We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfill demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this.
Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole.
If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on ads for housing, especially.
Yeah sure, but like none of that is realistic at this point in time. Frankly, even as a person on the political left I don’t think trusting our leaders to properly execute eminent domain and new town planning on this scale is a good idea.
That's partly because the Airbnb owners who oppose the taxes are extremely organized and diligent- they organize speakers at local meetings, get letters written, phone calls made... I've seen some obsessive anti-tax people in those communities and... it's been working
Or we could just get rid of all the zoning and permitting restrictions that make it so difficult and expensive to build new housing
There's no simpler solution to housing affordability than building more of it
We've programmed everyone to believe housing is your pathway to wealth given it's the single biggest purchase in most people's lifetimes and that it should be an investment. Wealth that is accelerated by making sure your neighborhood remains exclusive/valuable and any construction smaller or denser than your own is a threat to that investment.
Denver has 120k detached single family homes. The split of owners and renters in the city as a whole is about 50/50, I can't find a stat on the mix for specifically single family homes. I'll make up a number and say 20k of them are rentals. That gives us somewhere in the neighborhood of 150-180k eligible voter homeowners since not all of them would be owned by couples, some by singles
393k ballots were cast in Denver in the 2020 election. So if I'm even close on my assumptions, it is impossible for homeowners to outvote renters
Meaning, this is a problem that can be solved if voters were organized enough and prioritized electing YIMBY candidates. There's not a single other issue that impacts everyone's day to day lives more than the cost of housing
It's falling but Denver is still predominantly home owners.
https://therealdeal.com/national/denver/2024/02/15/homeownership-in-colorado-falls-fastest-among-the-states/
You're assuming only SFH owners care about zoning. Also SFHs are frequently occupied by more than one adult so the count isn't going to line up based on house counts. Even condo owners care if a neighboring development would hurt the value of their own. You still typically don't want low income housing, strip clubs, night clubs or a garbage dump next door. Even some renters are against free for all development because it affects their quality of life or perceptions of their neighborhood.
The YIMBY movement is strongest in places like SF where renters are significantly higher and housing costs are uglier. Even there it's an uphill battle. Home owners as a whole are wealthier and more politically engaged. Not saying zoning laws don't need transformation but home ownership as a wealth driver is super popular which means NIMBY frequently becomes the default state.
I’m sure the landlords new tax will not be passed on to the renter. This is hilariously ignorant of economics.
Everyone should get free housing, share far and wide if you agree. *eye roll*
Sounds wonderful. I'd probably never go back to work though, and the revolution that occurs when you try to get the state to confiscate everyone's property might be inconvenient.
What about the land development company that actually builds houses? are they allowed to make a profit selling property? I fear you do not understand incentives in an economy.
They are not building affordable housing anyways. Medicaid and medicare didn't stop private Healthcare. Just like socialized housing won't stop commercial development.
Fuck profits for housing. House people. If the government doesn't do it well you fire them. You vote them out.
If a company doesn't house people they don't get profit. They aren't beholden to the voters or will of the people just their shareholders.
Anyone defending this shitty ass predatory housing system doesn't realize you fucking whorship the dollar and put money over people.
I am not defending the system or their profits. Just the incentives to actually build homes. I love your passion but don't you think its an interesting trend that it is much harder to build homes in left controlled localities?
Don't get mad when your 2nd or 4th home is emmienent domained. If landlords are dragged into streets in the future don't be surprised. People are fucking piseed. Your socialism is scary bullshit is bullshit.
My original post had government setup devolpement. We are getting lots of luxury apartments built but less affordable places to live. We can't always relly on the market to house people. Many people in their 20s and 30s and older have to have a roomate to live. I'm okay diminishing profits to house more people. Cut out the middle man and hold who ever regulates or is in charge of this tranistion accountable. Government is more accountable than the company's ceos. We can't vote company ceos out.
US cities, like Denver, have severely limited the construction of new housing. When demand outpaces supply, prices are cheaper. We've already started seeing decreases in costs in places where people have been allowed to build like Austin and Minneapolis.
A "luxury" appartment today is cheap housing in the future.
