Rents going up(and the Times R.E. section)

That's to say, it's a real article, it's not in the times r.e. section!

Wow, a whole 2.4%. You mean a major component of CPI went up by the amount being targetted for CPI? Amazing.

Go sick your boyfriend's dick inonada.

Suck that is

The problem with articles like this is that landlords read them, and try to raise their rents... and then apartments go empty for months... so they are forced to lower prices and/or give concessions, and their units magically rent.

In some neighborhoods in manhattan, 2BR apartments are sitting empty for months...and price reductions are happening, as much as the landlords want to deny it, there is plenty of inventory for renters right now at 2010 prices.

The market will ALWAYS set the price, even if the NY Times says otherwise.

Except rents really are up. Back in 2008 rents on one bedrooms on the upper west side dipped several hundred dollars on smaller units it was not impossible to get a deal at say $2500-$2900 on a small one bedroom. Today in a full service building those rents seem to start at around $3100 and go up from there. Equity Residential has there one bedrooms on the west side starting @ $3175 with most going for around $3500.

From the article you posted:

"increases averaged 3 percent in Austin and New York"

*yawn*

On a $3k apt that's $100 bucks a month. Point taken.

I know you really, really, really want rents to go up. I'm not sure why you care so much, maybe to make yourself feel better? Be careful what you wish for. I know you think CPI is a sham, but rents make up a third of CPI, an when that starts showing signs of inflation above the target rate of 2%, the Fed spigots will start turning off. You'll be happy to start earning 3% in your savings account again, but you're going to get smacked silly on your RE expectations when rates go from 4% to 6%.

Wow, and did you hear that a walkup in Hell's Kitchen in a low end building went for "a shade under $3 ppsf"? Stevejhx's ancestors must be spinning in their graves.

>but you're going to get smacked silly on your RE expectations when rates go from 4% to 6%.

How are you assuming that works?

funny. you still need incomes to go up to get any meaningful rise in rents or RE prices. That is not happening. and, don't forget. this is still the NY Times. I don't care what section it is in.

Those darn lefties at the NY Times.

How does that rents-indexed-to-income idea work? Does the market know or care?

Here're some old figures from http://www.habitatnyc.org/advocate_nycstats.html. What's changed?

"Affordability
"The generally accepted definition of affordability is a gross rent burden of 30%, which means that no more than 30% of household income goes to rent and utilities.

"In 2002, 47% of renters in the city — nearly a million households — had a rent burden over 30%. 23% of renters had a severe rent burden, spending more than 50% of their income on rent and utilities.

"Between 1975 and 1999, average rents in the city grew by 33%, while average incomes for renters grew by only 3% (adjusted for inflation)."

right. then "they" maxed out their credit cards, student loans and borrowed what ever they could to make ends meet. And owners of property did they same. took out 2nd and 3rd mtgs borrowed as much as they could. o'yea. the States did it too. not to mention the Federal government. "We"levered to the max.. I am afraid there just isn't that much room to go higher.. again unless incomes go up..

and what happens when gas prices go up more?

and the means to finance this leverage is now gone. or substantially decreases.

"Between 1975 and 1999, average rents in the city grew by 33%, while average incomes for renters grew by only 3% (adjusted for inflation)."

Wasn't 1975 a low point for rents? In any case, 1999 was a high point. Using Miller Samuel's data and CPI, average rents are currently down by 20% since 1999. 1.33 * 0.8 => 6.4%. Works out to 0.16% a year.

So yes, the markets do seem to care in the long run.

Ino -- wait, are you actually saying that rents have gone up an average of .16% above CPI since 1975?

1975 was the year of "Ford to City: Drop Dead," the depths of white flight, before redlining was completely ended, and when rent control/rent stabilization reform was still new enough that it could not have had a significant impact yet.

The quality of the apartment stock is way up since then. The garbage is picked up and the parks are useable. Crime has plummeted. The attractiveness of NYC to the international elite and the formerly suburban upper middle class has soared. Finance has increased in size and pay probably by a factor of 5 or 10. Cold water flats are gone.

Yet rents have matched CPI inflation?

You mean real estate is not purely a magical means of shifting wealth from renters to owner-occupants or allowing investors to profit from inflation and Federal tax subsidies?

