Renter paradox and short termism.

It does look like the under $3,000 one bedroom with doorman is no longer there. Rents definitely dipped two years ago, and now it seems that in the 700-800 square foot range you're easily talking $3,100-$3,500.

It can't be true, as SE authority has it that rents track incomes. Sounds so tidy, eh? Yet we're never told whose incomes, whose rents, and over whose life-span, but those're just niggling details. It's never been true over the 34 years I've lived here, but that's just short-term thinking.

The kid who works for just YESTERDAY signed a lease for a 1 bd at the Helena for $2850 net of concessions. YESTERDAY. And he had three units to choose from.

He showed my the floorplans and everything.

And he talked them down from the ask obviously. But the asking IS NOT $5000!!!! See
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/the-helena

It's absolutely true that in the QEII bubble market-rate buildings tried to go back to the Bad Old Ways and jack up rents. As a result, my Dumpy Rental has at least 4 2-br 2-ba apartments available (excluding mine), all hovering around $4100 a month - they had been trying to up the rents to the high 4000's, and everybody said no.

There is no question that QEII was very damaging, and that because of it we are now heading into The Great Recession, Part II. It's all falling apart right now, but not without last gasps.

One of the advantages of renting is you can always move; a hassle, but doable. If you're an owner w/ a mortgage and you're underwater, or they do what they did in my co-op and quadruple maintenance, you're (and I'm) stuck. I may very well be a happy, lifelong renter.

PS: The Helena is a nice-looking building, but leagues from the subway or anything else to do, though if your car breaks down, you're in the right nabe to get it fixed.

Love this: "according to figures from Citi Habitats, a large rental brokerage, and other surveys....."

It's simply not true. Just look on nybits.com for archived rentals: the prices are slightly above where they were at the depths of 3 years ago.

The guy in the story had been in a one-bedroom with home office and two baths (i.e. a B, L or M-line). They're asking $5,500 for a true 2/2 now, so $5,000 sounds right once you add in the premium the LL will want to get for your being there already.

Steve, has the Ellington put any money into the apartments (something we're told landlords always do) or is this 1980's formica-fest kitchen still the standard there: http://img.streeteasy.com/nyc/image/34/22139534.jpg

If they've upgraded, they really should change the photos in their listings.

Though the rags on the oven door do add that homey touch....

Try Queens. I bet you rents are not up there.

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/nyregion/foreclosures-empty-homes-and-criminals-fill-them-up.html?hp

Moving to a cheaper neighborhood, doesn't refute rising rents.

Helena lists two available units on their site for $3100, look like they are roughly ~700 sq feet. I'm low floor. The person whose rent went up to $5000 may have been on a high floor with premium view, possibly terrace, otherwise 5k is way too high.

I have argued several times on this board that prime areas, nice buildings with doorman are $5 per sq ft per month. Higher end buildings such as Caledonia are even higher at $6 per sq ft per month. This numbers applies to upto 1200-1300 sq apartment with 2/3 bedrooms. Larger apartments that 1500 sq ft have a huge variation in rent on a per sq ft basis. What are the renters on this board experiencing?

About $5 per square foot. Nice building / Good area. Very little inventory (we wanted to move) whether rental or purchase.

I bet w67th st is kicking himself for not buying that 3 bedroom 2 years ago when the market was weak and he was sure prices would collapse. I know a woman who bought a low floor, one bedroom condo in a great uptown location then. She would have preferred downtown, a two bedroom, or a higher floor. But she bought what she could manage and locked in her cost during a pricing dip.

DTD, with the low rates right now, $5 per real sq ft rent does make the buy vs rent calculations work as long as you have 7-10 year hold horizon and can afford 25-30% down payment.

DTD, with the low rates right now, $5 per real sq ft rent does make the buy vs rent calculations work as long as you have 7-10 year hold horizon and can afford 25-30% down payment

and if you assume prices will go up.