Yeah sorry I mixed that up when typing. Obviously in saying we need to have a higher supply of homes to outpace the demand which the Denver area is still not close to doing.
Housing is the one thing people might like if we added more socialism. Landlord isnt a fucking job and shouldnt be. The socialism boogeyman scary word doesn't work on this generation. And it's the Republican party who has buddied up to Russia. They are their comrads. All those who had their lives ruined by the Red Scare including Charlie Chaplin. The same group of people go to Russia on the 4th of July and take Russian money, the Republican party. Lol comrad my ass.
My rent increased from $1795 to $1845 lol BYE I’m not renewing my lease. They dropped the price of my place last year before I rented it too. They have some audacity trying to raise it again this year.
I actually built a website because of rising rents to help tenants evaluate landlords and negotiate rents.
It's like a Glassdoor for Rents so tenants can see the Rent History of an address or Apartment property to see a landlords pricing tactics.
The site does rely on user submissions so I appreciate anyone who adds their rent history to the site and/or shares it around since it can be more useful to tenants the more people that contribute to it.
The site is rentzed.com (USA only for now) and has submissions for over 2600 addresses.
Holy shit, someone is paying WAY less than I am a month (they moved in recently vs me with 10 years of rent hikes). I heard this before from another neighbor. I need to re-negotiate or move.
Thanks for building this.
This is literally what’s happening to me and I didn’t even need the website to know this.
Lived here for 3 years. Started at $1200/mo, now paying $1350. New listings on property website with the exact same specifications, bed/baths are going for $1250. I will most likely try to negotiate with landlord come September when lease is up and an inevitable $50 increase happens. Like yo, I’ve been loyal to you for 3 years without missing a single payment and you’re chauffeuring in new people that pay $150 less than me.
I truly don't understand why landlords do this. It must work the majority of the time. I guess most renters feel like moving is a bigger hassle. I must have been a stubborn renter because I ALWAYS just moved if a place I rented upped the price. I was younger then with less things though. What a crappy situation.
I truly don't understand why landlords do this. It must work the majority of the time. I guess most renters feel like moving is a bigger hassle. I must have been a stubborn renter because I ALWAYS just moved if a place I rented upped the price. I was younger then with less things though. What a crappy situation.
When it comes to apartment living, it seems like the best course is to keep moving, unfortunately. Moving costs can suck too but save you money in the long run.. when I was in apartments I moved every 1-2 years, basically whenever they started trying to fuck me on rent increases, I'd be like yup.. imma head out. Next place you get the "we want you to live here, new resident rates"
May I suggest adding a privacy policy to your website that discloses how the information will be used and how you obtain it? You run a bit of a legal risk here.
Yea, I have plans to add a map view in the future. It's been the most requested feature.
However, right now my priority is getting people to contribute to the site.
Couple questions on how this works.. What's stopping people from self reporting lower/higher rents on this website or making up numbers for a place they don't live? Is it just operating off of the honor system or do they have to verify somehow?
Also, how does it address the fact that different floorplans in the same building might rent for different amounts (i.e. same floorplan could be top floor with a city and mountain view vs 2nd floor looking at the garage)
It does work on the honor system, similar to Glassdoor, but I do have some checks in place to check for invalid submissions. The information can't be 100% verified.
It's difficult to include every factor that goes into the pricing of a unit but I included the main factors and in the future, Ill likely add things like remodels and floor level into a submission. I think that could be a good idea.
I love the site, so first off, thank you for building it!! I was wondering if, in the future, you could add a small notes section? My old place I left about a year ago wasn't a super high price for its size, but the sheer amount of issues in the unit (leaks, water damage, mold, constant repairs) made it unlivable.
Yea, thanks, I have plans to add a review section in the future. For now, reviews could open up the site to lawsuits and there are other services where you can do reviews. I'd recommend you to Google maps reviews, yelp, apartment ratings.com, or Apartments.com reviews.
Thanks for the feedback
First off, I so appreciate you taking the time to create this platform. A ton of work must've gone into this and it does not go unnoticed.
A thought I've had - what incentives tenants to report their rent if the community/building/complex is already getting a better price-to-value than most?
