“Careful when you go outside or some tenant group will bust you”
June 3, 2016 8:55 AM Subscribe
"So can you do demolition eviction and then evict the tenants and then not demolish the building?"Real Estate Vampires Plot How To "De-Tenant" Rent-Stabilized Brooklyn
"There’s nothing in there I can see that penalizes you for not demolishing the building," Itkowitz replied.
I've heard a lot of these tactics on the WNYC Podcast There Goes the Neighborhood which is an exploration of gentrification in new york city. Highly recommend, very good!
I started listening to it because although I just turned 30 and got a job that somehow pays above median income. Now my husband and I are Double Income No Kids and moved to a new city and thinking maybe we should buy a house in one of these "up and coming" neighborhoods?
Haha! No - event though we are surprisingly well off, the developers want us to spend ALL our money, and are destroying the local neighborhoods to obtain it.
posted by rebent at 9:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I started listening to it because although I just turned 30 and got a job that somehow pays above median income. Now my husband and I are Double Income No Kids and moved to a new city and thinking maybe we should buy a house in one of these "up and coming" neighborhoods?
Haha! No - event though we are surprisingly well off, the developers want us to spend ALL our money, and are destroying the local neighborhoods to obtain it.
posted by rebent at 9:03 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you need a little antidote to the shittiness outlined in the article, here you go. At least one mega-asshole is facing some comeuppance.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 9:11 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
>"There’s nothing in there I can see that penalizes you for not demolishing the building," Itkowitz replied.
The pull quote omits the line which follows, which is a shame, since it's a highlight:
>She warned that a "nasty person with a grudge" might try to sue over a bait-and-switch like this.
Nasty. That's how we're gonna characterize someone who got evicted to make a landlord richer? Are characterizations available for the landlords themselves? Is it possible to suggest some?
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [26 favorites]
The pull quote omits the line which follows, which is a shame, since it's a highlight:
>She warned that a "nasty person with a grudge" might try to sue over a bait-and-switch like this.
Nasty. That's how we're gonna characterize someone who got evicted to make a landlord richer? Are characterizations available for the landlords themselves? Is it possible to suggest some?
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm also pretty impressed/horrified by Itkowitz's casual attitude to client confidentiality with reference to her tenant clients. There is absolutely no justification, in my view, for just throwing specific and potentially deanonymisable information out there in any context, particularly not an oppositional one.
Itkowitz may not be an evil lawyer, as she argues. But she seems, from this remove, like a pretty incompetent one.
posted by howfar at 9:17 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Itkowitz may not be an evil lawyer, as she argues. But she seems, from this remove, like a pretty incompetent one.
posted by howfar at 9:17 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are characterizations available for the landlords themselves? Is it possible to suggest some?
The landlord: He who signs a lease must pay rent. That's the law.
Max Bialystock: You miserable wretch! How dare you take the last penny out of a poor man's pocket?
The landlord: I have to. I'm a landlord.
Max Bialystock: [to God] Oh, Lord, hear my plea; destroy him! He maketh a blight on the land!
The landlord: [also to God] Don't listen to him; he's crazy.
posted by griphus at 9:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
The landlord: He who signs a lease must pay rent. That's the law.
Max Bialystock: You miserable wretch! How dare you take the last penny out of a poor man's pocket?
The landlord: I have to. I'm a landlord.
Max Bialystock: [to God] Oh, Lord, hear my plea; destroy him! He maketh a blight on the land!
The landlord: [also to God] Don't listen to him; he's crazy.
posted by griphus at 9:18 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
This highlights the value of social capital. The poor tenants with no social capital are already long gone, pushed out by tactics they had no response to. Tenants with social capital - even if it's social capital that they created amongst themselves, by building connections and organizing and self-educating - have at least some chance.
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seconding "There Goes the Neighborhood" - their episode on block busting and predatory lending in the destruction of East New York is required listening.
Tenants with social capital - even if it's social capital that they created amongst themselves, by building connections and organizing and self-educating - have at least some chance.
Speaking from the ground in DC, it appears, at best, that they can attempt some rear guard actions and buy time. Once these processes are underway, those with some privilege and social capital (and often a lot, by average US standards) will almost inevitably be pushed out in favor of those who have access to all of it. It can take decades, but it's coming.
In my neighborhood, for example, we went from solidly white (segregated) middle class at the c. 1900 outset to 80% minority and working class in 1980, and now, in 2016, are approaching almost exclusively white and very affluent, at least in the single family homes. Houses that cost $200-300K twenty years ago are now 8/900K to a million, with no end in sight.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tenants with social capital - even if it's social capital that they created amongst themselves, by building connections and organizing and self-educating - have at least some chance.
Speaking from the ground in DC, it appears, at best, that they can attempt some rear guard actions and buy time. Once these processes are underway, those with some privilege and social capital (and often a lot, by average US standards) will almost inevitably be pushed out in favor of those who have access to all of it. It can take decades, but it's coming.