Hm, on further reflection, I wonder if people think this number passes the smell test.

It seems to me that in the neighborhoods I know, nominal unstabilized rents are up by close to 10x since 1975. CPI is up only 4x in that time. Even subway fares and pizza slices are only up 6x.

To be sure, my sample is just a handful of half-remembered anecdotes from family friends, the neighborhoods I know best have all gone from slums to gentry since 1975, the improvements in the subways and the shifts in the center mean they are much closer in, and I don't think there were unstabilized rentals in large buildings in 1975.

Still, I wonder about the statistic here. Are my anecdotes not representative, or is this stat off?

per inonda her lavish 2BR pad went for $4,500 in '07 but rents out for "just" $2,500 now..

she uses a double declining approach depreciation martered with a hint of AMT to negate property tax deduction on her inflation module...

this makes it all possible for her to rent her same 2BD at half the cost of the studios right next door to her.. in her head

FG, the 33% number is probably wrong. As is the 3% number.

This graphic is nice:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Miller100yearsNYre.jpg

Has rent outpacing inflation by 1.3% over the last 100 years. Probably in line with quality increases. Real incomes grew 2.3% over the same period.

>Wasn't 1975 a low point for rents? In any case, 1999 was a high point.
>So yes, the markets do seem to care in the long run.

Give us another one of those "long run"s and half the people here will be dead.

financeguy
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
>You mean real estate is not purely a magical means of shifting wealth from renters to owner-occupants or allowing investors to profit from inflation and Federal tax subsidies?

financeguy
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
>Hm, on further reflection, I wonder if people think this number passes the smell test.

Just to clarify, you were wrong, or you suddenly believe in magic?

ss400, are you another one of those who thinks it is funny to refer to a man as a woman? Who are you insulting - men or women?

"this is still the NY Times. I don't care what section it is in."

Absolutely. Remember, the NY Times long ago changed their motto from "All the news that's fit to print" to "All the news we wish were true".

my rent just went up between 3 and 4 per cent (year to year). I'm perfectly fine with that....

Here too...+3% for another 2 years. Oh, the humanity.

Mine went up 3% as well, pre-negotiated in original lease.

You should have pulled out the "shitlist" and gotten 0% increase.

After not raising it during the last 2-yr lease, my rent went up 5% for this upcoming 2 yr lease.... which means my rent has gone up a little over 1%/yr during the upcoming 4 yr period. Boo-hoo! Most people's maintenances - which would represent a good chunk of my rent - went up far more than that over the last 2-yrs and probably will continue to rise over the next 2 yrs.

Meanwhile, I have gotten new washer/dryer, a great 36 inch stove (not the bullshit "toddler" Fisher-Price 30 inchers in most apartments), larger hot water heater, new garbage disposal - FYI, only the hot water heater broke - just in the last 2 yrs and plan to add on other improvements during this lease period that should "pay" for the rental increase by themselves. (Hell, the improvements over the past 2 yrs pay for the rent increase over the next 2 yrs by themselves!) My landlord has made other modifications to the apartment that makes it more personal - things I would have done if I owned the space.

Again, if I could find a 2,000+ sq ft Tribeca apartment like the one I rent for 50% more than which I pay monthly, I would probably pull the trigger, but unfortuantely the multiple is 2x or more for worse layouts, location and light. Not to mention I have a handful of great neighbors - which each live on a full floors (which are sound proof).

While it might be true that cookie-cutter one-bedrooms and even "2-bedrooms" (read: *tiny* fucking 2 bedrooms) might actually be selling at near rental rates, you can have them - and the Nazi cluster-fuck crazy co-op boards that come with them. Enjoy buying an apartment for 1M+ that is the size of my living room.... in CT, I mean, Yorkville...

Aren't rents up because no one wants to buy anymore?

check out where columbiacounty calls inonada an idiot:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/30081-what-cost-more-feeding-the-car-or-the-family

true somewherelese .. however, on the UWS, rents in the full-service buildings are through the roof. 1BR are upwards of 3900-4500, 4500+ if there is a "view", i.e., Hudson and WS Highway. If you move closer to Bway, the square footage shrinks for the same price.

My question is, who is paying this exorbitant amount for rent ?