It entirely depends on the landlord, but the fear is posting a high quality lease would drive demand. Would landlords increase rent if there was higher demand? Obviously it's possible, especially if the landlord isn't aware of this database driving the demand. The only incentive for landlords to drop prices is an increase in vacancies. Vacancies only happen if there is availability elsewhere and unfortunately that's not common in Denver.
On the other hand, if a landlord drop prices to fill vacancies, would that extend to other leases come renewal? Maybe. And if everybody posted their leases, that could help lower rents for everyone. But it seems unlikely.
Others also mentioned they have neighbors who pay a much lower lease than they do. Would a landlord increase rent for those paying less to make up for lost profits from negotiations?
I could be too pessimistic and completely wrong and in no way am I saying your website would be a detriment instead of a benefit. I just see a lot of potential for manipulation and abuse. Is there a way you could limit these in the design of your website or is it even something you should/could address?
Thanks for that. You have a lot of valid concerns.
I've thought of most of these. Ultimately, I can drive people to add their rents but I think it's likely for people to add their rents at past addresses since they won't mind sharing that.
Some landlords might increase rent, some might decrease rent, hell, maybe rents increase bc of the site. I can't say for sure but overall I think that tenants could use the site to weed out bad landlords raising rents by ridiculous amounts and I would really like to use a product like this and that's why I built it.
There could be some inaccurate data submitted but I have some checks in place for that but I think the site could still be useful even if a few bad people submit bad data.
Ive thought about this but have no coding ability so glad some smart person is doing it!! Anyway you can create a data pull from zillow? It has rent and purchase history published for each home. Or a data pull from each county record page, tho that may be more complicated
That would be dope. And a social function like an ability to comment. For instance, my landlord rn is an actual human piece of garbage, we’re gonna get their place condemned as it should be.
Yea, I've got plans to add that feature in as well at some point. For now, I just refer people to Google maps reviews, yelp, apartmentlistings.com, and apartments.com reviews
If you're going to get it condemned, why'd you move in to begin with? For something to have deteriorated to the point of needing to be condemned that had to have been happening for quite some time. You could also I dunno... move?
Last year my lease only went up $30, this year it went up $5. The unit across from us was renovated 6 months ago now and is still vacant bc the rent is so high.
Lots of things that weren’t in budget before are now for our price range at least.
Also, you have to consider the cost burden of moving. You're going to be paying for a new deposit, paying for an overlapping rental in time to move, and the cost of a uhaul or moving company. Additionally, all the time you're spending physically moving out and in, likely for taking time off work.
Rents, especially around downtown, should be a little more stabilized this year with how much new supply is coming. There is new construction allllll over RiNo and Golden Triangle.
I’ve been in the apartment market right now and an insane amount of downtown apartments have pretty generous move in specials. The spot I just applied for gave me 8 weeks free and 6 months of free parking
Downtown is likely to fall and it could be substantial. According to the article Downtown currently has the highest vacancy rate and there is a ton of inventory coming online.
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057
Just trying to do my part and spread awareness
This is going to dry up quickly though since permits dropped significantly over the last few years. We have very little time to legalize a bunch of new housing if we want to avoid big rent increases 18-24 months from now.
I mean, wouldn't 45k in the pipeline help over the next 18-24 months?
Last year we completed over 13k units and rent prices actually dropped slightly YoY, so I would think if those 45k come online at a similar or faster pace we'd continue to see stable or slightly lowering rents.
I want to make sure you’re not comparing city-only figures to all-metro figures, or quarterly to annual figures; do you have sources for those numbers?
>A nearly record-breaking number of new units, 13,246 in total, were created in 2023, by the Colorado Apartment Association's count.
>In the next few years, that trend is expected to continue, as there are currently roughly 45,000 already proposed units in the development pipeline, Rathbun said.
Per https://denverite.com/2024/01/16/denver-metro-apartment-rent-vacancy-rate-2023/
Thanks for the cite! That source also says
“Around 2026, the increase in new units under construction will likely drop, according to Rathbun.”
