$1,000 hikes hit some older Seattle rentals
seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com
And, I would wager that there's a correlation between those who say there should be no limits on building, and those who are unwilling to pay for public infrastructure (schools, roads, transit systems, water and electric supply, etc.) needed to support the increased population.
The problem really is supply, and japanese zoning is objectively better for housing costs. Anybody who thinks that it is impossible for supply to keep up with boom time demand has no idea how much housing that developers are willing to build if we just fucking let them.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I would really like to see the evidence for your view. What are the cities that have begun to suffer for lack of zoning (in this context, or otherwise)? Is this a modern problem? Is there a textbook example?
Google suggests Houston has a lack of zoning; interesting, but clearly it has been able to grow via sprawl.
I do sympathize with their situation. Being priced out of your home and having to quickly find a new place and move is incredibly stressful and can be personally devastating if you've grown attached to where you live, your neighbors, etc. And I do think legally limiting the rate of rent increase each year (as a percentage of overall rent) is a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, with Amazon and other tech companies importing thousands and thousands of young men with six-figure salaries, housing prices in general will only continue to increase.
Indeed.
The only problem is that people with six-figure salaries rely on the services of people who don't have six-figure salaries, and those people also require proximity to their own non-six-figure jobs.
Oh, like teachers for their kids, police officers, supermarket cashiers, you name it.
What about someone who's primary assets are a couple of houses that (s)he rents out? Should (s)he be restricted from getting a market rate income on those houses?
I disagree pretty strongly that the "rentiers" are protected from market forces. If we look at the case of people who really are in the "rentier class", who are heavily leveraged, they are taking a fairly big risk here that the economy and housing prices are going to stay high, and many are risking bankruptcy should we suffer a reversal.
edit: added point about insider knowledge
Sounds like they're providing a valuable service to me.
You have no idea what you are talking about and your bias is plain
That's roughly captures the essence of my idea of dirty-rich.
These dirty-rich grab most or all of the strategically important spaces and then make more money off the rents.
I have very good idea of what I am talking and FYI I am not a communist with bias against all rich people. In fact, I am a strong opponent of communism. But I also oppose the dirty-rich in capitalist nations.
The problem is a lot of people are tied to a certain goegraphical area.
The person might be old, and needs the assistance of Very hard to cultivate true friends, or family.
The person might not be the most economically viable specimen? The person might have a hard time doing manual labor? The person might be one of the millions that should qualify for dissabliity, but doesn't.
The person is so close to being homless, this magical move to mystical cheaper part of the country might be the last straw?
"I'll spend my last $1000 on moving my belongings across the country. Hopefully I'll find an apartment that doesn't require a security deposit, first and last, and perfect credit? I hope my heating bill won't be high? I hope that minimum wage job is waiting?" A lot of hope? No wonder we have such a problem with Homelessness? (My last move was 6 grand)
It's not so easy to up and move when you don't have a nest egg, or a job that doesn't moves well, or a retirement, or helpful friends/family.
I'm tired of debating housing.
I know a lot of you hate rent control--fine, I kinda get it in certain markets.
A lot of you blame prop 13 in California--I think that's just blame becuse you ran out of reasons.
Good luck building high density housing.
Good luck trying to ease restrictions on adding on to existing residential homes. I got a ticket because I parked on the street last night.
Good luck making it harder for foreigners to buy our land.(Right as we speak their are foreigners, for instance Chinese buying our land with a phone call.)
So back to, "No one forces anyone to live anywhere."
No they don't--Slick. What are these people suppose to do?
Forget about living off the lands, like our Frontieer forefathers did. Camping for free--where? Hunting, and fishing without a paying money? Those days are long gone. We are tied into living a certain modern way. A way where pretty much everything costs money. Any deviants will be fined, and punished.
What are poor people, people on fixed incomes, people who don't have marketable skills, people without fancy degrees, and oh, so helpful parents, at opportune times suppose to do?
That's right move to the Midwest, and hope Wallmart is hiring?
And why do you think people in these mystical low rent areas are moving to high rent areas? It's not the beautiful beaches/mountians. It's the hope of a job, and a better life. Not even a better job--a shit job that's becomming harder to get. "Hay--l'll join the sharing economy? "I'll spend my last wad on a 2008 four door vechicle, and live in it?"
