even more proof of a tightening market

Agreed. Same is starting to happen with Condo sales offices. Loosening up negotiability on various aspects of the deal such as closing costs, etc.

It's the start to the summer season. Many colleges have already held their commencements. But of course you know this as a seasoned rental agent. Rental agents wouldn't deceive or exaggerate would they?

F'ng tool.

Essentially the Easy Street renters are arguing that the entire media is misreporting the story on rising rents...Interesting

I don't agree on condos. I the market as unchanged...essentially.

LOLOL F'ng tool from the person from the hospital mental ward

"Essentially the Easy Street renters are arguing that the entire media is misreporting the story on rising rents...Interesting"

Last year and two years ago this time there were similar stories...because reporters are apparently too stupid to understand seasonality.

exactly jason. next year. same story.

who cares? what matters are the results at the end of the day. not the asking rents. not the demands by landlords who will obviously try to optimize their returns any way they can. the question is at what level do deals actually get done (which is not at all transparent) and where is the rental market after the seasonal surge.

of course RS doesn't agree on condos. flmao.

at least jim sticks to his guns unlike that spineless punk ericho that dissapears when the market goes south. keep firin away jimmy. we'll drag this one back up in 30 days

I've never known the mainstream media to be wrong. How about you rs?

"A coalition of community organizations in NYC, Right to the City Coalition, has found that 264 luxury residential developments are sitting vacant around the city. Rather than wasting useful space, the coalition is advocating that these places be taken over by the city and used for housing the homeless."

http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/05/21/put-homeless-in-vacant-nyc-luxury-apts-advocates-say/

Are you sure that you aren't renting to homeless?!

First of all Jim I find your choice of words extremely offensive especially directed at a friend of mine. And I am NOT a person of delicate ears (or eyes), having and using a vocabulary usually associated with drunken sailors and the like. But there are certain terms (the "n" word for example, the word you used for another) that just don't belong in adult discourse. Disagree and don't like AR, your right (and your problem since I happen to think she's a pretty awesome person) but you don't have the right be cross the fucking line--no one does.

Okay on to my main point. Does it occur to people that the mainstream media (including web sites) have a very symbiotic relationship with major developers and landlords. Are the media literally going to "bite the hand that feed them", some of their biggest advertisers, with negative press coverage unless they absolutely have to? No matter how many pages Toyota buys, the Times will always report on the safety issue, its their responsibility. But is the sacred public trust violated if the fact that Glenwood (to pick a name) is not having a good year? I can tell you that media management (not singling out the Times) is likely to say no.

Okay

Hey r your 'sales' ppl pulling rental borkera for open houses this weekend? Jeez 3k open houses in manhattan. R u borkers trying to set a guinness record? Thatz so awesome. Why waste all these unsold units, a beauiful Sunday and 6k borkers. Jimnutz get thee to the open houses, help your sales team side.

Fetch me a copy of that "Cranes" article, Sherpa. I wanna see what it says that's got you so excited.

jim, your credibility shines through with each and every word you type. you go dickwad.

liz, no worries. it's hard to take it personally when he calls just about everyone who disagrees with him cunt.

no, nada, it was a "crames" article.

Inonada, you seem fairly bright. Google it.

AR, its hard to type on a blackberry. Making fun of spelling is like telling someone threy have cooties

Its going to be funny watchung people bid on apt rentals again

Jim, clearly a curmudgeon

Jim,
Why is Pan Am so important. A renter can't even get a free month or their brokerage fee paid. Is their inventory so "must have"?

Lizyank, the other week I was called a cocksucker and then was told it wasn't directed at me. Fine, it didn't seem like it should have been directed at me though it followed my post (I was later told it followed someone else's post who was deleted, apparently for being even worse than a post simply calling me or the other person cocksucker). But my question was, why it was necessary no matter what? Cunt is no worse than cocksucker, right? What about the rest which sometimes start pretty early and pretty loudly on here?

So basically I've said cocksucker 4 times (including this one) and cunt now twice. Glad to add to the discourse.

Anyone know why living in a Pan Am building is so important?