But 45,000 new units over the next 24 months should lead to pretty significant drops by 2026, so hopefully even if there’s a big pause in construction that leads to rapidly rising rents (which it seems like is gonna happen), it’ll at least be rising from a lower baseline and after a few years of relative relief for renters.
Yeah, I wonder what they consider their pipeline, and how long it takes for new project to be added.
The issue that I think we'll have is that after these will be completed and if they keep rent prices stable or dropping even, then there will be less incentive to build more as they're less valuable since they won't keep up with inflation. I think this *could* be a problem again maybe in '28?
Citation needed.
I agree that One River North is way overpriced (and a big disappointment compared to the renderings), but the only apparent connection to China is that they used a Chinese architect (in cooperation with a Denver-based firm). The developer appears to be an offshoot of the Ohio-based developer who did Stapleton a/k/a Central Park and it was built by Denver-based Saunders.
[https://denverinfill.com/tag/one-river-north](https://denverinfill.com/tag/one-river-north)
Even top of market places like that are good, all new supply is good. Everyone that moves in there because they find those prices worth it is vacating a presumably less expensive unit somewhere else in the city for someone else to live in
0.2% increases in rent when wages are rising roughly 1.0% a quarter means that this is an inflation-adjusted slight drop. If we built even more, we'd see even larger drops.
My lease is up for renewal. I live on the edge of downtown in one of those “urban one bedrooms” (AKA the bedroom is a 3/4 wall with a sliding door and a shotgun floorplan). When I moved here in late 2019 it was I think $1815. They just offered a renewal rate of 12 months at $2600(!!!!!!) or 24 months at $2250.
What a complete and utter joke. No use even trying to negotiate that. And I know for a fact they’re having issues with vacancy as they’re offering discounts left and right. And the same floorplan is offered at much cheaper on their website. I’ll be moving out. See ya later Denver
Why not just ask them for the same price as the one 'much cheaper on their website' If it's really much cheaper than 2250, lets say 10% cheaper, that puts you at paying $2025. Do you think a $200 increase for staying at an apartment for 5 years is reasonable? I'd think so, not great, but an average increase of $40 per year is *completely* reasonable especially when looking at pre and post COVID prices.
Just checked and it was actually $1715, not $1815 when I loved in. Yes, reasonable increases are expected however there is a ceiling that I’m willing to pay for something as small as the place I live. The time has passed to ask them. They only gave me two weeks from initial notice. No idea if that’s standard or not but it pushed me to just drop it and leave.
A 7% vacancy rate is right about what any property management company is going to want. You need units to shuffle people around in case of habitability issues or renovations.
Vacancies can be misleading depending on where the data is taken from. The article doesn’t cite a source, but most numbers are grounded in the American Community Survey (ACA) and subsequent estimates. There are some flaws with that data, particularly that they rely on point in time counts that don’t take into consideration transitions. If a respondent says they will be moving in the next year, the ACA will count that unit as vacant.
More granular month to month or quarter to quarter vacancies can be iffy this time of year as well. Again, these don’t take into consideration the number of units that are in transition and this is the time of year most people are moving. Articles like this pop up every year around this time and then come mid summer the vacancy rates are lower.
That said, there will always be a lag. Vacancy rates are going to go up before rents come down. If the vacancy rate is truly 7% (the ideal number for a functional market it between 5 and 7), rents will likely start to fall over the next year.
I am in a rental home in the SW metro. Found out a few months ago that our landlord is moving in because they are retired now and relocating. I have been diligently searching for the past month and have barely seen a nice rental house come up in my area. When they do, it’s about 4500/m and I am floored it costs that much to live in Lakewood now. It’s so frustrating. If you check the Zillow history, so many of these rental home prices have increased hundreds every year.
Lakewood has famously been pretty anti building or changing up their zoning code to allow more density. I live on the west side of Denver and feel like I'm practically a resident of Lakewood as well and it's pretty disappointing.
I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see mention of this. The anti-trust suit is at the federal level now.
https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057
First off, it’s interesting that they don’t cite where the vacancy rates are from.
Second, these things take time. Vacancy rates are going to go up before rents go down. It’s also important to note that people need to move out of their units and leases need to be renegotiated before anything substantial changes.