In my neighborhood, for example, we went from solidly white (segregated) middle class at the c. 1900 outset to 80% minority and working class in 1980, and now, in 2016, are approaching almost exclusively white and very affluent, at least in the single family homes. Houses that cost $200-300K twenty years ago are now 8/900K to a million, with no end in sight.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is one of those articles I'm afraid to read because I'm afraid it will be too disturbing. It appeared in my facebook feed a few days ago. (Thinking unprintable thoughts about real estate vampires).
posted by maggiemaggie at 9:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by maggiemaggie at 9:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, don't worry- they're not real vampires. We just call them that because they are terrible people.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:52 AM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking as someone who used to pay $135 a month for a rent-stabilized apartment on the Upper East Side, I don't see why we should be asked to spare any sympathy for rent-controlled or rent-stabilized tenants. They are an incredibly privileged group, whose presence has as much to do with driving up the cost of housing in NYC as the landlords' perfectly reasonable desire to maximize the return on their property. We should be encouraging the end of housing regulation and rent-control so that builders can build more units -- we should encourage them to overbuild like crazy -- because more units means lower rent. (BTW, I gave up my $135 a month apartment to move in with the then-current love interest. )
posted by Modest House at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
...because more units means lower rent.
[citation needed]
posted by griphus at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [34 favorites]
[citation needed]
posted by griphus at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [34 favorites]
More units, in the DC region, means more luxury units. The developer is sometimes required to build affordable housing or pay a (not equivalent to housing prices) tax. Guess which option they choose?
posted by Slackermagee at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
They are an incredibly privileged group
I would also say [citation needed], except here's a citation (PDF; see table D) that's not consistent with this claim, not even close.
posted by advil at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
I would also say [citation needed], except here's a citation (PDF; see table D) that's not consistent with this claim, not even close.
posted by advil at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
We should be encouraging the end of housing regulation and rent-control so that builders can build more units -- we should encourage them to overbuild like crazy -- because more units means lower rent.
Yea... the huge growth of residential buildings at the north end of the Highline pretty much puts the lie to that idea. More units, these days, usually means more sales of superluxury dwellings to Russian gangsters, Arab royals, et al. who live in them perhaps 10 days a year and otherwise use them to stash wealth.
posted by slkinsey at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yea... the huge growth of residential buildings at the north end of the Highline pretty much puts the lie to that idea. More units, these days, usually means more sales of superluxury dwellings to Russian gangsters, Arab royals, et al. who live in them perhaps 10 days a year and otherwise use them to stash wealth.
posted by slkinsey at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [19 favorites]
We should be encouraging the end of housing regulation and rent-control so that builders can build more units -- we should encourage them to overbuild like crazy -- because more units means lower rent.
Which is why London, without rent control, which also has the advantage of not being significantly built on an island, is so much cheaper than New York.
Oh wait, that's not true at all. It's just as expensive.
posted by howfar at 10:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
Which is why London, without rent control, which also has the advantage of not being significantly built on an island, is so much cheaper than New York.
Oh wait, that's not true at all. It's just as expensive.
posted by howfar at 10:10 AM on June 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
They are an incredibly privileged group
That's funny, I thought they were hanging on to these rent-controlled apartments because otherwise they would be completely priced out of NYC. Also, incredibly privileged as compared to whom? The tenant-harassing slumlords like Steve Croman, who are willing to stoop as low as necessary to drive these people from their homes?
posted by Existential Dread at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
That's funny, I thought they were hanging on to these rent-controlled apartments because otherwise they would be completely priced out of NYC. Also, incredibly privileged as compared to whom? The tenant-harassing slumlords like Steve Croman, who are willing to stoop as low as necessary to drive these people from their homes?
posted by Existential Dread at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Without building new housing, the same people who would be buying those luxury units are competing with middle income people for what's there now.
Urban myth busting: New rental housing and median-income households
Urban myth busting: New rental housing and median-income households
What really matters is not whether new housing is created at a price point that low- and moderate-income households can afford, but rather, whether the overall housing supply increases enough that the existing housing stock can “filter down” to low and moderate income households. As we’ve written, that process depends on wealthier people moving into newer, more desirable homes. Where the construction of those homes is highly constrained, those wealthier households end up bidding up the price of older housing—preventing it from filtering down to lower income households and providing for more affordability.posted by Space Coyote at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
As far as I can tell, every place studied in the article above can have sprawl. NYC cannot. Also the link to the Harvard study cited is broken and Google isn't picking up that quote anywhere but that same site.
posted by griphus at 10:23 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by griphus at 10:23 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yea... the huge growth of residential buildings at the north end of the Highline pretty much puts the lie to that idea. More units, these days, usually means more sales of superluxury dwellings to Russian gangsters, Arab royals, et al. who live in them perhaps 10 days a year and otherwise use them to stash wealth.
