Land lease building

To be fair to my man Biden and student debtors, 1) the "rules" around student loans often changed in a capricious manner (in a way that mortgage loans don't seem to) and 2) the forgiveness program was started at a time when forgiveness would have provided net growth to the economy (by moving people in precarious situations up to being middle-class consumers

so in my mind it's a really different situation than land-lease co-ops, especially in NYC where every purchaser has an attorney involved in the process. Not only did you not read the document, you didn't listen when your lawyer read it to you...

>>>the forgiveness program was started at a time when forgiveness would have provided net growth to the economy (by moving people in precarious situations up to being middle-class consumers

... by burdening people many of whom did not go to college at all. How is that fair?

Any random spending will provide net growth to the economy, but someone has to pay for that spending. I already paid back six figure loans for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees. Why should I now also pay for their degrees? Why should my child pay?

Clearly there is a fairness argument about people who don't benefit as with many other local (Famous NYC rent regulation discussion) and federal govt programs. Every one wants free goodies and policians want to give it to them to get votes but it seems National debt levels are hitting a wall. See if any one can actually control the deficit by tax increases as well as spending cuts. I remember Clinton days when the country made huge progress in reducing debt.

Then there's Carnegie House, also the building at 23rd/6th. Everything is great until it's not.

>>Why should I now also pay for their degrees? Why should my child pay?

Krolik, I might well ask, since I didn't take out any loans for my education (and skipped getting a graduate education entirely) why should *I* pay?

and the answer is, the economy is an interconnected web, and it does us all good, even those of us who went into FIRE jobs, to have teachers and social workers.

Student loan forgiveness was not meant to benefit us all and bless society with wonderful teachers are social workers. It was a blatant attempt to buy the votes of young people burdened by those loans. It was an insult to those that worked diligently to pay off those debts and those who did not choose the college pathway because they did not want to be burdened by the debt of student loans and were hence making a very responsible decision. The colleges and universities that peddled those student loans are also responsible. Thankfully many people saw through that bribe attempt and voted accordingly last November. If you think this is perfectly acceptable, where do you draw the line? Home mortgages? Credit card debt? The message we are sending to young people is don’t worry about the financial choices you make, don’t work about racking up debt, just cry, pout and protest enough and government will forgive you. I know this is an unpopular sentiment in New York City, but thank god Trump was elected. He was not my first choice by a long shot for the Republican nominee, but he is way, way better than the alternative. And the way the Democrats are going, we are going to have Republican control of Washington for a long time. Hopefully enough time for some fiscal sanity and ending the endless handouts.

Many undergrad programs have become indoctrination machines so I can see why Democrats would like to subsidize them. Academia has become adept at creating conscientious conformists with all the right opinions.

>>>and the answer is, the economy is an interconnected web, and it does us all good, even those of us who went into FIRE jobs, to have teachers and social workers.

Totally, and I think it this should be accomplished by paying them more. Why disadvantage the teachers that diligently paid back their loans, or worked through school to minimize them?

>>Many undergrad programs have become indoctrination machines

Many undergrad programs have become resorts with trips, clubs, activities, sports, fancy accommodations etc.

>>>Krolik, I might well ask, since I didn't take out any loans for my education (and skipped getting a graduate education entirely) why should *I* pay?

Okay, I kind of do see the argument as to why *you* should pay.

You and I both got undergraduate degrees. I took loans and paid for mine, but looks like you didn't pay for yours. So maybe you should pay back a little bit? to make it fair?

See if I can steer back the convo to Land Lease buildings as the students loan forgiveness has been debated widely on a national basis and in courts.

Should the govt have allowed coops on a land lease? I think that just shouldn't have been allowed.

And does the state govt have a right to cap the rent increase just like they put rent regulations for apartments and override the lease agreement?

Agree. I think that govt shouldn't have allowed it.

Glad to see this discussion is back onto real estate after 911Turbo veered it into politics. We get enough of that elsewhere.

