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.
We're talking about the constant churn of tens of thousands of renters per city, actually a much higher number of moves annually than the current vacant inventory. The topic, I think, is whether the market shows what people want. This churn, and the rents these tens of thousands of people choose to pay in a given year, say pretty clearly what the market values for their dollar.
My metro has at least 10,000 vacant apartments. Your and MSP probably have a similar number. People can choose from 10,000 options, or maybe the 5,000 they can afford.
Their actions are pretty closely reported in the aggregate. Do they rent units in central locations and pay high prices for them? Of course, in droves. Do they rent cheaper units too? Of course, but they won't pay more for them...hence their cheapness. People are paying large rents for units that don't have parking.
In fact, this is directly related to development economics. If digging that additional level downward for additional parking was worth it in future rents, developers would do it. But in building hundreds of local buildings, they've found that demand either wasn't there for that parking, or wasn't there to the extent that it paid for itself in terms of rents.
That's true with $2,500 one-bedrooms, and it's true with $900 micro units the size of hotel rooms. True micros are extremely hard to pencil out with parking. You'd need to charge hundreds more per month just with construction costs. And the site geometry might limit a site to a fraction of the number of units due to parking demands.
That's not that many.
San Francisco alone, which isn't that big a city, has an estimated 30,000 vacant units. You can't rent any of them. They're intentionally left vacant. Why bother with tenants at all? Rent isn't much in comparison to appreciation and the property is worth FAR more without a tenant than with due to San Francisco's obscene tenant right laws. While San Francisco is definitely the epicenter of real estate held purely for speculative value with no consideration to intrinsic value, it's not uncommon in much of the Bay Area.
We're talking about the constant churn of tens of thousands of renters per city, actually a much higher number of moves annually than the current vacant inventory. The topic, I think, is whether the market shows what people want. This churn, and the rents these tens of thousands of people choose to pay in a given year, say pretty clearly what the market values for their dollar.
I will point out that renters are at the mercy of the landlords.
I've been a public health nurse, and been in a lot of inner cities. You tell me that housing is what people value for their dollars.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-28-2016 at 07:28 AM..
You don't see evidence that people are making choices about where they live? And picking one building out of hundreds based upon its characteristics and location?
Phony argument, false market, and false choice.
Why don't you propose prohibiting application fees and see how that affects the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
We're talking about the constant churn of tens of thousands of renters per city, actually a much higher number of moves annually than the current vacant inventory. The topic, I think, is whether the market shows what people want. This churn, and the rents these tens of thousands of people choose to pay in a given year, say pretty clearly what the market values for their dollar.
This thread did not start out as a discussion about renters or churning of renters. Is a city of renters the type of city you want to plan for?
Phony argument, false market, and false choice.
Why don't you propose prohibiting application fees and see how that affects the market?
This thread did not start out as a discussion about renters or churning of renters. Is a city of renters the type of city you want to plan for?
Some of them have expressed that renters are good b/c they're willing to vote for tax increases. Some renters don't "get" that taxes get passed on to them in the form of increased rent.
We're talking about the constant churn of tens of thousands of renters per city, actually a much higher number of moves annually than the current vacant inventory. The topic, I think, is whether the market shows what people want. This churn, and the rents these tens of thousands of people choose to pay in a given year, say pretty clearly what the market values for their dollar.
You're only speaking about one segment of a much larger marketplace. Obviously urban planners can't limit their focus to only PT dependent renters.
Phony argument, false market, and false choice.
Why don't you propose prohibiting application fees and see how that affects the market?
This thread did not start out as a discussion about renters or churning of renters. Is a city of renters the type of city you want to plan for?
Your first paragraph is general ranting without specifics.
As for renters, of course a lot of people want to own and should, but a lot of people want to rent and are better off renting. Do you want to social engineer that too?
You're only speaking about one segment of a much larger marketplace. Obviously urban planners can't limit their focus to only PT dependent renters.
I'm talking about renters but said nothing about other arrangments. Condos, houses, etc. also fall within the same dynamics.
As for public transit, I was pretty clear in various posts that many new buildings even in Seattle have parking (most actually). But people who don't want to pay for parking they don't use have options so they don't have to.
I will point out that renters are at the mercy of the landlords.
I've been a public health nurse, and been in a lot of inner cities. You tell me that housing is what people value for their dollars.
I'm a pretty outspoken proponent of low-income housing, and keeping housing costs down.
That's one reason it's important to eliminate or reduce parking requirements. A lot of the working poor and especially the non-working poor don't have cars. For those people, deleting the expense of a parking space is a huge boon to affordability, especially for market-rate units.
If you're advocating that every apartment has parking, it sounds like you're the enemy of many of your own clients.
I'm a pretty outspoken proponent of low-income housing, and keeping housing costs down.
That's one reason it's important to eliminate or reduce parking requirements. A lot of the working poor and especially the non-working poor don't have cars. For those people, deleting the expense of a parking space is a huge boon to affordability, especially for market-rate units.
If you're advocating that every apartment has parking, it sounds like you're the enemy of many of your own clients.
Yes, the evil public health nurse. That's about enough of the insults, bub. Or was that just supposed to be a "gotcha"?
Define "a lot". Are you a proponent of lowering housing standards as well to keep costs down? You know, people living in homes with unsafe electrical systems, dirt floors, etc?
"The poor you will always have with you", along with a bunch of social engineers who don't care about them but want to say "what about the poor", a variation of "what about the kids".
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.