This, emphatically - DC has given away or sold public land below market, bent or ignored zoning, and basically all but thrown itself over a barrel to cater to developers and all we get is one luxury condo building after another. Without subsidies and other governmental constraints, there is zero incentive for builders to do anything than gamble for the stratosphere of the market, especially with so much speculative foreign money sloshing around. If you want affordable housing, government, in one way or another, has to flex its muscles.
posted by ryanshepard at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
This, emphatically - DC has given away or sold public land below market, bent or ignored zoning, and basically all but thrown itself over a barrel to cater to developers and all we get is one luxury condo building after another. Without subsidies and other governmental constraints, there is zero incentive for builders to do anything than gamble for the stratosphere of the market, especially with so much speculative foreign money sloshing around. If you want affordable housing, government, in one way or another, has to flex its muscles.
posted by ryanshepard at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
What really matters is not whether new housing is created at a price point that low- and moderate-income households can afford, but rather, whether the overall housing supply increases enough that the existing housing stock can “filter down” to low and moderate income households
But the idea that deregulation of the housing market will necessarily address problems with housing supply is, in itself, a myth. Luxury units do contribute to overall housing supply, but they're expensive to build and are a less efficient use of productivity than building more, lower quality, units.
One way to address this is to deregulate building and building quality, and encourage the construction, by private builders, of the tiniest livable spaces possible. I personally think that's an idiotic approach, and might not even work. I am not always a statist, but on this I am: the most practical solution is the construction, using government funds, of significant amounts of genuinely affordable rental housing, with ownership of that housing remaining with public or publicly accountable bodies. Housing is infrastructure, and major Western cities need significant and directed infrastructure investment. Government is the best source.
posted by howfar at 10:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
But the idea that deregulation of the housing market will necessarily address problems with housing supply is, in itself, a myth. Luxury units do contribute to overall housing supply, but they're expensive to build and are a less efficient use of productivity than building more, lower quality, units.
One way to address this is to deregulate building and building quality, and encourage the construction, by private builders, of the tiniest livable spaces possible. I personally think that's an idiotic approach, and might not even work. I am not always a statist, but on this I am: the most practical solution is the construction, using government funds, of significant amounts of genuinely affordable rental housing, with ownership of that housing remaining with public or publicly accountable bodies. Housing is infrastructure, and major Western cities need significant and directed infrastructure investment. Government is the best source.
posted by howfar at 10:27 AM on June 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
We should be encouraging the end of housing regulation and rent-control so that builders can build more units -- we should encourage them to overbuild like crazy -- because more units means lower rent.
That sounds neat, but real-world examples refute it. For instance, here in Seattle, rents have been rising like crazy for a few years (11% last month!!) and we have no rent control. And tons of units have been coming online as well. The whole skyline is full of cranes from all the building. It's not pushing rents down, it's doing the opposite.
posted by lunasol at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
That sounds neat, but real-world examples refute it. For instance, here in Seattle, rents have been rising like crazy for a few years (11% last month!!) and we have no rent control. And tons of units have been coming online as well. The whole skyline is full of cranes from all the building. It's not pushing rents down, it's doing the opposite.
posted by lunasol at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
i'm hoping we can bring "landlord" back into the current swearing vernacular, ideally alongside "boston radical" and "pennsylvania proprietor"
posted by poffin boffin at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
That sounds neat, but real-world examples refute it. For instance, here in Seattle, rents have been rising like crazy for a few years (11% last month!!) and we have no rent control. And tons of units have been coming online as well. The whole skyline is full of cranes from all the building. It's not pushing rents down, it's doing the opposite.
How do you imagine rents would be if new supply was constrained in Seattle like in San Francisco?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
How do you imagine rents would be if new supply was constrained in Seattle like in San Francisco?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:33 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hard to know the answer to that question - probably worse! But Seattle's rents are regularly the fastest-growing in the nation in a given month, so I don't think you can say that getting rid of rent control is the solution to high rents.
posted by lunasol at 10:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by lunasol at 10:37 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
We should be encouraging the end of housing regulation
CALAMITOUS FIRE.; Tenement House on Elm-street Destroyed. Thirty Persons supposed to have Perished in the Flames.
The subsequent public outcry forced the legislature to pass a law requiring fire escapes on all newly constructed tenement houses
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
CALAMITOUS FIRE.; Tenement House on Elm-street Destroyed. Thirty Persons supposed to have Perished in the Flames.
The subsequent public outcry forced the legislature to pass a law requiring fire escapes on all newly constructed tenement houses
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:38 AM on June 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
That sounds neat, but real-world examples refute it. For instance, here in Seattle, rents have been rising like crazy for a few years (11% last month!!) and we have no rent control. And tons of units have been coming online as well. The whole skyline is full of cranes from all the building. It's not pushing rents down, it's doing the opposite.