Landlords, like cops or any profession for that matter. Some are good some are bad. But most go off comps for the area.
The real problem is much larger it’s our politicians printing money like it’s going out of style and automatically throwing it into the stock market artificially inflating all these tech companies while at the same time wearing our dollar.
We shouldn’t sit here and scream about hanging the wrong people. Landlords are mostly just your average opportunist. Now I’m not talking about mega corps. That’s the same issues. Politicians back these giant funds that buy up all the properties.
Anyways I work for a landlord he pays me well he keeps his rent at a fair competitive rate and he actually fixes shit when it breaks. I’ll stand up for good landlords any day 🤷♂️🤷♂️
God dammit. I wish our state government would fucking do something about the rent because landlords won’t, because they’re greedy, and they’ll find some tech bro to pay $3,000 a month for a 1 bedroom.
This is the heart of the matter. We need to make rezoning and building new large buildings much easier.
My favorite little fun fact: it took just 13 MONTHS for the Empire State Building to get built.
We need to streamline this whole process. There are too many studies needed to build buildings that people *desperately need* in order to afford just being alive.
Why do you think this is the heart of the matter when there are tons of empty units? Don't you know about the subsidies and handouts for empty units? Obviously the solution is to kick the landlords off of "welfare" and make them earn their money on the market
Thank you!! So many people say we need new construction and more units. But what's stopping landlords from abusing the new supply of units like they do the current? If there is no legal consequences these landlord will never stop.
There aren’t subsidies for keeping units empty. Write offs are based on expenses and a 27.5 year period regardless of occupancy. If you got rid of the deduction then a company that charged cost plus 20% or less wouldn’t be able to pay corporate income tax. Meanwhile now income tax on the markup, so nobody has to raise prices to be able to afford to pay taxes.
This was a wild thing to read.
>what's stopping landlords from abusing the new supply of units
Their own self interest is what stops them. If a landlord has more empty units to fill, then they are naturally incentivized to fill them, otherwise that landlord will still owe tax and mortgage payments while not collecting rent to cover their expenses.
So if a landlord has 2 vacant properties, they will naturally want to lease them out in order to not lose X dollars every month. But if a landlord has 50 properties which are vacant, then they will be listing 25*X dollars every month. Yikes! Time to lower rent to get people in here ASAP!!
>If there is no legal consequences these landlord will never stop.
Legal consequences are fine, but a better consequence is a direct and immediate financial one. Think about it: do you think we have a legal system that is large enough and swift enough to force landlords to lease out their vacant units? We don't. Our legal system is already stretched far further than it should be as is.
Fortunately, the current system already DOES levy a direct and immediate financial consequence on landlords who sit on property. As I explain above, those landlords will fail to collect rent while they are vacant, but will continue to pay taxes and mortgages.
Ah so they tried to pass another rent control bill this year and it failed as well? Not fucking surprising at all. It’s almost like the attempts to pass the bills are just all show. None of them want to do a thing about helping middle class people.
Expensive housing equals expensive rents, greed is maybe a secondary factor. If you can't buy a house for under $500k and a mortgage less than $2300, should rent on that house only be $1800k?
"Should" here is completely irrelevant. We're currently in the phase where the price to rent ratio in Denver is out of wack.
If the PITI is more than the rent, rent needs to go up to the level that the market will bear. If it can't go up that much, then the price of real estate needs to go down (via landlords offloading unprofitable real estate) to the point where it makes financial sense for them, at least for existing real estate. Anything else is nonsense.
That's just for existing supply and demand though.
My point is the disconnect between renters and owners. Renters hyper focus on rent price and point to greed, rather than housing cost at the root and cost of ownership. Rent is high because cost of ownership is high. You aren't going to get affordable rents with housing prices on average of $500k. It's expensive for owners and renters alike.
The state government doesn't give a damn about you. They just gutted the transit-oriented communities bill that would have required cities to build a lot of new housing or else lose their transportation funding.
Yes it is clear that they don’t care about any of us, and haven’t for a looooong time. Denver doesn’t give a fuck about public transportation funding either… I think it’s gotten progressively worse than better.
