Landlords Jacking Up Rent 50-70% (renters, condo, eviction)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yea, that's right. I work in banking. The covenants of the loan provisions mean that many landlords (corporate ones at least) aren't allowed to go below a certain monthly rent or it will trigger an acceleration of the principal plus interest due.
Same goes for commercial real estate. Hence all the back to office jibber jabber.
Same goes for commercial real estate. Hence all the back to office jibber jabber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Seems not? Substantial versus there were many that can't drop it by the aforementioned half officially? How is that contradictory? Is it in question format because you literally don't know? Doesn't change that you couldn't read or understand the article and that there was no claim that prices in NYC have generally gone back to pre-covid levels? Doesn't change that even if the official cut isn't as large as effective rent cut from free months it's still different from saying there were very few, if any (LOL!), official cuts during the pandemic which is just an amazing thing to say? You probably will never work on an actual rocket to low-earth orbit and it really is beyond your ability but at least you're a certified Trader Joe's expert from five years of shopping there and are obviously an expert on the rental market because you had paid years of rent? You'll make another account and cheer yourself up a bit?
Take the L. You contradicted yourself in consecutive posts and you have people here in the industry telling you that price drops weren't how LLs were dropping rent. Just admit that you made that part up.
If you followed prices throughout the pandemic, you'd notice that outright price drops were dew and far between. Almost all incentives centered around "x months of free rent". Anyone with an IQ over 80 would realize why LLs were choosing this method over price cuts.
This type of method (essentially a consumer rebate) is used in many industries because it allows suppliers of goods or services to control pricing during low demand periods instead of panicking, cutting the price, and establishing a new benchmark in consumers minds.
It's much easier to cut prices then to raise them back up. Why do you think luxury brands virtually never have sales? When Apple has excess inventory that it needs to get rid off, it doesn't run a sale. They sell the units as "refurbished" at a discount. Just one example but cutting prices is usually the last resort for any viable business.
"On teams that sent rockets...". Maybe working some clerical job pushing paper? Not impressed with your analytical skills tbh.
Same goes for commercial real estate. Hence all the back to office jibber jabber.
I don't think that's what's driving it. Why would corporates care if the Commercial RE market implodes unless they're in the commercial RE business?
It's more due to very low productivity of certain segments of workers and workers working 2 jobs (sometimes at competitors) at the same time. I think the latter scares C suites the most. Not only does it expose that many jobs aren't "full time" to begin with (aka massive overstaffing due to idiot hiring managers) but say bye-bye to having a leg up on your competitor when one of your employees is is just copy-pasting and running their mouth about whatever they do at the "better" run firm.
Really don't see what all this noise is about. People carrying on in this thread as if some great earth shattering event has occurred.
Meanwhile back at the ranch in OP linked article and elsewhere obviously those affected by these increases (looking for and or renewing lease on apartment) aren't that bothered. They found things and life goes on.
Whenever there is an economic upheaval locally or nationally renters in NYC catch a break. Pick one, 2008 recession, fall out from "Black Monday 1987", various recessions, 9/11/01, etc... asking rents fall either effective or net (latter often via concessions). but sooner or later things pick up where they left off and return to going up.
People need to focus on handling their business in such a way monthly income always comfortably exceeds rent.
Does this mean that many NYC buildings will be getting a better class of tenant? What happens if the Supreme Court eventually throws out all Rent Stabilization and related laws as unconstitutional?
I'm a NYC homeowner but the rental market does indirectly effect the home market.
Right now from what one has seen buildings are filling up with same sorts they always do just after a recession or major economic upheaval; young transplants moving to city for either college or work.
Buildings in Yorkville/UES that had tons of empty apartments last year or so now largely have rented those units. The tenants are twenty-somethings either returning to city after fleeing due to coivd, or lured here by promise of "cheap" rents so they can live their "Friends" or "Sex And The City" dream lifestyle.
As for "better class" of tenant, define *better*. Young people are what they are; loud, noisy, and often largely self centered. Older or elderly tenants living in same buildings or areas now (once again) over run with young people have their complaints. But since the latter are usually market rate, while former rent regulated guess who LL cares about more?
Does this mean that many NYC buildings will be getting a better class of tenant? What happens if the Supreme Court eventually throws out all Rent Stabilization and related laws as unconstitutional?
I'm a NYC homeowner but the rental market does indirectly effect the home market.
It's funny because its never going to happen.
People have been predicting SCOTUS will strike down NY or any other rent regulation as "unconstitutional" since 1940's when WWII era housing controls were put into effect. It just hasn't happened, no ever will.
Only time rent regulation ends is when a local government does so on it's own. Latest example of that being Boston, MA.
NYS rent regulations are the only thing keeping thousands of low income to downright busted households in their apartments. Largest beneficiaries of rent control and rent stabilization are largely whites who live in Manhattan below Harlem and or areas like Inwood and Washington Heights. For many their rents are below to well under market rate *and* they get to live in prime NYC areas. Many of these people are >50 and good number >65, do you really think SCOTUS is going to kick those seniors to the curb?
It isn't just below market rent, but all the protections built into RS and RC that free market tenants cannot take advantage of at all. Rent regulated tenants can pay their rent any GD day of month they choose (late),, and there isn't anything LL can do about it. They can pay one month even just before or slightly after 1st of next month (technically now owing two months rent), and again there isn't much a LL can do.
Regardless of above RS tenants must be offered a renewal lease. People are down in housing court fighting non-payment proceedings and a LL still must send renewal lease in timely manner.
OTOH those rent regulated apartments are often golden handcuffs for many tenants.
Even when rent is below or well under market it still is what it is; people either pay or move.