I would also like to complain that in terms of aesthetics, most of these new buildings are hideous. Bright color panels, shipping container chic corrugated metal, off-kilter angles in profile, etc. But we need the damn housing stock.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would also like to complain that in terms of aesthetics, most of these new buildings are hideous. Bright color panels, shipping container chic corrugated metal, off-kilter angles in profile, etc. But we need the damn housing stock.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
In English law this would be the crimes of both perjury and fraud.
I was evicted from two flats in England because the owners wanted to sell and then they didn't. There is nothing you can do about it if they give you proper notice and you are on a month-to-month lease. If you want housing rights in England you pretty much have to own.
posted by srboisvert at 10:42 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was evicted from two flats in England because the owners wanted to sell and then they didn't. There is nothing you can do about it if they give you proper notice and you are on a month-to-month lease. If you want housing rights in England you pretty much have to own.
posted by srboisvert at 10:42 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
In California, they've got it easy with the exploitation of the Ellis Act for rent-stabilized zones. I do not live in such a zone and so it's easier for them to price me out of my building with rent increases of 10% a year for the last two years (that is the average increase in Los Angeles, making the housing market here extremely savage for renters and makes it a seller's market, so I'm doubly hit as the hike has forced me to house hunt -- the only "good" thing is interest rates are still low).
posted by linux at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by linux at 10:46 AM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was evicted from two flats in England because the owners wanted to sell and then they didn't. There is nothing you can do about it if they give you proper notice and you are on a month-to-month lease. If you want housing rights in England you pretty much have to own.
Yes, I work in landlord and tenant law. I was referring to her astonishing advice that it is relatively low risk to deceive a court for profit, not English housing rights which (should your private tenancy have started after 1989), are essentially nonexistent for private tenants. My point wasn't "England is awesome LOL", it was "this lawyer is terrible". I am surprised that would not be obvious.
posted by howfar at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes, I work in landlord and tenant law. I was referring to her astonishing advice that it is relatively low risk to deceive a court for profit, not English housing rights which (should your private tenancy have started after 1989), are essentially nonexistent for private tenants. My point wasn't "England is awesome LOL", it was "this lawyer is terrible". I am surprised that would not be obvious.
posted by howfar at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was referring to her astonishing advice that it is relatively low risk to deceive a court for profit...
I'm no law-talkin'-guy but I would think it is a lot easier to prove that it turns out you can't afford the (heinously expensive) demolition than for the court to prove you were involved in eviction-by-pretenses-of-demolition.
posted by griphus at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm no law-talkin'-guy but I would think it is a lot easier to prove that it turns out you can't afford the (heinously expensive) demolition than for the court to prove you were involved in eviction-by-pretenses-of-demolition.
posted by griphus at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
DC has given away or sold public land below market, bent or ignored zoning, and basically all but thrown itself over a barrel to cater to developers and all we get is one luxury condo building after another.
And it has had an impact on housing costs.
posted by ghharr at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And it has had an impact on housing costs.
posted by ghharr at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm no law-talkin'-guy but I would think it is a lot easier to prove that it turns out you can't afford the (heinously expensive) demolition than for the court to prove you were involved in eviction-by-pretenses-of-demolition.
Well yes, that's possibly the case. But it's profoundly idiotic to give this advice in a public forum. In privileged correspondence it would simply be a heinous breach of professional ethics, but in public it's a breach of fucking sanity.
posted by howfar at 10:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well yes, that's possibly the case. But it's profoundly idiotic to give this advice in a public forum. In privileged correspondence it would simply be a heinous breach of professional ethics, but in public it's a breach of fucking sanity.
posted by howfar at 10:55 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was evicted from two flats in England because the owners wanted to sell and then they didn't.
Also, given your description of what happened, from a legal point of view, I doubt you were evicted because of any statement that the landlord wanted to sell. The possession procedure for private tenants outside of a fixed lease is no reason and no fault. The landlord may have told you they wanted to sell, but when they served you with your s21 notice and issued proceedings, they were under no obligation to tell the court anything about their reasons, and quite probably didn't.
posted by howfar at 10:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, given your description of what happened, from a legal point of view, I doubt you were evicted because of any statement that the landlord wanted to sell. The possession procedure for private tenants outside of a fixed lease is no reason and no fault. The landlord may have told you they wanted to sell, but when they served you with your s21 notice and issued proceedings, they were under no obligation to tell the court anything about their reasons, and quite probably didn't.
posted by howfar at 10:59 AM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
...but in public it's a breach of fucking sanity.