300 haven't run numbers in a while but condos seem to be going for 1200-1300 sq foot which didn't seem to pan out numbers wise. The up side would be having a place we love but that's where the problem comes in. no inventory. And 900 sq feet 2/2 is way to small. I did think prices would come down here. I doubt it will happen. The 1% have to live somewhere :)

Brooklyn, Queens, SI, Bronx in NYC..

NJ,LI, CT .. prices continue to go down there too.

DTD, what about coops? They are still in 1000-1100 per sq ft range as unless you are looking for 3 bed which are higher.

Can't do the Coop route again. Def. want condo if not we'll stay renters. There really is just no inventory in the 2/2 1300-1500 Square Foot Range. I'm just noticing that the prices aren't changing. It is what it is. The sad part is all of the flavor of the city that makes it so great will ultimately end up leaving...as is already happening.

DTDWIH---

Why wouldn't you do a co-op again?

Went thru a turn down. never had a meeting. Place was 1/2 of what we could afford. It is still on market, vacant, for 18 months. I think now that time has passed it's because it's priced so low(I realize we'll never know). Anyway...I never considered what it would be like to be in the sellers position where they can't get out. I like the idea of a coop and the protection it can offer but the flip side is no autonomy and I just don't think that's the right vibe for us in our primary residence. Life happens in ways we sometimes can't predict and I'd hate to be where that seller is right now. She had a solid buyer.

DTD, 1300-1500 unfortunately is the tightest inventory indeed. We started looking in this sq ft range but eventually ended up going for bigger space as there is less competition. We did go for a coop, cost with high-end selected updates $1075 per real sq ft.

>>>>Place was 1/2 of what we could afford.

Was that based on Income or assets or both? did you need 2-3x assets vs price.. one of those?

Based on both income and assets. And from both Seller/Buyer broker there was none of that 2-3x. Unless they didn't do their research.
Like I said we'll never know but I do think it was the price. They obviously wouldn't tell the seller why. We were all disappointed. Now I realize it's a gift.
I'd love for us to find a place that is large enough that we'd feel comfortable committing to for 10 years but as 300 said it's def. the area
with the tightest inventory.
The LL's I've dealt with are reasonable people. I've never felt gouged. I've lived in NYC since the 80's and all I can say is boy has it changed. The pricing in Manhattan is a perfect mirror for what's happening in our country. What I can't figure out is why IHOP is moving into the Old limelight?

What I can't figure out is why IHOP is moving into the Old limelight?

yea..i don't think that would help RE prices..

anyway good luck

sorry DTD for your coop experience. Our experience was smooth sailing once we meticulously prepared the application including attaching our resumes. Condo has additional closing cost while buying which the coops do not have. We would not do for stuffy park avenue / sutton place coops.

Thank you Brooks & 300. I'm sure it will all fall into place as it has a way of doing.

"Was that based on Income or assets or both? did you need 2-3x assets vs price.. one of those?"

I've been hearing everything from co-ops wanting liquid equal to 6 mos. maint after deposit and closing costs to 2 years maint&mort. Setting aside the assets of 2 or 3x purchase price, what is fairly standard these days of co-ops to require?

Already been posted, and debunked. Here is a list of 1-bedroom archived listings at The Helena, from nybits.com:

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/the_helena_archived_rentals.html

NOT A SINGLE ON ANYWHERE NEAR THAT PRICE - they hover around $3k a month. During that time they had a TWO BEDROOM listed for under $5k a month.

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/31a1e06e32a0a6f0b1228c4bd543d221.html

More NY Times Realtwhore Shill Trash. When will you people learn?

The Helena's asking prices have actually gone DOWN since 2008. In fact, they're DOWN from 2007.

Just more crap reporting.