You have to think anyone who bought in a land lease building knew of the potential consequences and chose to ignore them because of the “great deal” they were getting. Hard to feel sorry.

They sound like an awful idea for almost anyone. Maybe a retiree who doesn't have inheritors where the refi is past the person's sell by date.

I don't know about outlawing them. Maybe the government should require such deals have a big fat sticker at each stage saying 'Land Lease' with the refi date clearly stated front and center. For all I know they do.

many more commercial buildings are a land lease, such as the Empire State Building and the Chrysler building. What they have in common is that the lease provides a reasonable way of calculating the rent on the periodic reset dates. The problem with the residential land lease co ops is that the rent reset is left open to be negotiated between the parties, and the owner of the land has all the negotiating power. Of course, when the 99 year lease is up, the land lease co op apartments have no value.

Land lease coops are a pretty wild concept in US because they should logically work the opposite way of any other US RE. While US RE generally appreciates, a land-lease coop should naturally depreciate.

If you do not own the land, the scarce commodity whose value trends up over time - you are left only with the deteriorating-with-time physical structure which is accumulating wear&tear, requiring regular maintenance, and becoming dated/out of style every decade.

It's an interesting structure for savvy buyers who want a place to live without paying to speculate on land appreciation rate I suppose in theory.
In reality, not enough people are that savvy, or if they are that financially savvy they probably have different tastes/better options. The owner residents ending up in these units strike me as not being financially savvy and mostly just thought "cheap good, I will buy".

On the edges I suppose there are people buying to speculate on a legal change / lease settlement, but mostly not.

I'd argue these should only be legal in new leases if the lease specifies a mathematical formula for increases which references a specific public rate of appreciate.. like HELOC spreads on SOFR. Open market negotiation of these is like hostage negotiations and will mostly lead to bad outcomes. What you do about existing leases is the actual contentious issue.

The extent to which the government should be involved in the freedom to contract is the essential divide between those in power at the moment and those who were taken out of power. Sorry to go back to politics, but as a reformed Libertarian, I note that what swayed me towards supporting a role for government here is the systemic risk allowing nitwits to contract all their money to those who have no qualms about taking it poses to my personal freedom (economic and physical). Sadly all of the Bush Sr noblesse oblige ethos is gone from the GOP and we are in a savage new domestic order. The student loan forgiveness efforts (which I agree were unlawful and appropriately struck down) were not about getting votes - they were about trying to get ahead of the real risk that highly likely mass default on securitized student loans pose to the financial system. Some of the best minds out there, incredibly talented people who chose public service at the political level over assured riches in the private sector worked on those efforts. They did the best they could to steer the ship away from the looming iceberg, but I am becoming more inclined to look the other way on all of it rather than continue banging my head against the wall. End MCR rant.

@MCR - yes, it's funny talking to my libertarian 20-something teammate who assumes a form of "noblesse oblige" but generally concedes it doesn't exist when pressed. I'll change my mind when the PayPal Mafia class pour their money into starting a (real) university/poverty reduction/whatever program rather than at candidates that'll trim another 5% off their tax liabilities.

Getting rid of things like CFPB/trimming SEC is how we get exploding teaser rate/balloon payment/option ARMs, pump&dump boiler rooms and various BS all over again. Of course if Main Street truly believes we need to return to the 80s era on Wall Street, that flows to my bottom line more than theirs.

The average person has a below average IQ (obv) and even average IQ people have trouble navigating moderately complex financial products.

There's a reason laws have/should exist to prevent multi-billion dollar lawyered up corporations on one side from contracting with average Joes on the other side with ridiculously lopsided terms. "Anything you can get some moron to sign there name to" is not great contract law.

@Steve123 - Amen.

Rhode Island had the right idea:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20cogan.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E4.HJn3.t9biJUJC8fyR&smid=url-share

Wow, MCR and Steve 123, that sounds extremely arrogant and elitist from where I'm sitting. Maybe we shouldn't let all these idiots and morons have the vote either? That type of thinking would line up with many of our founding fathers...