Fitting perfectly in line with literally everything about real estate in NYC.
posted by griphus at 11:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fitting perfectly in line with literally everything about real estate in NYC.
posted by griphus at 11:08 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Itkowitz just told me on Twitter that she made her tenant clients up. Which is the sort of thing you'd normally flag up...
posted by howfar at 11:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by howfar at 11:13 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Filtering sounds so much nicer than Trickling don't you think
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:19 AM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Stop being nice to her Howfar her response is disgusting and completely avoids the central moral sinkhole of her statements at that conference.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:25 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which is why London, without rent control, which also has the advantage of not being significantly built on an island, is so much cheaper than New York.
London is surrounded by a green belt on which construction is not allowed, so it might as well be an island.
posted by atrazine at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
London is surrounded by a green belt on which construction is not allowed, so it might as well be an island.
posted by atrazine at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
her response is disgusting and completely avoids the central moral sinkhole of her statements at that conference.
Of course it does, but I don't want to fight with her. I've made the points I wanted to make, and, in the end, people can make up their own minds about her actions. She has to live with her own conscience. She's acted like a complete dick, in my view, but she's still a person with a life and family.
posted by howfar at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course it does, but I don't want to fight with her. I've made the points I wanted to make, and, in the end, people can make up their own minds about her actions. She has to live with her own conscience. She's acted like a complete dick, in my view, but she's still a person with a life and family.
posted by howfar at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Haven't you received the memo that all who offend us must be destroyed?
posted by tobascodagama at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's tons of construction going on in Brooklyn - it's insane, I don't see how anyone who lives in Brooklyn can say there's not. There's a whole bunch of high-rises going up around downtown Brooklyn. In my neighborhood right now, every single unoccupied or under-occupied space has construction going up.
But rents are just going higher and higher.
posted by maggiemaggie at 11:49 AM on June 3, 2016
But rents are just going higher and higher.
posted by maggiemaggie at 11:49 AM on June 3, 2016
You might say they were almost too damn high.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:50 AM on June 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
This, emphatically - DC has given away or sold public land below market, bent or ignored zoning, and basically all but thrown itself over a barrel to cater to developers and all we get is one luxury condo building after another. Without subsidies and other governmental constraints, there is zero incentive for builders to do anything than gamble for the stratosphere of the market
Local DC corruption aside, DC deserves an enormous amount of credit for building a ton of new housing. It's a lot more than most other cities have done. Our prices continue to spiral out of control, but it would be so much worse if we stopped encouraging new development.
Sale of public land below-market is hard to justify, but also gets land on the tax rolls, and attracts new residents/taxpayers. Largely speaking, this ends up being a good long-term deal for the city even if the land is given away for free.
Developers rarely "ignore" zoning, but yes, DC does give out a lot of exemptions. I'm pretty OK with this, because the exemptions almost always grant additional density, which we sorely need. Restrictive zoning rules are HUGELY responsible for the high cost of housing in the US.
Most of DC's new development has been rentals -- for some reason, few new buildings are opening as condos. These buildings often get categorized as "luxury apartments" because they have staggeringly-high rents. However, they have few other amenities (the cost of a gym, fancy lobby, and granite countertops basically amounts to a rounding error in the overall cost of putting up a big building). New units are "luxury" units, because new construction is expensive, and because there are evidently lots of people who are willing to pay those rents.
Short of enacting fairly draconian rent-control laws on new construction (which would be unprecedented in the US), I don't really know how you could convince developers to build "non-luxury" housing in DC. The current prices are very much reflective of the market, and the fact that the overall cost of housing has skyrocketed across the US.
tl;dr; We don't have enough supply. New development has its costs, but isn't responsible for the cost of housing spiraling out of control. Quite the opposite, it's one of the few mitigating factors that we have.
If you can figure out how to inexpensively build vibrant and sustainable communities, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. It's a hard problem, and nobody's solved it. There's no magic bullet that we've found yet.
posted by schmod at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Local DC corruption aside, DC deserves an enormous amount of credit for building a ton of new housing. It's a lot more than most other cities have done. Our prices continue to spiral out of control, but it would be so much worse if we stopped encouraging new development.
Sale of public land below-market is hard to justify, but also gets land on the tax rolls, and attracts new residents/taxpayers. Largely speaking, this ends up being a good long-term deal for the city even if the land is given away for free.
Developers rarely "ignore" zoning, but yes, DC does give out a lot of exemptions. I'm pretty OK with this, because the exemptions almost always grant additional density, which we sorely need. Restrictive zoning rules are HUGELY responsible for the high cost of housing in the US.
Most of DC's new development has been rentals -- for some reason, few new buildings are opening as condos. These buildings often get categorized as "luxury apartments" because they have staggeringly-high rents. However, they have few other amenities (the cost of a gym, fancy lobby, and granite countertops basically amounts to a rounding error in the overall cost of putting up a big building). New units are "luxury" units, because new construction is expensive, and because there are evidently lots of people who are willing to pay those rents.