Rents only go up, while mortgages stay the same for 30 years. Then, after that, they become $0. Rents, they just keep going up. Person who bought a house for $80k in 1980 is living for $1000 a month in taxes and has a capital gain of $500,000. Renter is paying $3500/mo for the same thing, and has $0 capital gains. Generally speaking, renting is for poor people.

http://www.realestaterama.com/2011/10/06/mortgage-interest-deduction-a-middle-class-pillar-ID012148.html

"According to the 2007 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, the median net worth of a home owner is $234,600, compared to $5,100 for renters."

Renters = Poorz

Number Of Underwater Mortgages Rises As More Homeowners Fall Behind

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/number-of-underwater-mort_n_833000.html

Renters = Don't Lose Money = SMART.

There just aren't that many underwater mortgages in Manhattan.
-Coops often require large down payments
-Borough did not experience the huge declines of Florida, Nevada, California
-Significant percentage of Condos were purchased before 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/nyregion/foreclosures-empty-homes-and-criminals-fill-them-up.html?hp

But in the boroughs nyc'ers turn them into crack dens and hooker haunts

Many Foreclosures, Few Listings

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/realestate/in-the-region-new-jersey-anticipating-foreclosure-floodgates.html?_r=1&ref=realestate

Proof, RS, not conjecture.

Plenty of underwater buyers from The Boom.

Riversider: "-Significant percentage of Condos were purchased before 2004"

What about since 2004?
http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1212526797kudZP&Record=16

"There just aren't that many underwater mortgages in Manhattan.
-Coops often require large down payments
-Borough did not experience the huge declines of Florida, Nevada, California
-Significant percentage of Condos were purchased before 2004"

*****

Do you have some hard figures to back this up?

Keep in mind this new wave of foreclosures in New York had absolutely nothing to do with people buying more than they could afford; the vast majority of these people DID buy prudently, aced their co-op board approvals, and had money in the bank.

It's the UNEMPLOYMENT that's causing these foreclosures. Regardless of how prudently you purchased, how much you put down, or how much post-closing liquidity you had, if you need a JOB to pay the bills, being thrown out of work for more than a year can -- and IS -- throwing even the highest earners into foreclosure.

Agree with this. It's an income issue.

UNEMPLOYMENT

-- yes a large part of the problem.

but when you take out 2 mortgages to by a house, then you take out a HE loan after you house got appraised higher after 2004' to pay for your kids private school then you max out your credit card to buy all your favorite Suites, and stretched on your car loan to get a mercedes like your neighbors. then you did not get that expected bonus, your stock portfolios went down 20% and your company stock drop 70%... this may have had something to do with it too

Matt has a lot of excuses for the unemployed, but never accepts responsibility for hard work unless paid triple overtime. lazy + greedy + no responsibility.

Brooks, do you actually know people who lived like that? Or is that just what you read on some frugal living website? Most upper class people I know spend a fraction of their income and assets, and have about 10 years of living expenses in liquid assets.

Brooks, do you actually know people who lived like that?

yes, I know a lot of "1%" that are "trying" to adjust to their new incomes... ie. selling summer homes on Nantucket to to pay their 1st mortgage... and still wondering how they will pay their kids education.

btw- 10yr living expenes in liquid assets.. really... maybe now because of the fear of another Global recession.. but typically that would be absurd.. but depends on what you consider liquid..

Ever read the millionaire next door. It's all about limiting one's expenses.

Riversider---Ever read the millionaire next door. It's all about limiting one's expenses.

that would be great if everyone did that... but, 99% did not.. most wanted to get rich quick and/or work for themselves and went to one too many Trump lecture or read Rich Dad Poor Dad and thought it was a great idea to lever yourself in the RE market until everything came crashing down..

Robert Kiyosaki!

Hey, whatever happened to columbiacounty? I thought he would have been out by now.

