One Year Rent Deferment

[[DHT]Osiris]

I own one rental property, and live in another duplex where the other unit gets rented out.

i have mortgages on both properties and significant equity.

these units cost money to own and are rented at middle of market rates to good people that deserve good housing. I do know that 2 of 3 people that rent from me are having a hard time right now and I am working with them to make sure we all can come out of this together with all of our accounts in good standing. I really don't make any monthly income off of the properties, the rent supports them and adds to the equity while i wait for the value to go up.

80% of the rental units in the USA are held by people like me. they own 1-5 units and are sole proprietors. 10.8 million people who are small time investors that are 98% of the rental unit owners. the other 2 % are businesses that own more than 5 units, and that 2% of the rental owners owns 20% of the total units.

There are a lot of people in a similar position to me that are not "rent vultures". but small time people working hard to better the lives of their families by having some investments. we can keep it going for a little while with say, one unit empty but not long if all 3 are empty/not paying.
For some reason, some of you think the bank is more deserving of the equity than we are by supporting rent strikes, rent holidays and such, at the same time saying bailouts are terrible and Corps are evil. Which is it? pick a winner, its either the people like me and you or the big banks.

Commercial loans require 25% down are usually not held by government supported systems, so there is really no incentive for a bank to do anything on them, they know that they could foreclose and make more on the property than what the mortgage is worth. good luck finding housing for the renters when all the small landlords loose there properties to the banks and they sit empty for years in foreclosures. Good luck propping up property taxes that don't get paid, and the loss of billions of dollars of income that support the families and spending habits of the people who own the properties.

it's just not so simple as not paying rent to the rent vultures that are living the high life. plenty of low life corporate slum lords

federal hold on rent increase? are you going to put a federal hold on the price of maintenance, property and income taxes, utility price increases as well? you have to understand that some people want to rent their housing, and don't want to own, and that's fine.

I didn't realize the rate of sole proprietors was so high. I'm in the same boat you are (one property that I rent out). My only thought regarding the rent price increase hold was to prevent the year after a UBI announcement, everyone increasing their rent by 50%. Nobody's going to increase the cost of bread to $50 a loaf, but everything will get a little more expensive, and it'll give things time to level off before rents can go up again. That may not be the best approach, I have zero education in this area... but something has to be done to make the UBI not become just a giant waste of time/money.

I wouldn't expect any of the things you listed to go up in price or occurrence dramatically, so getting paid the same amount post-rent freeze shouldn't dramatically affect you or anyone else, right? Remember UBI may not cover everything, just enough.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I own one rental property, and live in another duplex where the other unit gets rented out.

i have mortgages on both properties and significant equity.

these units cost money to own and are rented at middle of market rates to good people that deserve good housing. I do know that 2 of 3 people that rent from me are having a hard time right now and I am working with them to make sure we all can come out of this together with all of our accounts in good standing.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about earlier. Work out a reasonable agreement that works good enough for everyone involved.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh please, we have competitive rental prices just like we have competitive gas prices, current costs not withstanding. Add in barriers to building "affordable housing" and, we're back where we started. Price controls are a necessary counter to universal basic greed. No one ever manages to understand in government or, in society that everyone making a buck is better than a few making all the money. Limiting the greed is the only way to do it.

Price controls just lead to shortages - they are a universally bad idea.

As far as the rental market goes I don’t know where you live but here it is highly competitive and I can rent an apartment from tons of different landlords. Hell, I could tend my apartment out tomorrow if I wanted to for whatever price I wanted. The main issue in New York is who controls the listings of apartment rentals as the brokers try and use the desirability of the market to screw renters over with fees. That’s an entirely separate issue from if the rental market is competitive though.

Rentals aren’t like oil companies or whatever where you need several billion dollars to get into the game, anyone who owns a property can rent it whenever they want, broadly speaking, and that’s tens of millions of people.

 

[fskimospy]

I own one rental property, and live in another duplex where the other unit gets rented out.

i have mortgages on both properties and significant equity.

these units cost money to own and are rented at middle of market rates to good people that deserve good housing. I do know that 2 of 3 people that rent from me are having a hard time right now and I am working with them to make sure we all can come out of this together with all of our accounts in good standing. I really don't make any monthly income off of the properties, the rent supports them and adds to the equity while i wait for the value to go up.

