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.
Our governor just signed in to law new rental laws that are terrible for owners ..we are hoping the Supreme Court overturns some of these new laws .....
You will see landlords pull out in mass ....they killed off many reasons investors go in to real estate
Please elaborate on the new rental laws. Less tax advantages, harder to evict tenants?
The list goes on and on ,it is a few hundred pages . Here is just a smidgeon.
It hurts every aspect of ownership including allowing as much as a year before someone with kids can be evicted for non rent payment ...no more allowable increases on vacant apartments that are under market , no more capital improvement increases beyond 2% .. no more decontrol when apartments go over 2700 a month , tenants are forever with succession rights , the list is endless and is a real game changer ...
We are dumping the two apartments we have left . If the deal falls through and rents go negative we will walk away ... they really changed the deals we all signed on for and the city will end up paying the price as investors who were lied to just bail out or walk away hurting the rental market .
Many stabilized tenants are in co-ops as original tenants ...if the owner walks away ,the co-op gets first dibs if the maintenance is not paid . However all remaining shareholders have to pay those fees so it hurts a lot more then just the owners
Let the city and state worry about housing people if they want to hurt those of us in that field ..
Landlord is a dirty word. And there are not many of them. There are way more renters who might vote for the politicians who promise them something.
I cannot see how this is going to work out long term. If the landlords are run off, who is going to buy properties and rent them out? It seems long term the market will collapse leaving few rentals for the larger number of potential renters.
The only expense that doubled for me over 10 years was food. Actually, it took 14+ years to double and not every food item did.
Ten years ago I did a projected budgets for the next 10 years. Each year included 5% inflation. I'm spending less -- and not deliberately -- than my projected budget for this year. So, overall, my expenses haven't increase by 50% in the last ten years. I think food and utilities are the biggest concern.
Anyway, I tend to agree with crone's DH -- I think boredom would be a big problem.
Things we buy haven't gone up near as much as things younger people would buy.
We just bought new car. The price was the as the car we bought in 1998. The new cr has all kinds of features that the 98 car did not have.
But restaurants, cell phones, cable tv yada yada. That stuff is crazy price.
Looks like in my town some groceries are less, but cat food had gone up 75% in the last 6 months.
Our governor just signed in to law new rental laws that are terrible for owners ..we are hoping the Supreme Court overturns some of these new laws .....
You will see landlords pull out in mass ....they killed off many reasons investors go in to real estate
Isn't it funny how different places are.
Your government wants to further infringe on the rights of property owners, as if rent control wasn't already bad enough. Blue state.
Our government passed a law that says no city can disallow short-term (Airbnb, etc.) rentals. And to my knowledge, there is no rent control here. Red state.
Plan on the price of everything doubling every 10 years.
That is an implied inflation rate of 7.2% per year (see The Rule of 72).
All the usual measures of inflation -- the CPI, the GDP deflator, the chain-weighted CPI, or even the trendy personal-consumption expenditures index -- all estimate inflation at less than 2%, which means the price of everything will double every 36 years or longer.
Even so, those measures of inflation probably overestimate the true rate of inflation. By the time the BLS puts something new in its CPI basket, it’s already cheap. The BLS methodology totally misses the way technology affects prices. The BLS methodology attempts to adjust for quality, but its "Hedonic Adjustment" doesn't do a very good job.
For example, the price of the first cellular telephone was over $10,000 in today's dollars, weighed about 5 pounds, was the size of a brick, and was a giant piece of crap by today's standards. The CPI doesn't do a good job of including its price decline over the ensuing decades, and does almost nothing to adjust for the improvement in quality from those early analog phones to digital phones to smart phones that have the computing power of a 1980s era IBM mainframe in a package that fits in the back pocket of a teenager's jeans.
From a planning perspective, a 7.2% annual inflation rate, compounded, is too high.
Last edited by RationalExpectations; 06-25-2019 at 08:30 AM..
The list goes on and on ,it is a few hundred pages . Here is just a smidgeon.
It hurts every aspect of ownership including allowing as much as a year before someone with kids can be evicted for non rent payment ...no more allowable increases on vacant apartments that are under market , no more capital improvement increases beyond 2% .. no more decontrol when apartments go over 2700 a month , tenants are forever with succession rights , the list is endless and is a real game changer ...
We are dumping the two apartments we have left . If the deal falls through and rents go negative we will walk away ... they really changed the deals we all signed on for and the city will end up paying the price as investors who were lied to just bail out or walk away hurting the rental market .
Many stabilized tenants are in co-ops as original tenants ...if the owner walks away ,the co-op gets first dibs if the maintenance is not paid . However all remaining shareholders have to pay those fees so it hurts a lot more then just the owners
Let the city and state worry about housing people if they want to hurt those of us in that field ..
When I got married at age 26, I swore I would never rent again (and I haven't). I was subjected to a series of abuses from landlords over an eight year period. They included: Refusing to refund cleaning deposits (when the apartment was clean); late charges when rent was one day late after six months of paying on time; not maintaining premises (including electric wiring); and subjecting us to endless walk throughs from people considering buying the property (try ten on a Saturday).
As a result, I am not naturally sympathetic to landlords. I suppose all are different. However, a class of landlords fall into the category that I will call "absentee landlords". They collect a rent check once a month. Never physically appear. And never make a real effort to maintain a property.
I basically view the landlord tenant relationship as a poor one. Its not only not good for the people involved, its not good for everyone else as well. Tenants have little incentive to maintain property because any improvements they make ultimately benefit the landlord rather than themselves.
I think public policy should be structured to encourage ownership and discourage rental of property. What you describe in NY probably goes too far, but I lose little sleep over it.
That is an implied inflation rate of 7.2% per year (see The Rule of 72).
All the usual measures of inflation -- the CPI, the GDP deflator, the chain-weighted CPI, or even the trendy personal-consumption expenditures index -- all estimate inflation at less than 2%, which means the price of everything will double every 36 years or longer.
Even so, those measures of inflation probably overestimate the true rate of inflation. By the time the BLS puts something new in its CPI basket, it’s already cheap. The BLS methodology totally misses the way technology affects prices. The BLS methodology attempts to adjust for quality, but its "Hedonic Adjustment" doesn't do a very good job.
For example, the price of the first cellular telephone was over $10,000 in today's dollars, weighed about 5 pounds, was the size of a brick, and was a giant piece of crap by today's standards. The CPI doesn't do a good job of including its price decline over the ensuing decades, and does almost nothing to adjust for the improvement in quality from those early analog phones to digital phones to smart phones that have the computing power of a 1980s era IBM mainframe in a package that fits in the back pocket of a teenager's jeans.
From a planning perspective, a 7.2% annual inflation rate, compounded, is too high.
I hear ya. DH had one of those bricks. He also had a computer the size of my house. That same computer is the size of my Apple 8. But I also paid 12% to get a mortgage.
The total cost of sending my daughter 4 years to prestigious private university was $15,000. That very same school 22 years later is $65,000 a year.
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.