Short of enacting fairly draconian rent-control laws on new construction (which would be unprecedented in the US), I don't really know how you could convince developers to build "non-luxury" housing in DC. The current prices are very much reflective of the market, and the fact that the overall cost of housing has skyrocketed across the US.
tl;dr; We don't have enough supply. New development has its costs, but isn't responsible for the cost of housing spiraling out of control. Quite the opposite, it's one of the few mitigating factors that we have.
If you can figure out how to inexpensively build vibrant and sustainable communities, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. It's a hard problem, and nobody's solved it. There's no magic bullet that we've found yet.
posted by schmod at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, if you want an example of what happens to rents in a hot market where when new housing isn't being built, go look at San Francisco.
posted by schmod at 12:04 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by schmod at 12:04 PM on June 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
And it has had an impact on housing costs.
"Slowing down price increases" ≠ affordable housing.
The average monthly rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in DC is currently ~$2800. That's up ~$800 from just last year.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Slowing down price increases" ≠ affordable housing.
The average monthly rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in DC is currently ~$2800. That's up ~$800 from just last year.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:14 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
From your first link:
UPDATE: It's worth mentioning that in Zillow's latest National Rent Report, the reported median for a one-bedroom apartment in Washington, D.C. is currently $2,200 per month.
The methodology of the $2800 figure is somewhat suspect, since it says the rent was $2400 just the month before. It's either a ridiculously small sample size, or a aberration in the rent cycle. Rent doesn't skyrocket *that* quickly when averaged across an entire city.
posted by explosion at 1:13 PM on June 3, 2016
UPDATE: It's worth mentioning that in Zillow's latest National Rent Report, the reported median for a one-bedroom apartment in Washington, D.C. is currently $2,200 per month.
The methodology of the $2800 figure is somewhat suspect, since it says the rent was $2400 just the month before. It's either a ridiculously small sample size, or a aberration in the rent cycle. Rent doesn't skyrocket *that* quickly when averaged across an entire city.
posted by explosion at 1:13 PM on June 3, 2016
here in Seattle ... tons of units have been coming online as well.
And the tiniest of those units ... under 200 square feet ... are still renting for around $800-1000. That's a pretty damn expensive shoebox, kids.
posted by Twang at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the tiniest of those units ... under 200 square feet ... are still renting for around $800-1000. That's a pretty damn expensive shoebox, kids.
posted by Twang at 1:59 PM on June 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eat the rich.
Just thinking about the shit the rich pull every day makes me want to gag.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just thinking about the shit the rich pull every day makes me want to gag.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:26 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
...because more units means lower rent.
lmao
great joke
You can't even see the view very well from any hill in seattle because there's so many cranes and new apartment buildings. Rent increases are setting national records. There's basically none of the regulatory jamups that say, SF had in this situation.(in fact, the city is just letting the developers get variances, -even to add multiple additional floors-, as much as they like).
Every new building built very nearly is a "luxury" building where a one bedroom costs double what my place does. Any place with "low income" or "affordable" units has say, one floor. Whatever the bare minimum they can fight for is.
I don't know what the solution is, but "more units" is not it. At least not by itself. The free market doesn't solve shit.
And i still hear people argue for "well, you need more supply!". The supply is pretty much maxed out. Look at this and tell me there's not enough development going on. And the same seems to be true pretty much anywhere else that's "hot". Seriously, we're averaging one new LARGE building per block in a lot of dense neighborhoods it looks like, just about.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
lmao
great joke
You can't even see the view very well from any hill in seattle because there's so many cranes and new apartment buildings. Rent increases are setting national records. There's basically none of the regulatory jamups that say, SF had in this situation.(in fact, the city is just letting the developers get variances, -even to add multiple additional floors-, as much as they like).
Every new building built very nearly is a "luxury" building where a one bedroom costs double what my place does. Any place with "low income" or "affordable" units has say, one floor. Whatever the bare minimum they can fight for is.
I don't know what the solution is, but "more units" is not it. At least not by itself. The free market doesn't solve shit.
And i still hear people argue for "well, you need more supply!". The supply is pretty much maxed out. Look at this and tell me there's not enough development going on. And the same seems to be true pretty much anywhere else that's "hot". Seriously, we're averaging one new LARGE building per block in a lot of dense neighborhoods it looks like, just about.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 PM on June 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had a big comment typed and then accidentally reloaded the page, but:
(Also, doesn't London have the green belt preventing sprawl? It's not a natural boundary like NYC but legally it seems to accomplish something similar.)