Splaken, go look up their building portfolio on urban sherpa. Some of their properties are among the best rental properties in the city in great locations. Others are just well maintained walk-up and elevator buildings in good locations.
The point is that they have a lot of buildings, and will no longer pay a fee. Tenants can't go direct to the landlord either.

Wonder if this could push some renters back toward being owners. The psychology of paying a net effective rent 10% higher than on an expiring lease tends to evoke images of "throwing away money"

actually, splaken it was directed at jim_hones. irony.

and living in a pan am building is important because jim says so and because broker's get fees there.

oops, i have a typo. brokers not broker's.

jim, i'm usually on an i-phone.

It's important because it adds to the list of properties not engaging in rental discounts.

If you read the posts ar sweetie, I noted that pan am was giving concessions (actually will continue until may 31) for almost 2 yrs
Their list of buildings is what makes them important. Unless you think pre-war rental building along cpw in the low 70's (as an example) are insignificant.
More importantly, to me, this is just the first domino. Once one of the big players decide to do this, the others will follow. We will have a market that is 70-80 percent fee based again by aug 1.

But you are forgetting that just because they eliminate concessions doesn't mean that new renters will accept it. Of course, it will be your job to convince people that prices are only going up. Hmnn....how will you do that?

The market will convince them of it, I won't need to. When an apt they want goes to someone who is willing to pay more rent, they'll learn.
Its easy to be analytic about it here, less so when you actually need to move.

ewww. jim just called me sweetie. prognosticate away, jim. so far your track record is not so hot so i'm not sure why we should be listening. but keep beating those drums. it makes complete sense that landlords will be able to extract more from a population that has less money at a time when a lot of inventory is being added. anyone who has taken econ101 knows that.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/655260-rental-222-east-34th-street-kips-bay-new-york

Incentive for Current Availabilities:
– Free High Speed Wireless for one year
– i-Homes In-Wall Integrated Home Stereo
– 1 Month OP

Madison Avenue Condos Hit the Auction Block

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/realestate/23auction.html?ref=realestate

Clearly most of the posters hate the messenger here. Fair enough, j ho is probably the lowliest piece of sh*t on this board (for reasons noted by liz above, among others) so he deserves it.

But people seem to be taking even more offense to the message - and not because they have been able to produce evidence to counter the message. If all there is to counter reports of declining landlord concessions is conspiracy theories - unholy alliance of media and landlords, etc. - well, that's not a lot. Actual examples of increasing landlord concessions would be a lot more persuasive. I think there is enough evidence out there now to show that the rental market (sales too, for that matter) is tighter (or, if you prefer, less loose) than it was at the depths last year. It is puzzling that this is such a hard thing for so many people to get their heads around, although presumably the explanation is that people are determined not to get their heads around realities that they don't like. It is beyond me why people find infomation offensive - it's just data.

sls, where is jim's proof? i don't think i'm claiming conspiracy theories. if i were a landlord i'd try to do my best to maximize profits by taking advantage of the more active rental season as well. but i'm still seeing concessions, some down, some not. and there is no proof of increased income/demand and quite a bit of proof of additional inventory. that's what i base my doubts on.

real-time demographic info is non-existent. both we and the landlords can only guess how many people will leave this summer when their one or two-year leases are done. the ll's, through consulting firms, may have some grasp on how many new hires there were this year, but they can't possibly know how many total new graduates are going to brave this environment and come to NYC, with or without help from the parents.

the true state of the rental market is not revealed by the opening hand presented by the landlords in the late spring. it's revealed in july/august/september when landlords determine how many excess units they have. so, frankly, i don't find it that interesting what landlords are doing right now. of course, if i needed a rental this summer i'd be a lot more interested, but i've only once signed a summer lease, and i doubt i ever will again.

oh, and there's the fact that jim has been spouting this for months. tends to drag on the credibility.

see, e.g., http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/16848-for-everyone-who-thinks-they-are-going-to-continue-to-push-for-more-rental-concessions

Ar, all I think it does is ADD to my credibility. I said it would happen, and lo and behold, it IS happening. I was looking at this trend 6 months out. Because I knew what apts were actually renting for 12 months before. I may be disliked on this board (something I have instigated for fun), but I'm not wrong on this.

now that's hilarious.

good one, jim.