Keith - my point is that one purpose government serves is to protect the average non-expert from predation by large corporations with asymmetric advantages.

I may be good with math and financial stuff, but even that doesn't matter in a no-holds-barred system without guardrails. For example, my industry used to be common practice for HR to demand your last year W2 before making a firm offer. That is - they required hard evidence of your current compensation so they didn't offer too much of a raise. NYS rightfully, finally banned this insane practice. What was the average 25 year old analyst to do when every place they interviewed made the same demand?

In areas I have no expertise, for example - health insurance is regulated so that I do not need to become an expert, and my insurer cannot take (as much) advantage of me.

Here's a fun example - Disney put some terms in their Disney+ streaming service that bound users to arbitration. Common but sketchy practice. Anyway, a guest died from food allergies at a Disney restaurant when mis-served food, and Disney tried to her husband's unrelated Disney+ streaming membership to force the case out of court and into arbitration.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-signing-up-for-disney-mean-you-can-never-sue-the-walt-disney-company/

This is the kind of BS the average consumer is up against in America.

@keith - Guilty. I am elitist and own it.

And to be clear - that translates into my wanting scientists to evaluate whether drugs are safe, etc. I want a government comprised of people who are smarter than I am and who want to protect me from those who craft all sorts of schemes that I don't have the skill set to see through.

I understand all the pitfalls, slippery slope, moral hazards, etc of what I want, but from where I sit, that is better than the Libertarian vision to which I used to subscribe.

I feel some responsibility for the well being of others and want a society where others are similarly concerned with my well being. The Social Darwinism that is the ethos of the currently elected federal government will not result in a society in which I want to live. I get that I don't have a choice at the moment because I have been outvoted, but I am not going to pretend that I think every person, myself included, is capable of going it alone in this incredibly complicated world. To the extent that ethos is carrying the day, I am better positioned than most, but that is beside the point.

And +1 on @steve123's response, which says the same thing as mine with concrete examples.

Well I feel much better now that I know you, Steve and the government are really looking out for my best interests. Thank you for explaining that to me.

Keith - The current federal government is not even pretending to look out for any of our best interests, and many have resoundingly embraced that. I am in rural central Ohio right now where many would rather die than take what they view as a handout in the form of medicaid. I respect that, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I also understand why many don't want the government to force vaccines on them. That is where it gets tricky, and I do feel my self-interest creeping in. If someone would rather die than be vaccinated, so be it, but don't take my immuno-compromised mother--in-law with you! I do believe everyone votes for whatever they believe is in their best personal interest, and I subscribe to "altruism" is in my self interest because it makes me feel better. Minds far greater than mine have been philosophizing about all of for at least centuries. Apologies to all (and expecially GeorgeP) for taking us further off track. I'll try to be quiet.

One more thought - @keith, the theory is this that you are also looking out for our best interests. We all have to agree on boundaries, if any, we want to put on our ability to prey on each other. I believe there is no shortage of folks on this very site who believe many realtors behave in predatory ways and that regulation of realtors should be increased. I personally do not subscribe to that view because I believe existing fraud laws cover the egregious stuff, but then again, I have not given regulation of realtors nearly as much thought as many on there have. I view the licensing of realtors as a barrier to entry that I would remove were I master of the universe, but I welcome others' thoughts here because my opinion on this matter is neither strong nor educated.

>> The Social Darwinism that is the ethos of the currently elected federal government

Here’s what I don’t get. The (grantedly slim) majority of people elected said govenrment, which you think works against the interests of those very people. Let’s say we agree on that premise. Why do you get so worked up about the resulting bad effects of said govt on said people? I don’t think there has been much of a hidden agenda by the current administration. Questionable policy implemented by a politician with a long history of incompetence, unethical behavior, and criminality. This is not an unintended consequence, this is the point.

