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.
What are the benefits benefits of signing a two year lease over a one year lease? Economically it seems better to sign a one year lease at 3.5% than 5% for two years, but it seems like a lot of people on this forum opted for two year leases.
So, for those of you that signed two year leases, can you explain the rationale behind your decision and if now after signing you have any regrets? Also, I was just offered a unit and the options are a one year lease at 3.5% or two at 5% more than the rent listed on HousingConnect, I thought the first year was the amount listed on HC?
This does not make sense.
Increases for RS units take place when leases are renewed. If you are just moving into a unit and offered an initial (new) lease then rent is what it is for either one or two year term.
I've remained in the same stabilized apartment for 40 years, so I have a little experience. My method assumes that, like me, you want to stay long-term for as cheaply as you can.
I look at several factors. First, I chart the last 20 years of rent increases for both 1- and 2-year leases.
Second, look at the political landscape, which mainly means the mayor. It was obvious that Adams was going to raise rents significantly; he as much as said he would, to the extent any mayor can while he is running for office.
Third, look at the current composition of the rent guidelines board (RGB), which decides the increases (with pressure from all around but especially the mayor). If the mayor has left seats empty or filled seats previously always designated for one side or the other with a person who is not of pronounced bias one way or the other, that tells you a lot about how they will act. I believe I remember reading that Adams left tenant-biased seats unfilled for a while. I'm too lazy to check, though.
Fourth, keep your eye on the proceedings of said RGB. It takes them months of hearings to decide, and it's usually fairly clear at some point in the process where they're tending.
Fifth and most importantly, you must math. If you look at 3.5% for a one-year lease and 5% for a two-year and come out with the conclusion that the one-year is a better deal, you must believe (a) you'll leave the apt. very soon so only the short-term matters, (b) very low rent increases are just over the horizon (they aren't; Adams), (c) you will have so much money in a few years that you won't care much by then about your rent, and/or (d) math is too much trouble. If the last, I sympathize with you; I hate it, but did a little just to illustrate.
In this case, just have a look at what would happen to your rent over the next ten years if you kept renewing one-year leases as opposed to two-year.
Let's say you started out paying $1000 (good deal, by the way!):
After 10 years of paying one-year increases of 3.5%, you'd be paying $1411, or
After 10 years of paying two-year increases of 5%, you'd be paying $1277.
What happens if you stay for 20 years? I'm too lazy. I'm also too lazy to carefully doublecheck my input, so you can do that if you're so inclined. But those are the numbers I get.
Most generally I take the two-year. Math has proven that it usually saves money -- but not always. The rates vary a lot.
How hard is it to get out of a lease, let’s say I am offered a unit and sign for two years. Months later another building in a nicer neighborhood becomes available, is it difficult to terminate RS leases?
How hard is it to get out of a lease, let’s say I am offered a unit and sign for two years. Months later another building in a nicer neighborhood becomes available, is it difficult to terminate RS leases?
You would have to look at your lease and see what the terms are for breaking the lease.
It's not always all that difficult to break a lease in a tight housing market -- not as difficult as landlords and leases might have you believe. There are several ways to do it.
It's not always all that difficult to break a lease in a tight housing market -- not as difficult as landlords and leases might have you believe. There are several ways to do it.
It says "Technically, a lease is a legally binding contract. You’re on the hook to pay for the length of the lease terms." In some lease documents it has a written statement that allows people to leave with 1 month notice, etc. I also know if some landlord sues the tenant and hasn't found anyone to move into the apartment, the person may still have to pay rent until someone moves in. (I seen some forums of people winning lotteries and being stuck with that issue).
I think most people don't want to do to go to court. However, if the apartment is f**ked up I think that's an easy way to leave and breach the lease. Where I'm currently at they don't care so I can break the lease whenever I want, even a few days before leaving.
I've remained in the same stabilized apartment for 40 years, so I have a little experience. My method assumes that, like me, you want to stay long-term for as cheaply as you can.
I look at several factors. First, I chart the last 20 years of rent increases for both 1- and 2-year leases.
Second, look at the political landscape, which mainly means the mayor. It was obvious that Adams was going to raise rents significantly; he as much as said he would, to the extent any mayor can while he is running for office.
Third, look at the current composition of the rent guidelines board (RGB), which decides the increases (with pressure from all around but especially the mayor). If the mayor has left seats empty or filled seats previously always designated for one side or the other with a person who is not of pronounced bias one way or the other, that tells you a lot about how they will act. I believe I remember reading that Adams left tenant-biased seats unfilled for a while. I'm too lazy to check, though.