"but i'm still seeing concessions, some down, some not"

Not up? That's sort of my point

"oh, and there's the fact that jim has been spouting this for months. tends to drag on the credibility."

But the fact that for months the responses to jim's spouting have been essentially "I don't want this to be true so I am going to object to the concept", as opposed to "here are five examples of landlords increasing concessions in 2010 vs. 2009, you f'ing rental broker lowlife" tends to drag on the credibility of the objection

"the true state of the rental market is not revealed by the opening hand presented by the landlords in the late spring. it's revealed in july/august/september when landlords determine how many excess units they have"

Reminds me of the discussion of volume in the sales market. We've now got, what, 13 or 14 months with contracts signed running at 1,000 to 1,200 per month and the best part of a year of predictions that next month/next quarter we're going to run out of sideline buyers/lemmings and sales volume is going to plummet, taking prices with it. Anyone holding their breath waiting for that one to play out has turned pretty blue at this point.

and inventory is still very high and the gov't is still supporting prices, both directly via interest rates, mortgage guarantees, holding mbs, and indirectly by ensuring the wealth of the finance industry. what's your point?

sls, do you look at the banner ads around here? or read curbed or the real deal? the concessions have been obvious for months, absolutely obvious. yes people bash brokers around here unnecessarily. but i really don't think that's the case here. jim is in a class of his own.

btw, i don't think people are even making the argument that they are up. just that they haven't gone away.

The concessions we had previously were do to layoffs. The owners needed to cover fixed costs. Now that buildings are close to fully occupied, it just takes owners to hold the line which prevents the musical chairs of renters playing one building off another. This isn't like buying where a party can decide not to play. Renters, rent that's what they do. Unless they move out of the area or become unemployed and move in with family they are pretty much a captive audience.

How have we gone from concessions are continuing to concessions need to increase? Many specific examples have been cited in rebuttal to Jim jones. He has no credibility considering his clear self interest in convincing any and all of position. Are some landlords trying to avoid concessions? Of course. Do articles quoting landlords and agents convince you?

"I may be disliked on this board (something I have instigated for fun)" You have a warped idea of fun, you misogynist pig. Did you spend a lot of time pulling the wings off flies as a child, or did you go straight to torturing cats?

I think I dislike you less than many on this board because, while cleary you don't deserve it, I do find a place in my heart to pity anyone so pathetic that they have to resort to rental real estate brokerage to make a living.

SLS, take a look at the comps I posted at the end of this thread:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8768-demonstrate-market-movement-with-comps-rental-edition

RS, that's such BS. there are so many buildings that aren't close to full occupancy. and the condo rentals keep rolling on. check out the setai. 43 recorded sales, most of them this year. impossible to tell which listings are duplicates, but there are 23 rentals listed and 17 prior rentals. i only pulled up a couple, but at least some of them are no fee and a couple are offering a year's membership in the setai club, a $5000 a year value on a $3600 lease if i recall.

sls, your heart is large. larger than mine. but then again i don't think he's been calling you cunt.

and i will admit that SOME landlords are making an opening move that attempts to limit concessions. if in the fall there are no concessions i will concede the point, at least temporarily.

Sideline, don't forget my 4 sales exclusives. While I do focus on rentals (I'm big on the property side, lots of listings), it isn't all I do.

Do any of you think the landlords are going to advertise that they have taken away concessions? Its just something that people will notice when they are ready to rent.

"sls, your heart is large. larger than mine" Saying I dislike him less than others do is not much of a concession. The bar is very low

jim, or when they waste vast amounts of time on the internet checking out info on current market conditions. or just look at banner ads on SE. or read curbed's account of the citi-habitats report.

sls, true enough.