On the topic of land lease buyers, I don’t get the hoopla. Like all things, it can be a good financial deal or it can be a bad one. Depends on the price paid. People make good or bad financial decisions all the time in all sorts of ways. Those who make bad ones subsequently complain about how unfair it was, how they were doing things they were supposed to be doing, and how the system screwed them. But only when it goes against them.

@nada - I understand your point and addressed it in the context of anti-vaxxers. I could talk about this all day long and you are not going to hit me with a thought that has not already occurred to me, but also to the many, many, many who devoted their lives to these questions with endless treatises dating back hundreds of years in cultures all around the world. Such was the essence of the historic liberal arts curriculum that now appears to be passe.

“I don’t think there has been much of a hidden agenda by the current administration.”

You’re absolutely correct, they have been pretty much doing what they said they would. That’s what got them elected. And sorry to say this, but outside of a few coastal states, the majority of Americans are happy so far. It was never going to be pretty….

MCR, I wasn’t making a point. I was asking a question:

>> Why do you get so worked up about the resulting bad effects of said govt on said people?

>> the majority of Americans are happy so far

Not really. Approval ratings are underwater.

@nada - understood and apologies for my poor choice of words. I anticipated and answered your question in both the context of student loan debtors and anti-vaxxers.

@911 - It has been less than two months since the new regime took over so today's happiness indicates nothing other than hope, which I fully support now the question has been settled at least until the mid-terms. For my part, I now share the hope. Let's see what they do, and I sincerely am hoping for a positive outcome. Again, I understand why many voted for DJT and I fully understand the ethos by which those in charge live. I hate it for those who are not as well positioned out of the gate as I was, but again, the people have spoken and I respect the outcome.

“Not really. Approval ratings are underwater.”

You forgot to mention his disapproval ratings are also underwater. Last poll I checked. 47% approve, 45% disapprove. For the record, I certainly don’t agree with everything he has done, tariffs on our best friends Canada and Mexico while coddling Putin I don’t think is the best strategy but I’ll leave it at that.

I was going to by this, which had it at 46/51. Kinda amazing that only 3% don’t know.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

911, tariffs on Mexico & Canada is perfectly consistent with mercantilism. They are amongst our largest trading partners. Kowtowing to Putin is perfectly consistent with isolationism. Why get involved?

Both will likely yield more negatives for the US than positives, economically and otherwise. Unlike MCR, I don’t deal in hope — I deal in likelihoods. Trump has always been a great snake oil salesman. He has also always been a pretty shitty businessman. For better or for worse, he’s dealing in the latter.

I have no power over people who put him in charge, and unlike MCR I won’t feel bad if I continue to prosper while it bites them in the ass. They made their choice, now we’re all going to have to live with it.

@nada - I love it that you don't support DJT given that my projected personal outcome for you if things continue on the current trajectory is Benevolent Oligarch. That is what distinguishes you and so many supremely talented high earners I know from my historic crew, many of whom are salivating at the potential return of a feudal system in which they get to live out their fantasy of playing Game of Thrones in reality.

American voters aren't sprung on a hair trigger. He said tariffs, he's giving us tariffs. He never really said why. I'm not an economist or financially savvy at all but I should think it would take years and years to bring production back to the US. In the meantime, there will be scarcity and probably inflation. I hope I'm wrong.

So he's giving voters what they wanted (good and hard), but I don't remember the part of his campaign 'speeches' where he explained to his fans why he wanted tariffs or what they might entail.

@MTH - exactly. The tariffs and foreign policy make no sense from where I sit, and I think both are doing the country a disservice, but I was outvoted. The deregulation is another matter and I feel a better balance is possible in a number of areas, and while I believe this administration is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction that I fear will result in serious harm to all of us, nobody elected me, so sincere hope for success of initiatives that seem ill conceived is all I have at the moment to get me through the day.

Trump latched onto tariffs because that’s what his supporters wanted. I am not sure any of them understand the full implications.