80% of the rental units in the USA are held by people like me. they own 1-5 units and are sole proprietors. 10.8 million people who are small time investors that are 98% of the rental unit owners. the other 2 % are businesses that own more than 5 units, and that 2% of the rental owners owns 20% of the total units.

There are a lot of people in a similar position to me that are not "rent vultures". but small time people working hard to better the lives of their families by having some investments. we can keep it going for a little while with say, one unit empty but not long if all 3 are empty/not paying.
For some reason, some of you think the bank is more deserving of the equity than we are by supporting rent strikes, rent holidays and such, at the same time saying bailouts are terrible and Corps are evil. Which is it? pick a winner, its either the people like me and you or the big banks.

Commercial loans require 25% down are usually not held by government supported systems, so there is really no incentive for a bank to do anything on them, they know that they could foreclose and make more on the property than what the mortgage is worth. good luck finding housing for the renters when all the small landlords loose there properties to the banks and they sit empty for years in foreclosures. Good luck propping up property taxes that don't get paid, and the loss of billions of dollars of income that support the families and spending habits of the people who own the properties.

it's just not so simple as not paying rent to the rent vultures that are living the high life. plenty of low life corporate slum lords

federal hold on rent increase? are you going to put a federal hold on the price of maintenance, property and income taxes, utility price increases as well? you have to understand that some people want to rent their housing, and don't want to own, and that's fine.

@MagnusTheBrewer , how many units do you own? you claim to know the market for the entire country so well! rent prices are competitive. high rent cost units see a lot more turnover than lower cost units. housing shortages, generally created by local governments to keep the riff raff out of their towns do drive prices up, that's exactly what your city council was trying to do when they decided on density limits, height limits, high property taxes, number of unrelated people living in a house limits and limited transportation infrastructure. They create some crappy "affordable housing program" that limits upward mobility of its buyers by limiting the value increase of the homes.

Exactly, the rental market is made up of tons of small players and it’s competitive. If people had $1,000 more per month it’s not like you could just raise your rents $1,000. Your tenants would move out.

 

[herm0016]

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about earlier. Work out a reasonable agreement that works good enough for everyone involved.

and around here at least, i have not heard one person say their landlord was trying to screw them over.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Exactly, the rental market is made up of tons of small players and it’s competitive. If people had $1,000 more per month it’s not like you could just raise your rents $1,000. Your tenants would move out.

Depends on whether or not everyone raises their rents. If every major player in NYC raises their rents, all the smaller outfits will follow suit, then where you gonna move to?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Exactly, the rental market is made up of tons of small players and it’s competitive. If people had $1,000 more per month it’s not like you could just raise your rents $1,000. Your tenants would move out.

Market dependent, in my area want to rent people far exceed the available rental units
I am very confident my market would absorb the full $1k.

 

[fskimospy]

Depends on whether or not everyone raises their rents. If every major player in NYC raises their rents, all the smaller outfits will follow suit, then where you gonna move to?

So you’re talking about the major landlords in NYC committing a crime?

Price Fixing, Bid Rigging And Market Allocation Schemes

www.justice.gov

 

[herm0016]

Depends on whether or not everyone raises their rents. If every major player in NYC raises their rents, all the smaller outfits will follow suit, then where you gonna move to?

and when population starts to move out of the city, the rents will come back down because they will have empty units.

also, the smaller outfits may leave the rent the same and get higher quality, lower tunrover renters that in the long run are a better performing investment than raising the rent and having higher turnover.

 

[fskimospy]

Market dependent, in my area want to rent people far exceed the available rental units
I am very confident my market would absorb the full $1k.

That is highly unlikely. I doubt it would happen in NYC and this is one of the most sought after housing markets on earth.

Regardless, the good news about that is if it were true it would make owning housing in your area hugely more profitable which would set off a building boom the likes of which you have never seen which would long term lower the rents back down so long as the government doesn’t ban building housing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So you’re talking about the major landlords in NYC committing a crime?

Price Fixing, Bid Rigging And Market Allocation Schemes

www.justice.gov

Yep, basically. They don't have to communicate about it, just everyone starts upping prices.

and when population starts to move out of the city, the rents will come back down because they will have empty units.