posted by en forme de poire at 4:41 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
- new construction and high rents are correlated, but construction probably doesn't actually cause high rent: instead, high demand from wealthy-ish people probably just causes both of those things
- OTOH, building more doesn't help the people who are getting squeezed now; it could take decades for things to equalize enough that it actually helps people who are hurting
- I would love more government-funded affordable housing, but:
- city governments don't have the cash, because you can only build housing so cheaply in an expensive city
- bc of weird electoral politics US state governments are usually somewhere between neglectful and actively hostile to their biggest cities
- similarly, no chance of getting help from the feds for anything that seems to benefit urban residents more than suburban/rural
- city governments could levy big taxes, like a progressive municipal income tax, but it would have to be double-digits and while I'm kinda all for that, there's no political will and you'd get a lot of flight to the nearest municipality without such a tax if your neighbors weren't willing to play ball
(Also, doesn't London have the green belt preventing sprawl? It's not a natural boundary like NYC but legally it seems to accomplish something similar.)
posted by en forme de poire at 4:41 PM on June 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
You can't even see the view very well from any hill in seattle because there's so many cranes and new apartment buildings. Rent increases are setting national records.
Just imagine how high rents would be without new construction!
posted by pwnguin at 4:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just imagine how high rents would be without new construction!
posted by pwnguin at 4:44 PM on June 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Speaking as someone who used to pay $135 a month for a rent-stabilized apartment on the Upper East Side, I don't see why we should be asked to spare any sympathy for rent-controlled or rent-stabilized tenants.
Rent control for very long-term occupancy can become seriously problematic, especially one considers the fact that rent-controlled apartments are sometimes passed from one occupants or even one generation to another. Of course I agree that landlords should not be allowed to price gouge a sitting tenant. But it's equally unfair to force them to abide indefinitely by a business contract that becomes increasingly less advantageous to them by the year until it gets to the the point that it's financially disastrous for them, as $135 for an apartment on the Upper East Side would be. That wouldn't even pay for the utilities the tenant is using, much less maintenance, property taxes, property insurance, or mortgage payments, let alone any kind of profit for the landlord. I don't know what the answer is, but whatever answer we come up with needs to be fair to both parties.
posted by orange swan at 4:57 PM on June 3, 2016
Rent control for very long-term occupancy can become seriously problematic, especially one considers the fact that rent-controlled apartments are sometimes passed from one occupants or even one generation to another. Of course I agree that landlords should not be allowed to price gouge a sitting tenant. But it's equally unfair to force them to abide indefinitely by a business contract that becomes increasingly less advantageous to them by the year until it gets to the the point that it's financially disastrous for them, as $135 for an apartment on the Upper East Side would be. That wouldn't even pay for the utilities the tenant is using, much less maintenance, property taxes, property insurance, or mortgage payments, let alone any kind of profit for the landlord. I don't know what the answer is, but whatever answer we come up with needs to be fair to both parties.
posted by orange swan at 4:57 PM on June 3, 2016
This topic always reminds me of those scenes where someone is tied up because they're going to turn evil at midnight or whatever, and then sure enough at midnight something sort of changes in their eyes and they're trying to tell you why you really, really need to untie them.
"Just let me build all the units I want! Just get rid of rent control! Then everything will be okay I promise I promise just doooo it come on please... YOu fucKRr do iT nOw!! Ahem I mean.. let's be reasonable, c'mon..."
posted by nom de poop at 5:20 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Just let me build all the units I want! Just get rid of rent control! Then everything will be okay I promise I promise just doooo it come on please... YOu fucKRr do iT nOw!! Ahem I mean.. let's be reasonable, c'mon..."
posted by nom de poop at 5:20 PM on June 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I would not be at all surprised to learn that all that hedge fund money that blew up the housing market has sloshed its way over into creating a rental bubble. Milk as much as possible from people before this too blows up because nobody can sustain the kinds of annual hikes and high percent of take-home income we're seeing in most areas. Around NYC, even the Hudson Valley and Eastern Catskills rental prices are high given that you almost certainly need a car in addition to an apartment/house and jobs are both fewer and not paying city wages.
posted by kokaku at 5:31 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 5:31 AM on June 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, more supply doesn't do shit to reduce rents. Theoretically it should, but in practice it doesn't even slow the growth of rents. You can add Miami to the list of places with insane rents. You can get something affordable if you are willing to deal with a 1.5+ hour commute, but then you are looking at car+gas+tolls and either way you're eating up 50%+ of your income just getting to and from work and having a place to live.
I think part of it is that landlords see that the sale value of the property has gone up 9% or whatever in the last year and think they need to raise rents commensurately, even though their expenses haven't increased much if at all.
It's almost enough to make me move back to Tulsa. Almost. I really hate being forced to own a car. I hate it more than I hate ridiculous rent.
posted by wierdo at 11:58 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think part of it is that landlords see that the sale value of the property has gone up 9% or whatever in the last year and think they need to raise rents commensurately, even though their expenses haven't increased much if at all.
It's almost enough to make me move back to Tulsa. Almost. I really hate being forced to own a car. I hate it more than I hate ridiculous rent.
posted by wierdo at 11:58 AM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think part of it is that landlords see that the sale value of the property has gone up 9% or whatever in the last year and think they need to raise rents commensurately, even though their expenses haven't increased much if at all.