The tariffs will certainly be supportive of domestic jobs. So that’s a positive. But those jobs will be lower-skilled. US GDP per capita is $83K. Germany & Canada: $53K. China & Mexico: $13K.

It’ll help address the trade imbalance, which currently runs at $1T/yr. But that trade imbalance mainly means that people give us goods & services in return for IOUs. Those IOUs are mostly bonds but also US financial assets. They bring down interest rates, push up asset prices. Cheaper for US consumers to borrow, easier for US companies to form and expand.

Prices will go up, obviously. Foreign goods because of the tariffs (a tax). Domestic goods because they can. This all has an inflationary effect, which in turn again increases interest rates.

Productivity will go down. As MTH notes, it takes a lot of time for an economy to adapt. But even then, it might not fully adapt. For example, the US might just be naturally blessed for producing massive quantities of soybeans.

Having said all that, I clearly think the question of tarrifs is nuanced. I don’t think it’s a net win, but if that is what the people want, that’s fine by me. And if they want it done in a haphazard manner by a know-nothing… sure, why not? I certainly prefer this 2.0 version of Trump where every uninformed instinct goes out unchecked to version 1.0 , so that the people get what they want.

But please don’t expect me to sit idly by and hope. Early in the year, I decided to deploy a healthy chunk of change into stocks. I did the “un-American” of deploying it to ex-US developed countries rather than US stocks. Mostly, this was driven by valuation concerns. But also by the prospects of Trump-induced chaos of some unknown form.

It’s worked out very well thus far. I know it’s mostly random. But I don’t in the least bit feel bad about my gains while US stocks (and pensions / 401ks heavy in them) do poorly. It’s their world, I’m just trying to navigate it.

Gifted finance folks are well positioned regardless of what happens; sadly I am not one of those.

On the bright side, however, Mr. MCR and I are lucky that a small abode in the midwest in proximity to family with a good local diner and a view makes us happy, and there is little chance of that going away regardless of what happens (short of Armageddon).

I would disagree nada that the people wanted tariffs, like you said, I think most people don't understand what they are. I watched one interviewer asking people who were very aggressively pro tariff on the street, and they thought this was a tax that was paid by foreign governments. Anyway, what the net effect will be, or are they simply being used as leveraging chips, time will tell.

Also happily doing well in ex us stock funds..; ) ty. Was thinking of allocating some more spy to vea, this is long-term money, too late for that?

I hear you on people being ignorant, but such is the nature of democracy. Snake oil salesman sees that whenever he yells “Tarrifs!”, the people scream like he’s Paul McCartney. So tarrifs it is!

What’s your mix of SPY vs VEA as it stands, and where has it been the past few years?

Spy 70% last 10 years, Vea 30% about 9 Months, both in sep account. Currently holding about 50% Total investments in cash outside of the retirement account.

I think 65/35 according to market cap weights would be the most Boglehead approach. Granted, the typical self-proclaimed Boglehead seems to skew heavier toward US, often 100/0, if r/bogleheads is any indicator. At 70/30, you’re pretty much a “proper” Boglehead. I have a hard time faulting Bogleheadism as a strategy for most.

That said, I think there are some risk/reward inconsistencies with Bogleheadism allocations. Arguments along those lines might skew on towards 50/50 or 35/65 or even 0/100 in the current market.

But I think the point of Bogleheadism is that everyone has a tendency to chase past performance, usually to their detriment. Hence, the philosophy is to write down your intended asset allocation, and stick with it. The 100/0 Bogleheads are a prime example of how even the Bogleheads have a tendency to chase past performance. I rarely see a Boglehead who is skewed towards VEA, always towards SPY.

Point being… SPY is now cheaper relative to VEA than it was a couple of months ago. If you see that and think “Gee, maybe I should sell SPY to buy VEA” then you might be prone to performance chasing. I do like VEA over SPY obviously, but I would caution against liking it because of its recent performance.

Thanks.