You overestimate people's ability/willingness to move, I think.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Price controls just lead to shortages - they are a universally bad idea.

As far as the rental market goes I don’t know where you live but here it is highly competitive and I can rent an apartment from tons of different landlords. Hell, I could tend my apartment out tomorrow if I wanted to for whatever price I wanted. The main issue in New York is who controls the listings of apartment rentals as the brokers try and use the desirability of the market to screw renters over with fees. That’s an entirely separate issue from if the rental market is competitive though.

Rentals aren’t like oil companies or whatever where you need several billion dollars to get into the game, anyone who owns a property can rent it whenever they want, broadly speaking, and that’s tens of millions of people.

You're talking about a housing shortage in your example not, competition. You're also talking about upper middle class housing not, affordable housing. I'm working poor and cannot afford to live in a city if I wanted to. Oh, I could afford a one room efficiency. The barriers to building affordable housing do cost billions. The only way to accomplish it is through government intervention. "But there's only so much land, wah!"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That is highly unlikely. I doubt it would happen in NYC and this is one of the most sought after housing markets on earth.

Regardless, the good news about that is if it were true it would make owning housing in your area hugely more profitable which would set off a building boom the likes of which you have never seen which would long term lower the rents back down so long as the government doesn’t ban building housing.

you need land for new construction. There currently is none.
only potential lots left for new building either would require major zoning changes, easing on environmental rules or major amounts of ground work or huge expenses to bring utilities to the new structure or demolishing of existing structure which doesn’t really solve the land problem. Even in this scenario of people having extra money to build a house all that extra money would be absorbed by the land seller & construction crew to build.
I am confident $1k would be absorbed. Obviously it would take months and obviously it would be an average with some being over $1k and some being under $1k.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I am confident $1k would be absorbed. Obviously it would take months and obviously it would be an average with some being over $1k and some being under $1k.

Where I am (not NYC) we've got rents in the actual city that are hovering around $2k/mo, even if you only increased rent by 20% you'd be up $400, which is 40% of that hypothetical UBI. It's very very easy for housing to eat a shocking amount of money.

 

[fskimospy]

you need land for new construction. There currently is none.
only potential lots left for new building either would require major zoning changes, easing on environmental rules or major amounts of ground work or huge expenses to bring utilities to the new structure or demolishing of existing structure which doesn’t really solve the land problem. Even in this scenario of people having extra money to build a house all that extra money would be absorbed by the land seller & construction crew to build.
I am confident $1k would be absorbed. Obviously it would take months and obviously it would be an average with some being over $1k and some being under $1k.

I mean you could could change your zoning tomorrow. Land is not the issue, it’s the will to use it effectively. If every apartment suddenly generated an extra thousand a month you would see construction EVERYWHERE. Again I don’t remember where you live but I hear land availability as being a big problem in San Francisco. That sounds compelling until you realize that San Francisco is a lot less dense than Queens, a borough often thought of as suburban.

I always find it strange how people think economics doesn’t apply when it comes to housing. Housing costs a lot larger percentage of people’s income in a lot of metro areas than it used to. If all income increases would just be absolved by landlords that would be a situation that had always existed. This is clearly not the case.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Where I am (not NYC) we've got rents in the actual city that are hovering around $2k/mo, even if you only increased rent by 20% you'd be up $400, which is 40% of that hypothetical UBI. It's very very easy for housing to eat a shocking amount of money.

pretty much my area, two bedroom is $2k+, dumpy two bed will be around $1.8k excellent two bed will be approaching $3k

 

[fskimospy]

You're talking about a housing shortage in your example not, competition. You're also talking about upper middle class housing not, affordable housing. I'm working poor and cannot afford to live in a city if I wanted to. Oh, I could afford a one room efficiency. The barriers to building affordable housing do cost billions. The only way to accomplish it is through government intervention. "But there's only so much land, wah!"

The reason you can’t afford a house in a major city is in large part because of government intervention - ie: zoning. Basically communities largely banned building new houses, making the price of the old ones skyrocket.

I also support affordable housing built by the government but that won’t solve the problem by itself. The thing we have to do is lift the building bans.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I mean you could could change your zoning tomorrow. Land is not the issue, it’s the will to use it effectively. If every apartment suddenly generated an extra thousand a month you would see construction EVERYWHERE. Again I don’t remember where you live but I hear land availability as being a big problem in San Francisco. That sounds compelling until you realize that San Francisco is a lot less dense than Queens, a borough often thought of as suburban.