This is slightly backwards logic. The strongest predictor of property values should be rents -- landlords pay a lot of money buying a property and expect to get paid back over time through rents. We can't count on them to only raise rents when they 'need to.' They are still real estate vampires, after all. They will raise rates as high as possible.
Rents themselves are tied to supply and demand. Miami has grown by 10 percent from 2000 to 2010, and the metro area is positing similar numbers, with both posting similar estimated growth rates in half the time: 2010-2015. Basically 100k people are going to move to Miami in 2016.
On the supply side, vacancies in the area is 4.4 percent, lowest in the state, and down from 7 percent in 2014. US census data reports 6k units authorized.
I'm sure there's a more complicated story involving the fallout of 2007, boomer retirement patterns, and the interaction of increasing rent prices on migration, but the simplest model suggests you'd need to cram 16 people into every last one of those units to accommodate the migration.
posted by pwnguin at 1:14 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is slightly backwards logic. The strongest predictor of property values should be rents -- landlords pay a lot of money buying a property and expect to get paid back over time through rents. We can't count on them to only raise rents when they 'need to.' They are still real estate vampires, after all. They will raise rates as high as possible.
Rents themselves are tied to supply and demand. Miami has grown by 10 percent from 2000 to 2010, and the metro area is positing similar numbers, with both posting similar estimated growth rates in half the time: 2010-2015. Basically 100k people are going to move to Miami in 2016.
On the supply side, vacancies in the area is 4.4 percent, lowest in the state, and down from 7 percent in 2014. US census data reports 6k units authorized.
I'm sure there's a more complicated story involving the fallout of 2007, boomer retirement patterns, and the interaction of increasing rent prices on migration, but the simplest model suggests you'd need to cram 16 people into every last one of those units to accommodate the migration.
posted by pwnguin at 1:14 PM on June 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are far more rentals than that coming online in Miami. There were 6,000 new housing units completed last year in Brickell alone. There are at least 15 300+ unit buildings nearing completion now. Buildings are popping up like weeds, yet rents only increase.
That is why I say supply isn't really a solution.
posted by wierdo at 10:28 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is why I say supply isn't really a solution.
posted by wierdo at 10:28 AM on June 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's still totally possible for a city to be building a ton in absolute terms and yet not building enough to saturate demand, resulting in higher rents. If pwnguin's and weirdo's numbers are both right and the population of Miami is going to grow by ~100,000 in 2016 but "only" 15,000 units are going to come online, in absolute terms that's a lot of construction, but it's still way not enough to keep rents from rising. That doesn't mean supply isn't helping, though, or that it would be better to build less -- probably if there were less construction going on, rents would actually be rising even faster. But I do agree that building can't be the sole solution for the affordability crisis. There has to be redistribution of some kind or else lower-income people get hosed for as long as the imbalance persists.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2016
I forgot to clarify that 6k units authorized was year to date for the latest month. And then forgot that myself when doing the final calculation. 2015's approval total was 23k. Obviously there's a pipeline of housing permits, housing starts, and new units available, but if every new permit approved in 2015 was completed in 2016, you still have to fit about four new people into every house and apartment unit built. This reduces my original estimate from infeasible to uncomfortable, but this analysis doesn't account for the units taken off the market during construction. Nor does census data I've quoted tell you how many people are being priced out of the metro area.
Of course, as a high income, mobile renter, I approve a high construction, lower-rents strategy because it's the only one I expect would benefit me. Nearly the rest of society is lined up against the strategy, rightly including the occupants of homes most likely to be removed in the process. I recognize the players and their motives, but "we tried building, lets try not building" is like your ten year old halfassing a chore and saying "there, I tried."
Not that I'm not against rent control in principle. But the junkie we need to tie up probably isn't developers, but middle class America and it's addiction to the mortgage. Take away the mortgage tax credit, and voters will have a lot less interest in the value of their single biggest asset and store of wealth.
posted by pwnguin at 11:52 PM on June 7, 2016
Of course, as a high income, mobile renter, I approve a high construction, lower-rents strategy because it's the only one I expect would benefit me. Nearly the rest of society is lined up against the strategy, rightly including the occupants of homes most likely to be removed in the process. I recognize the players and their motives, but "we tried building, lets try not building" is like your ten year old halfassing a chore and saying "there, I tried."
Not that I'm not against rent control in principle. But the junkie we need to tie up probably isn't developers, but middle class America and it's addiction to the mortgage. Take away the mortgage tax credit, and voters will have a lot less interest in the value of their single biggest asset and store of wealth.
posted by pwnguin at 11:52 PM on June 7, 2016
« Older Carter/Khomeini | FUN SPACE WARFARE Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by howfar at 9:00 AM on June 3, 2016 [4 favorites]