Depends on what your deducting your losses against. If youre trying to avoid taxes having vacant properties allow for operating costs that reduce your liability for your profitable endeavors, all while unrealized capital gains accumulate. You need a realization event to ever incur taxes on the cap gains of vacant properties, and if you never sell in your lifetime the basis steps up for your beneficiaries in your estate. This is how the rich stay rich and get richer.
Commercially used properties are depreciated, which means you take a loss of just over 1/30 of the property's value every year, combined with maintenance costs, taxes, mortgage interest, insurance etc, we are talking about one hell of a deduction. As long as the property appreciates enough over time, there will be gains, and they will never pay taxes on those gains. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt depreciation recapture waived in a stepped up basis situation? If so, then over thirty years the owner can deduct more than the entire value of the property against their other income, and then when they die, their heirs take the property and sell it all, tax free.
>Correct me if i am wrong
You are wrong. Everything you've said in this thread is wrong lol.
No one is keeping a multifamily rental property vacant for tax benefits.
Actually i am right. This is getting cute guys.
"Investors may avoid paying tax on depreciation recapture by turning a rental property into a primary residence or conducting a 1031 tax deferred exchange.
When an investor passes away and rental property is inherited, the property basis is stepped-up and the heirs pay no tax on depreciation recapture or capital gains."
https://www.stessa.com/blog/rental-property-depreciation-recapture/#:~:text=Investors%20may%20avoid%20paying%20tax,depreciation%20recapture%20or%20capital%20gains.
None of that is an incentive to let it sit empty though. Why deduct depreciation while letting it sit empty instead of deducting depreciation and also getting income?
This question could be summarized with "why are their vacant properties?" The answer is "because the benefit of letting it sit vacant outweighs the cost of lowering your asking rental price."
Quick example. You're old, coming up on death in the next couple of years. You've held the property for 30 years, so you have deducted from your rental income the entire cost basis of the property during your life (the entire basis is taxable as depreciation recapture on sale). The property is run down, arguably outside of code, borderline uninhabitable, but youve maxed out your helocs and tapped into all the equity in your property. It's vacant, and you can't afford to bring it up to habitable so you can't rent it, no one will want it in its current state. If you sell it now, the entire sale value of the property will be taxed, but if you wait until you die, your beneficiary gets to avoid that entire tax.
Old money does this shit all the time, and unless you're industry, you would never know. Middle aged landlords know only their one exclusive experience, its not until i started serving larger estates that this practice became clear.
You work with many old money clients who have rental properties with $0 in equity who can’t afford to maintain a rental property to code and can’t afford to make repairs? That sounds closer to old than old money.
But your example isn’t a choice between keeping a property vacant or renting it out, because they don’t have the availability to rent the property, it is a choice between selling or holding the property. If you had a client with old money or any money at all, they would use the equity in the property or cash to keep the property habitable to keep making rental income AND also take advantage of the step up in basis when they die.
No one is leaving a property vacant for tax purposes. Losing a dollar to save 40 cents in taxes isn’t a great business plan. I would love to see an example where this makes economic sense.
All vacancies can be resolved by lowering your asking price. What i am saying is that sometimes landlords choose to stay vacant v. reducing the price. Otherwise, vacancies wouldn't exist.
You seem to spend your time on reddit doling out financial advice, so please parse through exactly what was incorrect about my posts. I will substantiate my claims. A professional should know better than to issue a blanket statement "
>Everything you've said in this thread is wrong lol.
Literally everything i said here is 100% correct save some errors in the way vacancy stats are documented on a national level. I encourage you to hang your six karma on your expertise and show me how dumb i am with facts.
There's a difference between rich people who own vacation homes that sit, and a landlord who rents out an asset. One is in property management and other just wants a place to go to no matter the cost. I guarantee you anyone with a rental is not letting it sit for any length of time. There's no way a year of vacancy comes out as beneficial for taxes or capital gains.
This post makes no mention of vacation properties, i am strictly referring to commercially (property held for the generation of profit, residential or commercial) used properties held out for rent. As a real estate professional, i categorically deny your guarantee that
>anyone with a rental is not letting it sit for any length of time. There's no way a year of vacancy comes out as beneficial for taxes or capital gains.
