Rockrose is paying broker fee and free month in West Village...

Started by KeithBurkhardt
about 16 years ago
Posts: 2813
Member since: Aug 2008
Discussion about
URL, pleez
www.theburkhardtgroup.com I have two up under West Village in no fee section, but this applies to any listings Archive, 100 Jane, 114 Horatio, 97-95 Horatio
How about upping the ante and throwing in either Broker's Fee, and leaving $500-1000 to yourself?
How is that for self promotion?
Rockrose buildings are always all no fee. Bringing a broker lowers your chance to negotiate the rent if they are paying the broker in my opinion.
Only the lowest of the low bottomfeeder brokers are the ones peddling free apartments from Related, Rockrose, Jakobson, etc. for a fee. I understand even maggots need to make money, but there are plenty of ways to make an honest living.
Aren't the west village rockrose buildings pretty mediocre? For that same amount, you can live in 10 barclay,, 88 leonard, verdesian, etc., which seem like better deals.
Rockrose is no-fee to begin with. drop this burkhardt guy. also, those other apts mentioned are rosenyc properties... also no fee.
You can always rent cheaper than the West Village, but then you are not in the West Village.
I like "we only charge 1 month fee!" quote. how's this: try rockrose.com or rosenyc.com and look at no-fee to bypass this middleman.
"Only the lowest of the low bottomfeeder brokers are the ones peddling free apartments from Related, Rockrose, Jakobson, etc. for a fee."
Not true at all. Good broker gives his client full information on a market availabilities in client's price range (including no fee apartments). And it's up to the client to deside what he wants.
elena
(broker)
But you don't need a broker to get an apartment from major landlords like related, rose, glenwood, rockrose, etc. Also, you could subscribe to rent-direct.com, which allows you to see apartments that the brokers have access to.
people, is this a joke. there is nothing--NOTHING--sleazy about what burkhardt posted--it's not bottom feeding at all. he presented completely accurate information, he didn't pretend to be doing anything other than what he is doing. you certainly don't have to go along with it, but it isn't sleazy.
that said, i must say i think those units are outrageously overpriced relative to what you can get in the village right now in walkup buildings or by renting a condo or coop, or even in some smaller elevator rentals. i guess there are some people who must have full service and must have west village, and so their options are so limited they pay through the nose. but really, look around a little and you can get much better deals.
people, you don't need a broker, that's true. keith never pretended that you DO need a broker. what he's offering is, basically, to split the fee he gets from the landlord with you. he's not offering a 50/50 split--try him out on that if you want. but to say its sleazy or dishonest is not accurate.
Rockrose buildings are always all no fee.
- Well, there is always fee. (Application fee, or pets fee ...). They are not always 1 month free, or not always OP (paying brokers to bring them tenants). That changes from time to time.
But if you, as a tenant, can get one month free with your broker picking up some of your expences - it's not a bad deal.
Now, there are some buildings that pay 1 month free (to the tenant or to the broker) - a good broker should disclose that. But if building pays 1 month to the tenant AND 1 month OP, there is no way you( as a tenant) will get both, even if you come without broker.
Some buildings pay 2 month free to the tenant and 1 month OP. Some are negotiable on the rent price on top of 1 month free. All really depends on many things.
I agree with happyrenter...there are people looking for apartments that want a broker to help them with the maze of paperwork, negotiations, etc. A rental broker might help them get a better deal. Especially if they're relocating from another state.
think the burkhardt got burned. no fee, fee, no fee. what bs. thanx y'all.
"there are people looking for apartments that want a broker to help them with the maze of paperwork, negotiations"
You've got to be kidding. There is no paperwork - you sign a lease - and the "negotiations" that you can negotiate cost far less than a rental broker.
julia, the only "maze of paperwork" is your medical chart at the insane asylum. I have found that the most painful "negotiation" is regarding the exhorbitant broker fee.
stevejhx...i know that..i'm trying to be agreeable.
steve,
why don't you read the discussion before commenting? in this case a rental broker COSTS YOU NOTHING and actually EARNS YOU $1000. burkhardt is doing nothing sleazy here at all. even with no paperwork at all, burkhardt is offering you $1000 to let him walk you through the door. if you don't want to do it, fine, but it's certainly a reasonable offer.
by the way, there is a difference between 'no fee' and 'pays broker fee.' no fee means that if you come with no broker, you pay no fee, but if a broker walks you in the door you pay it. 'pays broker fee' means that even if the broker walks you in the door, the company pays. that is the change that burkhardt is pointing out.
heji,
another brilliant comment. what part of 'free' do you not understand? he is not charging you an exorbitant fee. he is offering to pay you $1000 to use him as your broker. you pay nothing.