More importantly, note that the WSJ article Bones is so enamored by is based on the CitiHabitats March 2010 report which has the following Feb -> Mar increases:

Studio: $1756 -> $1769 (+0.7%)
1BR: $2335 -> $2341 (+0.3%)
2BR: $3283 -> $3289 (+0.2%)
3BR: $4347 -> $4331 (-0.4%)

That's evidence of increases? Really? Barely keeping up with inflation on asking rents in a seasonal uptick? For f-ing sake, it's $6 increase on 1BR and 2BR.

For comparison of the seasonal effect, let's look at Feb -> Mar in 2009:

Studio: $1764 -> $1774 (+0.6%)
1BR: $2405 -> $2443 (+1.6%)
2BR: $3483 -> $3551 (+2.0%)
3BR: $4528 -> $4594 (+1.5%)

So by this stupid metric of looking at the seasonal change, last year was an even "hotter" year than this year. Some people have short memories, but going into spring/summer last year, brokers and landlords and media were flogging the same story they are this year.

We saw how that played out.

So the same landlords that "lie" through the press are to be trusted when the online advertising supports your point of view, bitch?

"Seasinality" this year's bear buzzword.
Do you expect the rents to increase all at once? Don't incrememtal increases make more sense? Rents decreased for months on end, finally showing an uptick two/three months ago. This happened following a decrease in available inventory. LL's have slowly but surely pulled back concessions. As I have been saying for months

But nice try.

except you lying whore they didn't pull back on concessions until "seasonality" kicked in.

And what's your story on the Feb->Mar uptick last year, which was even larger than this year's? This was the great premise of the WSJ "frenzy" article after all.

I don't give a shit what people paid for rent last year, or what the lanlords were asking for rent. Most people only care about what its going to cost them to sign their lease now, not what it might have cost them 12 months ago.

"I don't give a shit what people paid for rent last year, or what the lanlords were asking for rent."

So in other words you have totally disqualified yourself from commenting on "bears" because you don't care about the things which show the direction of the market? If landlords cut out all concessions and even started charging large applications fees, move-in fees, etc. it would matter if the asking rents/actual signed leases are 50% lower than last year, because all that matters in judging the strength of the market is free rent?

For this discussion its all that matters. Everyone wants to look at yoy numbers. Why? If you are signing a lease now, do you particlarly care?

In their last earnings report Equity Residential provided earnings guidance for future periods and spoke of an improved rental picture. This is not broker advertising, this is earnings guidance from a publicly traded company and if I'm not mistaken the earnings call is filed with the SEC. In addition any stats regarding vacancy rated(down to 1.38%) are showing improvements from a year earlier and we're hearing that the several large property managers(Glenwood) are phasing out rental sweetners. Clearly there has been a sea change from a year ago. Maybe the lower end and individual condo owners are still discounting, but it's not across the board bargains anymore. We've gone from a renters market to more of a level playing field.

For this discussion its all that matters. Everyone wants to look at yoy numbers. Why? If you are signing a lease now, do you particlarly care?

Both numbers are important.

It might be important in analysis, but not in practicality.

rs why don't you post the link? maybe because that was a national report?

Ar if you think the national numbers would look better than you are far stupider than I thought

Nice try to divert attention, but please answer the question, it has nothing to do with YoY:

"And what's your story on the Feb->Mar uptick last year, which was even larger than this year's? This was the great premise of the WSJ "frenzy" article after all. "

I know it's hard, go ahead and say it, we won't think any less of you.

I don't have to answer your questions but this is easy. Last years wasn't supported by loiwer vacancy rates

WTF do you think "this discussion" is about?

So last year had higher vacancy rates, higher prices, a financial panic (S&P nearly half what it was this March), and yet LLs raised asking prices by MORE than this year.

Why, oh why, oh why would they have done that?

Look, fuckoff. You don't want to believe it, then don't. I'm right, you're not. You can ask all the silly questions in the world, it doesn't change the facts. Vacancies are down, rents are up (and will continue to rise). More importantly, less concessions offered. As I have said for months that it will happen exactly this way, it is happening this way.

no...i'm right.

So you have a crystal ball that tells you the upcoming population numbers and household creation rates and release of units? if not you don't know shit.