will be telling us that Blackstone owns it. Idiocracy is real, and a bunch of you need to go look in the mirror

6

Danger-Moose t1_j69atot wrote

Bunch of reports this morning, and they're all on your comments...

9

jracka t1_j6b8hc9 wrote

I might not agree with a lot of Charles post but damn how thin skin to report his comments.

6

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69j01l wrote

I point out they are accurate, and I'm triggering the self described revolutionaries...

2

Danger-Moose t1_j69tg4f wrote

gif

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69twpn wrote

ok, but what in particular should I change? I grant I'm giving back the energy I receive... but the idiocy and hatred of math and facts gets annoying.

5

Kineda77 t1_j699vig wrote

I bet that "nearly $1,400" doesn't include the required payment of water, sewer, trash, security, and sometimes pest control fees. Listed "rent" is not what people actually pay in many apartment "communities."
Most people expect to pay for electricity, internet/cable, and gas (if present) separately. Not including the other fees in the listed rent price, especially those which are a set-amount monthly fee (not based on usage) is just false advertising to make the rental price appear lower than it is.

When people include these required fees when they talk about how much their apartment costs to rent, they aren't telling lies, they're telling the real truth.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69iofs wrote

Probably, but the water bill isn't rent? I've never rented a place and not paid for water or rent..

And it normalizes the price. They are comparing to the previous price which was calculated the same way. And this is an affordable housing group that's skew is to portray rent as high, they certainly aren't trying to diminish it.

So I don't think those are very useful points honestly. Should trash bags from the grocery store be in there too? Can't use the garbage service without garbage bags

4

Kineda77 t1_j6btok3 wrote

I thought you were saying that the people in RVA reddit exaggerate their rent price? That the housing report showed lower prices than you'd expect from the way people talk on here? If I misunderstood, then I apologize. But I share the following from my experiences all the same, because the difference moving to this area was a surprise.

When renting an apartment (in a few northern states plus Maryland), I've never paid for water, or sewer, or trash, or security, or pest control as separate (but required to pay) fees. Those services/utilities were all included as part of the stated/advertised rental price (except "security" was not available at most places I've lived). Then my partner and I moved to Richmond last year. All the apartment "communities" had at least 4 of those 5 services/utilities as separate required fees. With all the fees added up (to the real price of rent), what had sounded like affordable rent (until we learned the truth), wasn't actually.

We ended up renting the one place we found advertising rent with water, sewer, and trash included in the advertised price (it's a half-house, not an apartment community). No security to pay for and I think pest control is included (we've had no need to check for that in the lease). But if I was renting a place that advertised as $1310 but I was required to pay security, trash, sewer/water, and pest control =$1425, then I'd absolutely say my rent is $1425 when talking to other people, yet I would write "$1310" when answering a survey or filling out any kind of relevant paperwork.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6fgxrv wrote

ah, I moved here from up north and had to pay all that stuff generally. Exception was older/bigger buildings where they didn't have the tech/infrastructure to carve it out.

I've never seen pest control fees, not doubting they exist somewhere, but are they common?

I'd say the issue is if things changed. I don't think they have, but have only been in Richmond 10ish years

1

Marino4K t1_j69c819 wrote

I’m considering a move back to NC because RVA’s rent prices have gone far too high for the low quality you’re getting, especially in my neck of the woods. Every property is owned by a scum lord with a shit rental company like Dodson.

3

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69uxaj wrote

where in NC is cheaper though? Not Charlotte, Asheville or the Triangle. Wilmington?

2

Marino4K t1_j69x9xy wrote

Winston and Greensboro. Similar prices but more up to date places with a little less slulmlord.

I’d also move back to Charlotte if I could find a good enough job, more bang for your buck

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6fgkzm wrote

interesting thanks. I don't know either place well enough to have an opinion

1

tigranes5 t1_j698xhs wrote

I grew up in the Richmond area. I don't read any of the journals or surveys people are referencing. In the 1970s and 80s Richmond was a black majority city. Beginning in the late 1990s waves of people started moving here from NOVA and NY. Today Richmond is no longer a black majority city. Coincidence???

−4

Charlesinrichmond t1_j69vbv0 wrote

Per last I checked the census Black population is more or less the same, but white population has skyrocketed. And we are still black plurality.

That said, I do think most of the growth in the city is white, and so we will probably be majority white soon. And the census might be missing some of the black population moving out, though it usually undercounts low income population

4

smokeWeedles t1_j6d43iw wrote

Yes, a decrease of roughly 7k black residents in 20 years, and Richmond's changing demographics are a bit more nuanced than black and white. In the last 20 years, the asian population has doubled, the % of foreign-born residents has nearly doubled, and the hispanic population has nearly tripled (with "Hispanic(white)") driving around a third of richmond's white population growth (roughly 10k out of the 30k increase in white ppl over 20 years, in the city proper).

Also, kind of odd to pick NY and Nova, two of the most ethnically diverse places in the country, as the scapegoats for a perceived wave of white (non-hispanic) migration

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_j6fhbkt wrote

asian in area is big, though mainly west Henrico it feels like.

Hispanic population in the city is WAY bigger than counted of course. It's not a group that is excited to go on govt paperwork for all sorts of reasons. And a slightly regrettable but understandable tendency to pack epic numbers of people into a house.

1

opienandm OP t1_j69g9eg wrote

Blacks are still the majority. You need to check your facts.

3