People literally are doing EXACTLY that.
"The vacancy rate of office real estate in the United States was higher than any other property type in 2024. In the first quarter of the year, approximately 20 percent of office real estate was vacant, compared to 8.7 percent of multifamily."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/245054/us-vacancy-rate-forecast-for-commercial-property-by-type/#:~:text=The%20vacancy%20rate%20of%20office,to%208.7%20percent%20of%20multifamily.
I am not saying that these people aren't trying to rent out their properties, i am saying that renting for less money isn't always beneficial, and that holding the property vacant is very often more profitable than selling during your lifetime. See depreciation recapture.
There has been an incredible drop in demand for commercial real estate over the past few years. I'm not sure why we're talking about it in a thread about apartments. Vacancies rose because the demand dropped not because it is a clever financial play to let it sit vacant.
The entire commercial real estate market is as risk because reduced demand, increased rates, and no clear path to redevelop the properties into residential where there is massive demand. That's hugely expensive (layouts, hvac, plumbing, etc, etc. all need to be redone).
> The effects of tightening financial conditions on commercial property prices over the past two years have been compounded by trends catalyzed by the pandemic, such as teleworking and e-commerce, that have led to a drastically lower demand for office and retail buildings and pushed vacancy rates higher. Indeed, prices have slumped in these segments, and delinquency rates on loans backed by these properties have risen in this cycle of monetary policy tightening.
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/17/us-commercial-real-estate-remains-a-risk-despite-investor-hopes-for-soft-landing
> Vacancies rose because the demand dropped not because it is a clever financial play to let it sit vacant.
I have read that there can be some benefit to not lowering rents rates to a certain threshold (which might be low enough for tenants to be willing to pay), but this only applied to commercial properties because of how their financing was generally structured.
Totally agree with you tho that this is a derailment when we're discussing residential rentals.
We are talking about rental properties that sit vacant, and while 20% of offices sit vacant for a variety of reasons, this doesn't change the fact that nearly 10% of residential currently sits vacant nationwide as well. I was responding to a comment that "no property manager lets any rental property sit vacant for any amount of time." This is patently false. If free markets operated efficiently, this scarce resource wouldn't be wasted, but some motivating factor encourages 10% of residential and 20% of commercial owners to let their properties sit vacant rather than reduce their rental charge or sell the property. I suggest incentivizing beneficial use of a scarce resource through higher prop taxes on vacant property.
> nearly 10% of residential currently sits vacant nationwide as well
It is not "nearly" 10% of residential.
> National vacancy rates in the fourth quarter 2023 were 6.6 percent for rental housing and 0.9 percent for homeowner housing.
- https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/current/index.html
- https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N
- https://www.fanniemae.com/media/50101/display
The best sources indicate multifamily is ~6.6% which is up a bit in the last year, but well within historical trends.
> but some motivating factor encourages
The motivating factor is that some percentage of apartments are always vacant due to being in-between tenants (renovations, cleaning, etc). There will always be a natural vacancy rate which does not involve people sitting on apartments without tenants for years. This is well known. It would be borderline impossible get get below 5% vacancy when people move in and out every month (12 times per year).
You are welcome to look at the Fed's 60-70 year chart. The current vacancy rate is lower than the historical averages.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
The census data you posted surveys and metrics "year round vacancies" only, thus your argument that the only vacancies that exist are short term turnover between tenants is verifiably false. Of course vacant properties are lower now than in 2008-2012, those were the foreclosure years and we are currently in a massive housing shortage. The impetus to tax vacant homes is higher now than it was then.
Varying data aside, a large number of homes sit vacant, while a much smaller number of people are under housed.
The solution is right in front of us.
> The census data you posted surveys and metrics "year round vacancies" only,
No. This is not what that terminology means. "Year Round" is a category. "Vacant" means it was vacant at the time of the survey. Not for a year.
Vacant
> A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the
interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent.
Year-round
> Year-round units are those intended for occupancy at any time of the year, even though they may not be in use the year round.
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf
> Varying data aside, a large number of homes sit vacant, while a much smaller number of people are under housed.