As have repeatedly said in this forum know and have known of many (mostly white) people who live on UES in RS units who "dumpster dive". Every GD night you see them in front of shops, supermarkets, DR, CVs, etc... going through trash bags. In lieu of going to food bank these people stretch monthly budget by getting food or whatever from trash.
Decades ago now NYS laws removed not being able to pay rent as a valid defense in housing court. Only thing court wants to hear is does a tenant owe rent, yes or no. If yes, then they better come up with a way to pay.
Take the L. You contradicted yourself in consecutive posts and you have people here in the industry telling you that price drops weren't how LLs were dropping rent. Just admit that you made that part up.
If you followed prices throughout the pandemic, you'd notice that outright price drops were dew and far between. Almost all incentives centered around "x months of free rent". Anyone with an IQ over 80 would realize why LLs were choosing this method over price cuts.
This type of method (essentially a consumer rebate) is used in many industries because it allows suppliers of goods or services to control pricing during low demand periods instead of panicking, cutting the price, and establishing a new benchmark in consumers minds.
It's much easier to cut prices then to raise them back up. Why do you think luxury brands virtually never have sales? When Apple has excess inventory that it needs to get rid off, it doesn't run a sale. They sell the units as "refurbished" at a discount. Just one example but cutting prices is usually the last resort for any viable business.
"On teams that sent rockets...". Maybe working some clerical job pushing paper? Not impressed with your analytical skills tbh.
You have a difficult time logically reasoning things out and you can't even see why there isn't a contradiction. You couldn't understand that a 50-70% increase for some doesn't meant it's a claim that prices are back to pre-covid levels, and you mistakenly thought or were having too hard of a time with literacy to realize that wasn't the claim, and you want people to take the "L"? How do you come up with this stuff? What kind of Dunning-Kruger marvel are you?
No one said price drops didn't happen in list prices. There are certain loans that have covenants that you cannot lower the price below a certain point--that does not mean everyone has that restriction as some don't even have loans, and it also doesn't mean you cannot lower the price at all. When someone says you can't lower it below a certain point that is not equivalent to you cannot lower it at all. Your proud display of literacy is charming and all, but it's not accurate.
I don't think that's what's driving it. Why would corporates care if the Commercial RE market implodes unless they're in the commercial RE business?
It's more due to very low productivity of certain segments of workers and workers working 2 jobs (sometimes at competitors) at the same time. I think the latter scares C suites the most. Not only does it expose that many jobs aren't "full time" to begin with (aka massive overstaffing due to idiot hiring managers) but say bye-bye to having a leg up on your competitor when one of your employees is is just copy-pasting and running their mouth about whatever they do at the "better" run firm.
Corporate footprint has been shrinking for one or two decades now. Largely has much to do with fact thanks to technology places can get same or more work done with fewer employees. This and or you don't need to keep certain back office staff in a HCL area like NYC. Those jobs can now (again thanks to tech) can be done in Podunk, USA, India, China, Philippines, etc....
Small armies of secretaries, clerks, administrative assistants, assistants in general, the lot including entire departments have been eliminated. These are the huge reasons why corporate footprints are shrinking in NYC area, and more is going to happen thanks to WFH movement.
People have been predicting SCOTUS will strike down NY or any other rent regulation as "unconstitutional" since 1940's when WWII era housing controls were put into effect. It just hasn't happened, no ever will.
Only time rent regulation ends is when a local government does so on it's own. Latest example of that being Boston, MA.
NYS rent regulations are the only thing keeping thousands of low income to downright busted households in their apartments. Largest beneficiaries of rent control and rent stabilization are largely whites who live in Manhattan below Harlem and or areas like Inwood and Washington Heights. For many their rents are below to well under market rate *and* they get to live in prime NYC areas. Many of these people are >50 and good number >65, do you really think SCOTUS is going to kick those seniors to the curb?
It isn't just below market rent, but all the protections built into RS and RC that free market tenants cannot take advantage of at all. Rent regulated tenants can pay their rent any GD day of month they choose (late),, and there isn't anything LL can do about it. They can pay one month even just before or slightly after 1st of next month (technically now owing two months rent), and again there isn't much a LL can do.
Regardless of above RS tenants must be offered a renewal lease. People are down in housing court fighting non-payment proceedings and a LL still must send renewal lease in timely manner.
OTOH those rent regulated apartments are often golden handcuffs for many tenants.
Even when rent is below or well under market it still is what it is; people either pay or move.
As have repeatedly said in this forum know and have known of many (mostly white) people who live on UES in RS units who "dumpster dive". Every GD night you see them in front of shops, supermarkets, DR, CVs, etc... going through trash bags. In lieu of going to food bank these people stretch monthly budget by getting food or whatever from trash.
Decades ago now NYS laws removed not being able to pay rent as a valid defense in housing court. Only thing court wants to hear is does a tenant owe rent, yes or no. If yes, then they better come up with a way to pay.
How many of them chose to live in RS/RC units instead of buying something in the 80/90s and seeing their equity 10x+?
There aren't enough RC units to even care anymore and RS isn't all its cracked up to be. It's only great for those that like to abuse the system.
NYC is so tenant friendly that market rate tenants can abuse the system too.
The real winners in today's NYC are NYCHA, affordable housing lottery (<80% AMI units), section8 /rent . assistance programs. These people practically pay nothing for rent.
I don't think that's what's driving it. Why would corporates care if the Commercial RE market implodes unless they're in the commercial RE business?
It's more due to very low productivity of certain segments of workers and workers working 2 jobs (sometimes at competitors) at the same time. I think the latter scares C suites the most. Not only does it expose that many jobs aren't "full time" to begin with (aka massive overstaffing due to idiot hiring managers) but say bye-bye to having a leg up on your competitor when one of your employees is is just copy-pasting and running their mouth about whatever they do at the "better" run firm.
I was wondering why your posting style sounded familiar, now I know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