Every high earner I know could be fired tomorrow, and be all set for YEARS. This whole "banker who can't pay the bills" is total bullshit.

you probably dont know that many bankers

most are downsizing big time

Reminded me of this..
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-27-year-old-made-500000-last-year-at-one-of-the-6-biggest-banks-in-the-us-2011-10

Wall Streeters are preparing for a year of deflated bonuses that will be around 25% of last year's*, according to one of our sources at a big U.S. bank.

According to recruiter Michael Karp of Options Group, who told Bloomberg that he met last month with a trader who made $500,000 last year at one of the six largest U.S. banks, an unnamed 27-year-old trader says the decrease in pay is "demoralizing."

The trader, an Ivy League graduate, complained that he has worked harder this year and will be paid less. According to Bloomberg, the headhunter told him to stay put and collect his bonus.

Brooks2
7 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse you probably dont know that many bankers

extremely clear that brooks is an unemployed banker (what else can explain his innate knowledge of EVERYTHING, general douchebagness, and sudden appearance at nearly all hours on this forum due to his not having a job anymore) who didn't save a fucking penny of his inflated and largely unearned salary, and is now totally over his head.

Yeah, if you look on NYbits, there were NO apartments matching the story in question. Not in 2009, not this year. Nothing that WAS 3000 and then later listed for 5000.

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/the_helena_archived_rentals.html

The story is a plant, jason. I posted a comment about the TRUTH of the matter on the Times' website, and they wouldn't approve it.

No such apartment ever existed.

jason10006
about 9 hours ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse Yeah, if you look on NYbits, there were NO apartments matching the story in question. Not in 2009, not this year. Nothing that WAS 3000 and then later listed for 5000.

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/the_helena_archived_rentals.html

Perfect proof that Streeteasy, NY Bits, etc don't do a very good job of keeping accurate listings information on their websites.

Oh, Jimmy Ho', you be stretching w/ that one.

I submitted a comment to that article on the NY Times website, with the link to the available listings published on nybits. THEY REFUSED TO PUBLISH IT.

Because the article is a fraud and a sham. No such rental ever existed.

Read:

jim_hones10
about 19 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse streetview
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse Sounds like the Durst Group came out predatory in the article. Anyone else have a Durst story?

perhaps this tenant was less than desireable. good way to clear the books of someone you don't want in the building anymore. he downsized to a $1600 apartment on 1st in the 80's? something sounds weird in that to me.

I notice that the landlord never said that they were charging him $5000. This tenant did.

This listing, from December 2008. 31R.

601 West 57th Street, The Helena, Apt. 31-R OLR ID: 304442


Financials
Rent: $2,990
Security: 1 months Commission:
Listing Type: Exclusive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details
Size: One Bedroom Ownership: Rental Property
R/B/B: 3/1/1 Availability: Immediate
SF: N/A Term: 12 - 24 Months
Status: Rented Neighborhood: Midtown West
Listed: 12/8/2008 Updated: 12/18/2008
On Market: 1 Weeks Source: OLR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concession
OP [12/15/2008]: 1 month
Free Rent [12/15/2008]: 1 month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apartment Features
AC: Window Units; Kitchen: Windowed; Bathroom: Windowed; WIC; Floor To Ceiling Windows;

Apartment Policies
Shares Allowed, Pets Allowed

Exposure / View
South/ River; Open

Building Description
Cross Streets: Eleventh Avenue and Twelfth Avenue.
Full Service; Elevator; Post-war; Built 2005; High-rise; 40 Floors; 600 Apartments.

Building Amenities
Bike Room; Garage; Water Filtration System; Health Club; Laundry Room; Maid Service; Valet; Nursery; Lounge; Rooftop Deck; Common Storage Room; WiFi; Business Center;

Building Policies
LEED Certified. Green Building. Diplomats Welcome. No Open Houses. Show Hours: M-F: 10-6; SA: 10-4.

Broker Summary
> Twice-filtered water system. > Complimentary shuttle bus to Columbus Circle. > Diplomats are not allowed.
Access
Agent shows.