Fourth, keep your eye on the proceedings of said RGB. It takes them months of hearings to decide, and it's usually fairly clear at some point in the process where they're tending.
Fifth and most importantly, you must math. If you look at 3.5% for a one-year lease and 5% for a two-year and come out with the conclusion that the one-year is a better deal, you must believe (a) you'll leave the apt. very soon so only the short-term matters, (b) very low rent increases are just over the horizon (they aren't; Adams), (c) you will have so much money in a few years that you won't care much by then about your rent, and/or (d) math is too much trouble. If the last, I sympathize with you; I hate it, but did a little just to illustrate.
In this case, just have a look at what would happen to your rent over the next ten years if you kept renewing one-year leases as opposed to two-year.
Let's say you started out paying $1000 (good deal, by the way!):
After 10 years of paying one-year increases of 3.5%, you'd be paying $1411, or
After 10 years of paying two-year increases of 5%, you'd be paying $1277.
What happens if you stay for 20 years? I'm too lazy. I'm also too lazy to carefully doublecheck my input, so you can do that if you're so inclined. But those are the numbers I get.
Most generally I take the two-year. Math has proven that it usually saves money -- but not always. The rates vary a lot.
I've remained in the same stabilized apartment for 40 years, so I have a little experience. My method assumes that, like me, you want to stay long-term for as cheaply as you can.
I look at several factors. First, I chart the last 20 years of rent increases for both 1- and 2-year leases.
Second, look at the political landscape, which mainly means the mayor. It was obvious that Adams was going to raise rents significantly; he as much as said he would, to the extent any mayor can while he is running for office.
Third, look at the current composition of the rent guidelines board (RGB), which decides the increases (with pressure from all around but especially the mayor). If the mayor has left seats empty or filled seats previously always designated for one side or the other with a person who is not of pronounced bias one way or the other, that tells you a lot about how they will act. I believe I remember reading that Adams left tenant-biased seats unfilled for a while. I'm too lazy to check, though.
Fourth, keep your eye on the proceedings of said RGB. It takes them months of hearings to decide, and it's usually fairly clear at some point in the process where they're tending.
Fifth and most importantly, you must math. If you look at 3.5% for a one-year lease and 5% for a two-year and come out with the conclusion that the one-year is a better deal, you must believe (a) you'll leave the apt. very soon so only the short-term matters, (b) very low rent increases are just over the horizon (they aren't; Adams), (c) you will have so much money in a few years that you won't care much by then about your rent, and/or (d) math is too much trouble. If the last, I sympathize with you; I hate it, but did a little just to illustrate.
In this case, just have a look at what would happen to your rent over the next ten years if you kept renewing one-year leases as opposed to two-year.
Let's say you started out paying $1000 (good deal, by the way!):
After 10 years of paying one-year increases of 3.5%, you'd be paying $1411, or
After 10 years of paying two-year increases of 5%, you'd be paying $1277.
What happens if you stay for 20 years? I'm too lazy. I'm also too lazy to carefully doublecheck my input, so you can do that if you're so inclined. But those are the numbers I get.
Most generally I take the two-year. Math has proven that it usually saves money -- but not always. The rates vary a lot.
Hope that's helpful.
Thanks for this! I've been jerking around between 1 and 2 year leases, agonizing over a few bucks a month. I've now incomed out of the housing lotteries so I'm staying put and will stick to 2 year leases.
Thanks for this! I've been jerking around between 1 and 2 year leases, agonizing over a few bucks a month. I've now incomed out of the housing lotteries so I'm staying put and will stick to 2 year leases.
You're very welcome!
I'm not quite saying that you should just go with two-year renewals, though I've taken a lot of those and only a few one-year renewals. There was a de Blasio one-year zero increase that I couldn't resist, for example.
You have to look at the past increases and the political landscape as it will affect the Rent Guidelines Board, and see whether the one- or two-year option is better for you.
And whenever you're wondering -- do the math and see how your choices project over a 10-year period.
I'm not quite saying that you should just go with two-year renewals, though I've taken a lot of those and only a few one-year renewals. There was a de Blasio one-year zero increase that I couldn't resist, for example.
You have to look at the past increases and the political landscape as it will affect the Rent Guidelines Board, and see whether the one- or two-year option is better for you.
And whenever you're wondering -- do the math and see how your choices project over a 10-year period.
LOL - I missed out on the 0% because I was in the middle of a 2 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.