I just went into Vanguard and deviated from our "all-in" on VBAIX. Allocated 20% to VTIAX. I thought about going with VTMGX, but VTIAX appears more skewed towards China, and after studying Chinese and a short stint in China, I will always feel a bit better hedging against disaster in the U.S. with upside for China. As matters stand, I keep my mandarin current enough to feel confident that I could gain employ as a domestic helper of some sort (I actually enjoy cleaning!) should China take over or overtake the United States. BTW - Has anyone watched "American Factory" on Netflix? I enjoyed it immensely, but that is perhaps because I have a double connection to it between China and Ohio.

VTIAX (and its ETF share class VXUS) are basically the same as VEA (ex-US developed markets) + VWO (ex-US emerging markets), with the blend being weighted by market cap. When I was contemplating the choices a couple of months ago, I ended up going with (the mutual fund share class) of VEA. I did like the China exposure in VWO, but I didn't like the India exposure. Nothing against India, but valuations in that market are too rich for my taste, and as a major emerging market, it's a material contributor to VWO's weights.

Hmmm - Looks like I made the wrong choice b/c it looks to me like Vanguard's mutual fund share class of VEA is the other option I had identified that I ended up not choosing (I did not see the India exposure, but even if I had, I would have had no thoughts on it.)

Oh well, at least we now have some ex-US exposure. That is huge for the MCRs as we have traditionally been "all in" on the United States. It hurts my heart.

However, Mr. MCR has unwavering faith in the American people and our institutions and is optimistic that the outlook will not be as precarious after the midterms in 2026. He follows weird statistics, like the percentage of yard signs that have come down in Ohio in the past few weeks. Apparently the statistics he is following are encouraging. His discussions with his poli-sci cronies are as hard to follow for me as the discussions the finance types engage in on here between each other. Lots of numbers and references to various races and points in history - totally made up example: "Well, NOBODY saw the third district in Missouri going the way it did in the '66 mid-terms, so there's that!"

everyone needs skin in the game.
at the same time, nobody needs to be required to have to figure out Vanguard funds.

>> Looks like I made the wrong choice

I don’t think it’s a wrong choice. What you went with is 65-70% the same as VEA. And only 5-6% is India, the piece I didn’t like. And most importantly, who cares what I think? No one really knows that much about what the future holds.

>> That is huge for the MCRs as we have traditionally been "all in" on the United States. It hurts my heart.

It’s not a beauty pageant, it’s money. As I stated earlier, Trump was not the primary reason I deployed in VEA — it was valuations. If Trumpian chaos and momentum plunge the S&P 500 down to favorable valuations, you can be sure I’ll step in behind ‘murica even with Trump at the helm.

>>> As I stated earlier, Trump was not the primary reason I deployed in VEA — it was valuations.

For that same reason I did a lot of bonds. Curious, how have tariffs and Trump chaos been affecting VEA?

...back to land lease buildings

>>>They sound like an awful idea for almost anyone. Maybe a retiree who doesn't have inheritors where the refi is past the person's sell by date.

No one knows when that date is.
Maybe a decent idea for someone who wants to continue renting, but wants to customize the interiors?

>> Curious, how have tariffs and Trump chaos been affecting VEA?

It’s up 7.5% since inauguration. I don’t think it’s right to attribute everything to a single factor, even when the factor is a bull in a china shop. For comparison, S&P 500 is down 6%. A 13.5% spread between two highly correlated assets over 2 months seems unusual.

I think around 5% of that spread is attributable to currency values: USD has dropped by about 5%. Why? Who knows exactly. Maybe it’s a view on a lack of fiscal discipline, but I don’t think that’s really changed under Trump. Reduction of status as reserve currency? Perhaps. Tarriffs & leveling the trade imbalance (which inherently mean less demand for USD assets)? Perhaps. Trump’s desire to weaken the dollar through whatever means necessary, to help US manufacturing and trade? Perhaps. A litany of other reasons? Sure.