I always find it strange how people think economics doesn’t apply when it comes to housing. Housing costs a lot larger percentage of people’s income in a lot of metro areas than it used to. If all income increases would just be absolved by landlords that would be a situation that had always existed. This is clearly not the case.

Economics certainly apply, if there is more money in the market that has limited supply the cost will increase.
I live in Mass and I live in an early settlement place. There simply isn’t enough land, people have been living here building houses for hundreds of years.

 

[Brainonska511]

You're talking about a housing shortage in your example not, competition. You're also talking about upper middle class housing not, affordable housing. I'm working poor and cannot afford to live in a city if I wanted to. Oh, I could afford a one room efficiency. The barriers to building affordable housing do cost billions. The only way to accomplish it is through government intervention. "But there's only so much land, wah!"

Many of the barriers to affordable housing in general are arbitrary restrictions on property use that lead to a fundamental restriction of the housing supply: restrictive zoning and parking minimums are some of the biggest barriers. On the other side, you can add additional incentives to build affordable units (either by mandating X% of new construction or offer some tax deferrals in exchange for keeping units affordable).

 

[fskimospy]

Economics certainly apply, if there is more money in the market that has limited supply the cost will increase.
I live in Mass and I live in an early settlement place. There simply isn’t enough land, people have been living here building houses for hundreds of years.

The only thing limiting the supply is the government banning the creation of more supply.

You might mean there isn’t more land to build single family houses, but that’s a choice then and those choices have consequences. If the government enacts UBI and you don’t want housing costs to eat it all then you can build more housing. It’s not a problem with UBI, it’s a problem with local governance.

 

[Brainonska511]

Economics certainly apply, if there is more money in the market that has limited supply the cost will increase.
I live in Mass and I live in an early settlement place. There simply isn’t enough land, people have been living here building houses for hundreds of years.

I live in MA as well and I dont buy that one but. Even in Somerville, one of the densest cities in New England, there is plenty of land. Lots and lots of space dedicated to car storage, abandoned lots, restrictions on maximum building heights, unused large sections of existing plots that could probably support additional units, etc...

 

[fskimospy]

Many of the barriers to affordable housing in general are arbitrary restrictions on property use that lead to a fundamental restriction of the housing supply: restrictive zoning and parking minimums are some of the biggest barriers. On the other side, you can add additional incentives to build affordable units (either by mandating X% of new construction or offer some tax deferrals in exchange for keeping units affordable).

Oh god the parking minimums. Whoever thought those up really screwed this country over.

As far as I can tell the purpose of them is to maintain adequate street parking, meaning that new construction is saddled with using huge amounts of land for a purpose they don’t want just so current residents can continue to store their personal property on city streets for free.

 

[fskimospy]

I live in MA as well and I dont buy that one but. Even in Somerville, one of the densest cities in New England, there is plenty of land. Lots and lots of space dedicated to car storage, abandoned lots, restrictions on maximum building heights, unused large sections of existing plots that could probably support additional units, etc...

Just looked it up and it’s 19k/sq mile. So the absolute densest city in MA is...again...less dense than Queens.

If people are making a choice not to make more housing then they shouldn’t complain when people leverage the existing supply against them to effectively steal their money. This is what you voted for.

 

[Brainonska511]

Oh god the parking minimums. Whoever thought those up really screwed this country over.

As far as I can tell the purpose of them is to maintain adequate street parking, meaning that new construction is saddled with using huge amounts of land for a purpose they don’t want just so current residents can continue to store their personal property on city streets for free.

My city, Somerville, recently did away with many of those if within a half mile of a rapid transit station. But I still get to store my private vehicle on city streets for the low low cost of $40/year. What a steal!

 

[fskimospy]

My city, Somerville, recently did away with many of those if within a half mile of a rapid transit station. But I still get to store my private vehicle on city streets for the low low cost of $40/year. What a steal!

Kind of amazing how parking garages in NYC charge $300 or more a month to store your car there, establishing what the approximate market price for that is. (Would probably be less further out but still) The city allows millions of car owners to park on the streets in perpetuity for free though! Sweet!