Yea, I got mad. I know too many people whom are basically homeless. A large percentage of them are former Programmers.
I don't see a solution. I think we need to open up large sectors of land across the United States that a person, or family could camp for free. Kinda like Kibbutzes?
Communism should stick to the pure Marxist-Leninist principles; then all is good.
They should not be restricted from getting a market rate, but they _should_ be paying a much higher land tax for their non-primary residences.
Same way big trucks and other industrial vehicles should probably be paying additional taxes for the roads, since they are responsible for most of the wear and tear.
Anyway, there was a better quote in the article where a landlord said he is being vilified by the public for doing the "right thing business-wise". My opinion: he should be. As a former renter in an expensive area, it is really tough to swallow that a rate hike is nothing more than a money-grab. As a former landlord, if the rent covers my mortgage and expenses, it is a far better business decision to keep a steady-paying, no-trouble-causing tenant than it is to price them out of the area and lose that customer loyalty, and to have to spend time and money looking for new tenants. And most importantly, as a human being I just can't do this to people. But then again, I have a heart when it comes to this kind of stuff, and having been burned by a tenant because of my abundant good will, I sold my property and don't rent anymore - I just can't handle being cold and ruthless and "businessy" to people who depend on me for a roof over their head.
But we'll just take the free lunch bit out of the title here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditu...
A $1000 mortgage, even if variable rate, isn't suddenly going to jump to $2000. I suppose it could happen if this is early in the mortgage (most of the payment is interest and the interest rate suddenly doubles). Unlike rent, interest rates don't go monotonically up, though; they go up and down. Unless it's already at zero, interest has room to go down, too. A mortgage gets cheaper when the interest rate goes down. Won't happen with rent, except in some god forsaken town that is shrinking. (The company closes the mine, and everyone leaves or whatever, and the remaining people practically have to be paid to stay.)
That is to say, a mortgage can get cheaper even if you're living in a desirable place where values are appreciating, because the interest rate is linked to national and global finance which isn't related to the real estate dynamics of your particular neck of the woods. Rents will never get cheaper in a place like that.
“We couldn’t believe it. All my friends have just said that it’s not right,” Haug said. So now, they’re getting ready to move out."
Would they have preferred he had raised the rent slowly over the last five years, thereby resulting in more money paid to him overall?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/19/seattles-...
You usually need 3x income to qualify for an apartment, so I would expect people to qualify for $400/month higher rent, changing to $800/month from $400/month on minimum wage.
If people on minimum wage rent a 3-bedroom as roommates, it could cause the price of a 3-bedroom to raise up to $1200 or a 2-bedroom by $800 if 100% of candidate tenants were roommates on minimum wage.
The effect would realistically be lower. The article mentions people on fixed incomes like social security, which of course are going to be priced out. It also wouldn't matter for people who already made $15/hour, unless their incomes increased at the same time.
You could tell which is which by looking at rent for mobile homes. You usually rent the land there and park a mobile home on it that you own. If the cause is minimum wage increasing, I would expect to see the land rent for trailer parks increase. If the cause is techie yuppies moving into the neighborhood, I would expect the trailer parks to be bought out by investors and developed.
In addition 15$ hasn't taken full effect yet, it is a steady increase to 15 and will only reach that target in a few years.
No: It's mostly about supply not meeting demand. See http://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-futu... or http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp....
I recently told one of my tenants that I'd be selling the property next year and would give her first rights. She now keeps the front yard clean (the city had filed past complaints), she is saving money to prepare, and she has hope. Simply put, she is a better citizen.
People need encouragement to think long term. It is human nature to not consider risks when things haven't been a problem in the past. Nearly everyone now wears a seat belt and a helmet, but a few decades ago even the smartest people didn't bother until they were strongly and repeatedly encouraged to do so.
Threats of $1000 rent hikes sound like a good way to keep the citizens in line. Well done, landlord.
Perhaps many landlords initially want to do the right thing. But after years of hearing "landlord" used as a slur they just say, fuck it, and act indifferently towards their tenant.