Contact Information:
Jim Manning, Nancy Packes, Inc.
Phone: 212-262-6500 , Fax: 212-262-6515
[Email Agent]

Same line, one flight up, three years (nearly later). Note the HIGHER RENT AND LACK OF CONCESSIONS.

601 West 57th Street, The Helena, Apt. 32-R OLR ID: 352020


Financials
Rent: $3,390
Listing Type: Exclusive Lease Type: Stabilized Lease

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details
Size: One Bedroom Ownership: Rental Property
R/B/B: 3/1/1 Availability: Immediate
SF/SM: 702/65 Term: 12 - 24 Months
Status: Rented Neighborhood: Midtown West
Listed: 6/21/2011 Updated: 8/9/2011
On Market: 7 Weeks Source: OLR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apartment Features
WIC; Floor To Ceiling Windows;

Exposure / View
South/ City; River; Open

Building Description
Cross Streets: Eleventh Avenue and Twelfth Avenue.
Full Service; Elevator; Post-war; Built 2005; High-rise; 40 Floors; 600 Apartments.

Building Amenities
Bike Room; Garage; Water Filtration System; Health Club; Laundry Room; Maid Service; Valet; Nursery; Lounge; Rooftop Deck; Common Storage Room; WiFi; Business Center;

Building Policies
LEED Certified. Green Building. Diplomats Welcome. No Open Houses. Show Hours: M-F: 10-6; SA: 10-4. Pets Allowed. Excludes certain breeds. Weight Limit 45 lbs.

Broker Summary
Wide oak-plank floors, Floor to ceiling windows, Custom kitchens with Italian tile floors, Twice-Filtered water, Heat and Air conditioning available 365 days a year. Very easy to furnish!
Access
By appointment only.

Contact Information:
Jim Manning, Nancy Packes, Inc.
Phone: 212-262-6500 , Fax: 212-262-6515
[Email Agent]







All information furnished herein is from sources deemed reliable. No representation is made by On-Line Residential, Inc. nor is any to be implied as to the accuracy thereof and all information is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price, prior sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. All dimensions are approximate. For exact dimensions, please hire your own architect or engineer.

I also find it interesting that another r line, on a lower floor is listed at over 5k per month. could the floor plans change as they go up the building? sure. but 12r is also a one bedroom, so not sure. could the landlord be taking oversized one bedrooms and turning them into two bedrooms? sure. either way, since the landlord didn't comment, you saying the unit never existed is unsupported. see below:

601 West 57th Street, The Helena, Apt. 11-R OLR ID: 356007


Financials
Rent: $5,100
Security: 1 months Commission:
Listing Type: Exclusive Lease Type: Stabilized Lease

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details
Size: Two Bedroom Ownership: Rental Property
R/B/B: 4/2/2 Availability: Immediate
SF: N/A Term: 12 - 12 Months
Status: Rented Neighborhood: Midtown West
Listed: 10/11/2011 Updated: 10/12/2011
On Market: 1 Days Source: OLR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apartment Features
Dining Area; Kitchen: Dishwasher; WIC; Floor To Ceiling Windows;

Exposure / View
South; East/ Open

Building Description
Cross Streets: Eleventh Avenue and Twelfth Avenue.
Full Service; Elevator; Post-war; Built 2005; High-rise; 40 Floors; 600 Apartments.

Building Amenities
Bike Room; Garage; Water Filtration System; Health Club; Laundry Room; Maid Service; Valet; Nursery; Lounge; Rooftop Deck; Common Storage Room; WiFi; Business Center;

Building Policies
LEED Certified. Green Building. Diplomats Welcome. No Open Houses. Show Hours: M-F: 10-6; SA: 10-4. Pets Allowed. Excludes certain breeds. Weight Limit 45 lbs.