On the remaining 8.5% attributable to the stock values (in native currency terms), Europe armament has certainly helped. There seems to be an uncertainty flow from US to Europe as tariff policy has becomes increasingly real (“Oh wait, it’s not just a negotiating ploy???”) and erratic. People seem to think both the tarriffs and the uncertainty will hurt US business, productivity, and the economy. I can certainly imagine a world where US is in bilateral trade wars with everyone, tariffs abound, but every other nation continues with free-ish trade with each other. The backlash against US products in other countries has been fierce too. Beyond the tariff costs, I don’t see Americans saying “I’m not buying French foie gras anymore!” But you see it the other way around. E.g., Canadians boycotting US alcohol en masse as a national point against a bully. That all helps non-US business relative to US business, the zero-sum loss from tariffs to both sides notwithstanding.

I also think there’s been a degree of nationalistic outflow from foreign holders of US stocks. And that all plays into a momentum flow. A lot of US-only holders find Jesus after seeing US underperform, especially if they don’t like Trump to begin with. But even those who do — after all, every MAGA-er knows the 3-letter abbreviation for the United States of America is $$$.

The VEA outperformance has kinda been entertaining for me to watch, as none of it relates very directly to my underlying motivation (valuations). I’m looking forward to when Trumpian chaos gets so bad that it drags VEA down the toilet too.

@nada update... Actually 50/50 in my SEP account, vea/spy

This thread has wildly gone off topic. I am starting some new threads.
https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/48596-tariffs
https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/48597-trump

Yes back to land leases buildings. There must be some buildings and set of circumstances that make them a perfectly viable purchase. For example, the Marias at 520 W23rd street seems like a nice building with plenty of amenities, pets and subletting allowed, and because it’s a land lease, the units to trade for a discount compared to say 555 W23 which is a condo. But units do sell here and it’s not huge discounts compared to condos so what are the details of the land lease that seems to make rigs building perfectly viable for many?

https://streeteasy.com/building/marais-520-west-23-street-new_york

The problem is land lease buildings is that underlying rent for land is a rather complex contract which is different for each building. While many land lease contracts provide certainty in form of increases for the first x years, the payments may change greatly based on subjective land valuation after that without changing the rent percentage of that land valuation in line with market cap rates. Buyers are entering into a complex long term derivative contract when they sign up to buy an apartment. If they were to enter into OTC derivative contract otherwise, there are minimum net worth requirements.

I would feel differently if the land lease rent were to be simply linked to inflation or fixed percentage rent increase and an option to buy the land at pre-specified prices by year.

And commercial buildings are different as both parties are sophisticated and can evaluate complex land lease contract into the future.

All the condo buildings in battery Park City proper are land lease, however, this is administered by the battery Park City authority. One Brooklyn bridge is also a land lease project, You would have to do a little research. It's been awhile since we've done any business there and I can't remember the particulars for that setup. And of course, the infamous extell building in downtown Brooklyn is a land lease property, which has been covered extensively here.

Keith, I don't know if the buildings you mention above clearly meet the criteria below. Govt/similar landlord a bit different and even then I would think the following criteria should apply except may be purchase of land part. Critical part is simple to understand predictability in land rent.

---------
I would feel differently if the land lease rent were to be simply linked to inflation or fixed percentage rent increase and an option to buy the land at pre-specified prices by year.

The Brits have managed land leases for everything from farms to single family units to apartment buildings for many, many, many years, and have only started dismantling that system relatively recently. One sees some price declines as a land lease nears it's end, and ads generally state the number of years left on the ground lease -- maybe that's the sort of disclosure required in NY LL units. Otherwise, what's the difference with UK land leases that makes theirs more drama-free?

Aaron, Huge difference as from what I understand you can buy the land on a formula basis any time and the crown owns most of it.

Lot of rules to balance it:
https://www.gov.uk/leasehold-property/buying-the-freehold
https://www.innovus.co.uk/insights/what-is-ground-rent-a-guide-for-landlords-and-leaseholders