happyrenter, I was clearly not referring to this particular slimebag in question; rather, the "value" of paying for a rental broker's "service." Every broker would have you believe that they work hard for their money when in reality they are nothing more than keyrings that eat. The last broker I used lived in the building and spent exactly 17 minutes with me, including the time to fill out the application. The apartment basically sold itself; I took it within ten seconds of walking in. There was nothing he said that I couldn't have read from a sheet of paper. And in less than 20 minutes he collected several thousands of dollars in commission. Nice work if you can get it. But seriously... I would have much rather just dealt with the managing agent directly.
happyrenter and others thank you for pointing out the obvious. I understand there are reasons why one chooses to use a service or not use a service and most of the time money plays a role in that decision. But the anger and vulgarity associated with discussing this process is something I don't understand. We are just talking about the rental and sale of apartments and in this case the offer could be favorable to someone looking to live in the West Village. Through my company I am trying to address the inequity of brokerage commissions in NYC.
After 17 years I can assure you there are people that appreciate the service a good broker can provide, it makes there life easier...for them it's a justifiable expense. Like the maid, a garage for the car,travel agent, financial planner, private golf, first class seating and the list goes on. They don't want or perhaps have the time to search the classifieds, surf the web, run out at lunch to an on-site office or look at apartments on the weekend they have very little knowledge of. A good broker has first hand knowledge of what is available and all the particulars of the building, schools and neighborhood. This may not be worth 15% of a years rent, but it is worth something to some people, and so far my clients are pleased with my new fee structure. Real Estate is a service/relationship business that some people are willing to pay up for. Our services can really be very important to someone who has just been transfered to New York and doesn't have it all wired like some of you. Peace out.
The Roots of Anger
by Thich Nhat Hanh
Anger is rooted in our lack of understanding of ourselves and of the causes, deep-seated as well as immediate, that brought about this unpleasant state of affairs. Anger is also rooted in desire, pride, agitation, and suspicion. The primary roots of our anger are in ourselves. Our environment and other people are only secondary. It is not difficult for us to accept the enormous damage brought about by a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or a flood. But when damage is caused by another person, we don't have much patience. We know that earthquakes and floods have causes, and we should see that the person who has precipitated our anger also has reasons, deep-seated and immediate, for what he has done.
For instance, someone who speaks badly to us may have been spoken to in exactly the same way just the day before, or by his alcoholic father when he was a child. When we see and understand these kinds of causes, we can begin to be free from our anger. I am not saying that someone who viciously attacks us should not be disciplined. But what is most important is that we first take care of the seeds of negativity in ourselves. Then if someone needs to be helped or disciplined, we will do so out of compassion, not anger and retribution. If we genuinely try to understand the suffering of another person, we are more likely to act in a way that will help him overcome his suffering and confusion, and that will help all of us.
While not against the law, this is a kickback and could be subject to an action by the rental company against this broker and the renter for recovery of the fee paid.
By the way theburkhardtgroup, "After 17 years I can assure you there are people that appreciate the service a good broker can provide, it makes there life easier...for them it's a justifiable expense. Like the maid, a garage for the car,travel agent, financial planner, private golf, first class seating and the list goes on. They don't want or perhaps have the time to search the classifieds, surf the web, run out at lunch to an on-site office or look at apartments on the weekend they have very little knowledge of. A good broker has first hand knowledge of what is available and all the particulars of the building, schools and neighborhood."
I believe this is true.
However, there's also a lot of situations where a renter finds the place on his or her own, but the apartment is represented by a broker, so none of the above applies. I think people are really turned off by that scenario because, after-all, the broker is representing the owner in that case and is solely providing the service to the owner.
I think there must be better ways to getting clients than this approach. Nontheless, some comments here are very true if you rent with someone by being deceiving.
I paid a broker fee once, full 15%, I scoped out a place by myself, but it wasn't available on time that I needed, and the broker there brought me to another broker at a one person shop who represented a single brownstone building in Greenwich Village Gold Coast, wouldn't have been listed anywhere else. It was a unique apartment, private owner landlord in the building, stabilized (but effectively market rent too), and no one would have found it without a broker. So that was worth it and I agree that the brokers got me something valuable in that circumstance.
Of course I had to find a bunch of brokers before that, several brought me to pretty crappy apartments because that is what THEY had in inventory.
I think glee is right though that this isn't illegal, but there's the risk to the tenant and Burkhart that the rental company finds out. Probably the rental company won't go after the tenent but depending on their records how many times Burkhart did this, they might go after him and more likely to ban him in the future.