Broker Summary
> Huge two-bedroom apartment, with southeast exposure.
Access
Agent shows.
M-F: 10-6

Contact Information:
Jim Manning, Nancy Packes, Inc.
Phone: 212-262-6500 , Fax: 212-262-6515
[Email Agent]







All information furnished herein is from sources deemed reliable. No representation is made by On-Line Residential, Inc. nor is any to be implied as to the accuracy thereof and all information is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price, prior sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. All dimensions are approximate. For exact dimensions, please hire your own architect or engineer.

The 2 bds there have 2bths and were never 2900.

jason10006
6 minutes ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse The 2 bds there have 2bths and were never 2900.

I didn't say that the two beds were ever $2900. I said (possibly) that:

1. landlord didn't want the tenant in the building and offered an outrageous renewal
2. the landlord could be turning large one bedrooms into two bedrooms (not saying they are, but it would account for some of the odd pricing of the R line.

There were many Lehman and Bear employees who declared bankruptcy following the downturn and their firms eliminations. This is not a myth or something I heard. I know about them personally. I don't know where they are now. Some got new jobs. Others started their own firms. Some are still struggling just like the poor. Some kids were pulled out of private schools if they were unable to get financial aid. They were given financial aid first which in turn left less funds for the poorer people to get aid. There is a finite number of funds that is given for FA. Some moved to the suburbs. Some left the city. I don't things have gotten that much better but for a lucky few. Unemployment is the biggest problem for everyone except the very rich and ones who saved properly. If those who saved are still not earning as much as they used to eventually their savings will be wiped out as well. How long can they keep up appearances?

There was a story I recall reading in the WSJ back in the 1980's. Seems this trader was beneficiary of some very generous comp and was living frugally, including continue driving a Volkswagen. His higher ups got nervous so investigated him thinking drugs or some other dark secret. Upon inquiry the trader just said he didn't want to get used to an income that he didn't think sustainable and was saving it.

"just like the poor"

We don't need The Poor. Good riddance.

I will repeat this a third time -

Let's be clear - the guy who works for me talked the Helena down $100 per month AND got a free month. This all on Friday, October 14, 2011. 2 days ago!!!! $2850 net for a one bedroom. So the very anecdote meant to frame this story is false.

jason10006
1 minute ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse I will repeat this a third time -

Let's be clear - the guy who works for me talked the Helena down $100 per month AND got a free month. This all on Friday, October 14, 2011. 2 days ago!!!! $2850 net for a one bedroom. So the very anecdote meant to frame this story is false.

Third time indeed. In the last three minutes. People can read Jason.

poor poor boner. no one listens. no one cares.

Jimmy Ho', just 'cause your theory ain't working, no need to take it out on Poor Jason.

The facts are the facts: the story is deliberately misleading, and the Times seems to know it, because they won't publish my list of the FACTS - that no 1 bedroom apartment has EVER rented in The Helena for $5000, or even been advertised for close to that. There is a long list of archived rental ads to prove it...

...UNLESS, someone deliberately was offered $2850 for a one-bedroom and then asked if he could pay the Dursts $5,000 for it, because he thinks they need to be richer.

It's possible, eh, Jimmy Ho'?

stevejhx
less than a minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse Jimmy Ho', just 'cause your theory ain't working, no need to take it out on Poor Jason.

The facts are the facts: the story is deliberately misleading, and the Times seems to know it, because they won't publish my list of the FACTS - that no 1 bedroom apartment has EVER rented in The Helena for $5000, or even been advertised for close to that. There is a long list of archived rental ads to prove it...

...UNLESS, someone deliberately was offered $2850 for a one-bedroom and then asked if he could pay the Dursts $5,000 for it, because he thinks they need to be richer.

It's possible, eh, Jimmy Ho'?

Again, I don't think your reading comprehension is very good. The person in the article is quoted as saying he received a $5000 renewal. Do you think the Times fabricated him? For what purpose? The Dursts are very specifically noted as not commenting. In fact, no one from the building comments. No one anywhere mentions an asking rent for one bedrooms of $5000. The fact that YOU have stated, here, that two bedrooms have never traded for more than $5000 shows how poorly informed you are. And "archived rental ads?" Please. I've got details on trades in that buidling and most in Manhattan going back for years and years. What I provided is proof of stable NEAR OR AT PEAK rents in this building. You've proven to have an agenda, and that you misunderstood an article an 8 year old could have understood.

>I will repeat this a third time -
>Let's be clear - the guy who works for me talked the Helena down $100 per month AND got a free month.

I like how proud you are of your employee. I'm wondering if this guy can get such a great deal, how long before he is your boss?

>columbiacounty
32 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse poor poor boner. no one listens. no one cares.

Hey, columbiacounty, you are out! Good thing they have that 72 hour rule.

"The fact that YOU have stated, here, that two bedrooms have never traded for more than $5000 shows how poorly informed you are"

I never said ANY SUCH THING, and I have no "agenda": when they were raising the rents in my building, I posted as much (earlier this year). I also posted that I didn't think they would last.

And I was right.

"What I provided is proof of stable NEAR OR AT PEAK rents in this building."

No you didn't. The data you showed shows rents going down, just like the nybits & streeteasy data show. In fact, just yesterday I looked up the Westminster, where I used to live, and they are advertising (several) one-bedroom apartments at $4295, which is EXACTLY where they were in 2006 when I moved out.

Related, which owns the Westminster, is the fastest to raise rents, and the slowest to reduce them. They're getting 2006 prices - which is what most rentals are going for right now.

Today's RE section has a correction to the Helena story. The Graney guy's rent was going up to $3,590, not $5,000.

That number is more credible. The point that renters are too focused on the immediate cost of rent at the expense of longer term housing costs still stands. Owning a Condo comes with more predictable costs and excludes that part of monthly rent going to the owner as monthly profit(mark-up)

stevejhx where o where exactly are you presently renting. Sounds like your building is dropping rents or giving away free months yada yada yada, What's the present address of your so called fantasy building with rents that either always go down or at least never go up????????

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/the-ellington

One bedroom starts @ $3,000. Building seems ok, but not top end. Hells kitchen should rent for discount vs upper west side. So where's the bargain?

>and excludes that part of monthly rent going to the owner as monthly profit(mark-up)

Is that not a trade-off for the profit to the apartment seller that is paid upfront?

Renters, they can't afford to buy. They will need to be broke renters until they can amass 6-figures liquid. Most idiots can not manage to do this. Hence, they do not get the jackpot at retirement and 30 years of rent-free living, to boot. Lifelong paycheck to paycheck renters?

Another lottery winner retires early. Owners have tons of gravy, including a multi-million dollar payout when they retire or 30 more years of rent free living.
The deduction is almost a moot point, and most owners earn too much anyway. Take the million dollar lottery payout at retirement and be happy.

Buyer buys $80k townhouse in 1980. Sells it for $6mm when he retires. And no, saying he could have taken that $8k downpayment to the racetrack and put it all on some horse (or investing into a company on the verge of bankruptcy) is not a valid opportunity cost comparison, you blithering imbecile.

What if stupid renter eventually buys in old age? Owners would be living rent-free at that age. Instead, she subjects herself to $60,000 a year in rent. LOL, nice "retirement" sucker. Correct, she is a ginormous fool. This is a case of "too little, too late" She should have bought something back in the 1970s or 1980s, like other people her age. She'd be sitting on millions and be living rent free. A true idiot renter who had made things even worse. At the least, should have moved to a $1500 studio.

Maybe not NYC, but owners have literally recouped 100% of the cost of their apartment in the 10 years of paying below market cost to own than to rent (owning is much cheaper than renting). Even if the apartment was today valued at $0, owners am still ahead. Wrap your mind around that.