And I think happyrenter, while maybe saying this isn't an issue for the tenant - that is true, isn't realizing that there is an element of dishonesty here although directed at another party. But if you do it with him, then it is on you too.
And I think mkrater also has a point if the broker is just a rep of the owner and lists it here on Streeteasy or Craigslist or on their own broker's site, then a renter certainly doesn't feel good about paying for that, perhaps with the market weakening there's a chance that the owner always pays, or that streeteasy, craigs, etc. will be more used so that there is no broker necessarily necessary. Maybe!
There are a lot of backward incentives in real estate that essentially make this free money for the brokers. When the buyer of an apartment has to pay out of pocket the 2-3% instead of the seller paying the whole thing, that may change the picture in buying as well.
again, you all have a lot of perfectly reasonably gripes with the real estate brokerage industry that have absolutely nothing to do with what burkhardt suggested. this is not an illegal kickback scheme at all. gleeclub, i take it you don't have a law degree since you write that 'while not illegal' it could be subject to action on the part of the landlord. actually, no. that's why we have laws. when we behave legally we are not subject to legal action.
i am not going to go along with this plan, i'm not interested in these apartments, i've never met burkhardt and have no stake in any of this. but in case you haven't noticed, burkhardt is the guy trying to break the real estate broker cabal that sets the fixed fees that we all hate so much. he's offering to give part of his fee back to the tenant. and this has you people complaining? come on.
Happy, I don't want to argue the law with you, you are wrong. Something can be entirely lawful but still a civil wrong - a tort against a third party that doesn't violate any law. A breach of a contract for instance. There's no cause to call the police, but there may be a cause to sue.
excuse me, if it is a tort it does violate the law--the civil law which is why it is actionable. if it is not in contravention of the law, it is not actionable. breach of contract is a violation of....contract law!
You have criminal law.
You have contract law. You can violate a contract but you can't violate a contract law.
You have tort law which are, like contracts, civil and not criminal, but revolve around a standard of negligence but are outside the bounds of any contract.
This instance is contract law - there's likely a contract, express or implied, that would make Burkhardt's actions problematic and actionable by the rental owner. But the police aren't going to chase Burkhardt, there is nothing criminal, and the police don't enforce contracts.
splaken,
forgive me, i haven't taken law classes in a few years, but if you violate the terms of a legally-enforceable contract have you not violated contract law? perhaps this is just a semantic point. in any case, it all comes down to the real or implied contract between burkhardt and the landlord. if, indeed, this is a violation then of course you'd be a fool to get involved. but your larger point is correct: just because the police aren't involved doesn't mean something does not run afoul of the law.
two points
first of all, in a nod to the thread's topic, it seems the big landlords are in flux, trying to cope with the reality of the market. everyone knows it's heading down, but no one knows quite how far - apts in my building are renting for about 10% less than they were 3 months ago, but hard to know if that's just bargains because it's a slow season or a real change that'll last for the year
second, the last time i rented, i didn't use a broker - i paid no fee, which was nice, but, man, the calling and appointment setting ate up tons of time - i hardly got any work done over the course of a month, and my lunch hours were always 2+ hours as i was looking - kind of made me miss the broker's role of pre-screening because i wasted time on places that were not as advertised or where the online pictures were really deceptive
you know, if the standard broker's fee was 1/2 month's rent, i think i'd totally use a broker without hesitation - for one month's rent or more, it just seems too expensive - but i think everyone needs to do a "do-it-yourself" manhattan apartment hunt at least once, just to satisfy yourself that bargains are rare, and it's probably not worth it to look at too many places, because you'll likely just see too many units that are indistinguishable from each other - kind of just need to close your eyes, pick something that's decent, and move on with life - also if your credit or work history is a little spotty, a broker with good skills can sort of massage your application with the landlord (vouch for you a little bit) to smooth the way, which is what one did for me when i was getting my first apt after grad school
renting for about 10% less than they were 3 months ago,
- that is a good deal due to time of year, but yes, the market there is certainly softening. If the building is in a good area, they'll typically have good occupancies and not need to do too much by way of concession: 1 month plus broker for a place like Verdesian or the Related buildings (who anyway don't want to set precedent).
The condo rentals are suffering, but be sure to read my discussion about that on the other thread - be very careful if you only sign a 1 year lease.
NBalzac, what you point out otherwise is an interesting other part of the equation - the on site leasing agent. Interesting folks, some of them - I'll leave it at that right now.
I think also NBalzac and Unimax58, and even Burkhardt's posts in the middle of this discussion reflect differences between role of a broker who is providing value, role of a broker who just obtains listings and pretends, role of a broker who is really just representing the owner and not the renter at all.