2 years ago, I recall seeing $200k studios being posted here. Of course, some of SE crazies told buyers they were CRAZY. Now, there seem to be none of these $200k studios. If the cheapest studios are now listing for $300k, can we infer that the smart investors who bought 2 years ago are now sitting on a 6-figure profit cushion? Pretty damn incredible. Live for $1000/mo, and get paid $100k to do so. A renter doesn't see that sort of money in a lifetime!

Renters LOSE: Bought in 1983 for $1m. Sold in 2012 for $8mil. Owner walks away with a $7m profit. Renter's profit? $0. Yes, those brilliant renters can avoid the increasing cost of electricity and point out the 6 people who bought in 2009 who are underwater. They are so frickin' smart! Just think owners live for free for decades after paying off the mortgage. And get $7 million bucks as a parting gift.

Renters get ZERO percent return. And, renters pay MORE every single month, both during the mortgage and after it's retired.

Average renter net worth $5k
Average owner net worth $250k

Renting is for short-term thinkers. People used to say Manhattan was overpriced in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Guess what? Anyone who paid off their mortgage over 30 years was looking at a jackpot of wealthy when they retired. Renters? Nothing. Just sniveling ants trying to keep their rent control. If you take a long term perspective, buying is ALWAYS a no-brainer jackpot lottery system for your retirement. And, no, being down on your purchase from 2010 does not negate this.

Wow, anyone who bought a studio or 1BR in the 1990s is sitting on about $300,000 of cold hard cash for apartment sitting. Real estate is truly a money tree, if there ever was one. Oh, and you'be be living mortgage free by now as well. For the rest of your life.

NOT BUYING NOW VS. NOT BUYING EVER? BIG difference. Sure, this is a stupid time to buy at inflated prices after prices have gone up x00% in the last x years. Anyone who already bought from 1850 to 2008 has made out like a robber baron. That boat has sailed. Anyone who bought in 2009 or 2010 lost lost money. BUT, anyone who never EVER buys in their entire lifetime is a stupid f*cking renter idiot funding someone else's retirement. It's an important clarification that some here are too dumb to understand.

I am 100% agreement that prices are headed down. If you're not already sitting on a mountain of pre-2008 profit, then don't bother. That ship has sailed. Owners should now just concentrate on paying off the mortgage, and living rent free for the rest of their lives. Renters, well, I guess can just keep paying off their master's mortgage.

dealboy, rb345 says that stochastic movements in recent prices will lead to prices going up 10-40% soon, you disagree?

t 16 months ago
Posts: 10367
Member since: Nov 2010
ignore this person
report abuse

Matt has a lot of excuses for the unemployed, but never accepts responsibility for hard work unless paid triple overtime. lazy + greedy + no responsibility.

greensdale
1 minute ago
Posts: 659
Member since: Sep 2012
stop ignoring this person
report abuse

dealboy, rb345 says that stochastic movements in recent prices will lead to prices going up 10-40% soon, you disagree?

Why the name change hunterberg?

Hi Jim, what's the latest with you and C0lumbiaC0unty?

answer a question with a question douchebag?

I'm a New Yorker, that's what we do.
Welcome to the City.

why not address your incessant trolling on a real estate discussion board. what's it been, two/three years now? why the name change?

dealboy, your crap keeps on coming. how about taking that 8K down and do the math of how much you'd have today if you put it into an S&P fund.

i would also advise that you do some MATH. i know it's a big word for you. look at rent to own then and rent to own now.

when i bought in 2003, i paid LESS to own than to rent the same unit, even before tax benefits. find me that today please.

dealboy, your crap keeps on coming. how about taking that 8K down and do the math of how much you'd have today if you put it into an S&P fund.

i would also advise that you do some MATH. i know it's a big word for you. look at rent to own then and rent to own now.

when i bought in 2003, i paid LESS to own than to rent the same unit, even before tax benefits. find me that today please.

forgetting (conveniently) that you need shelter, aren't you fuckface?