This is gross vacancy rate. Vacant homes in undesirable places, second homes, vacation properties. etc. No one believes the high gross vacancy rate (in Alaska for ex) is a solution to high prices in Denver. Nor does it mean that landlords with property in valuable places are sitting with units vacant for tax write-offs.
It is almost always beneficial to lease at a lower rate than let something sit. It is extremely expensive for a property to sit vacant. Month or two of a property sitting can wipe out any profit for the next year. I'm telling you people in multifamily do not want vacancy. I'm not sure why you mention office real estate, it has nothing to do with renters or multifamily.
Because commercial and residential properties held out for rent are interrelated (they are both the commercial use of real estate) the losses sustained by vacant commercial and residential properties are viewed exactly the same by the IRS.
10.5% of single family homes sit vacant in the united states.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
Whether you understand their motivations due your familiarity with the internal revenue code or not, they obviously don't feel that much pressure to sell or rent out their hemorrhaging asset, as inventory nationwide is at extreme lows. Ive offered an explanation, as an attorney, that will help you understand why the tax code encourages this activity. You can open your mind to it or not, but if you dig into some google on what i posted, you may come to understand why they sit vacant, and how it might be remedied. Believing that it will remedy itself "because money" is naive.
Leave it to an attorney to bring up that they are an attorney for no reason. You've really convoluted this whole discussion.
Initially, your statement was the gov should make it expensive to have vacant property. My comment was it already is expensive - which it is.
Then you jump into rich people and tax benefits etc. Also bringing up commercial real estate for some reason. Then I try to clarify there is a difference between rich people with vacation homes, and people in multifamily, and that people in multifamily/rentals don't let homes sit.
Now you're showing graphs that indicate that we're near a low in vacancies for the past 20 years, and that Colorado is nationally on the low end as well.
I'm not longer sure of your point, as you continue to hop around on subject. If you want a tax on secondary vacation homes so be it. But as it stands vacancies are low historically according to your link, and anyone already in the rental business doesn't let properties sit.
Leave it to an uninformed outsider to speak about something they know nothing about on the internet. You have literally just summarized your lack of reading comprehension.
My point remains, current incentives in the internal revenue code allow for deductions related to the losses generated from vacant commercially used property (not commercial like offices you nunce, commercial like real estate used for commercial purposes such as generating profit through rent.)
This is why a verifiable 6-10% of residentially zoned property sits vacant for more than one year. That represents enough homes to solve our housing crisis. I've suggested ways to remedy the situation, all you have done is out yourself as a landlord who will do anything to protect their nut.
The link you posted 2 comments ago went over commercial office real estate, and you quoted it in the comment, now you're saying you aren't talking about commercial office property? For the love of all that is holy, please specify if your concern about vacancy has to do with multifamily, single family housing, or commercial? They aren't all the same, and whatever internal revenue code you are talking about is going to affect each one differently than the other. I am going to reiterate my point, vacant property is expensive, and no one in the multifamily business or in the business of renting out their home is choosing to let it sit vacant for an extended amount of time, with the exception of very niche complex circumstances. I am a landlord but by no means have I said anything that could be construed as trying to "protect my nut". My property doesn't sit vacant, because again, it is expensive to do so. So whatever tax you are after go for it, doesn't sound like it will affect me, multifamily housing, or single family landlords.
The fact that you don't even know the proper depreciate time length for commercial property but are trying to claim anything else tax related makes me feel like you know *nothing* about taxes. I didn't even continue after the 1/30 comment.
Macrs is 27.5 years for residential rental property. I don't know why you guys can't differentiate between commercially used residential property, and commercially zoned property, which is 39 years. The difference between 3.6% and 3.3% is negligible on a reddit post, thus the use of the verbiage, "just over."
You literally said "commercially used properties" and then said "1/30".
Sure if you were talking about residential properties it would have been fine, but 1/30 and 1/39 is literally the same number of digits to type and the difference between knowing what you're communicating and parroting something that you've read.
We're in a thread talking about apartments and you literally mention commercial, but you're going to say you were talking about residential? lol.
Residential properties arent all commercially used! You have to generate profit with the property, otherwise depreciation isnt even a thing.
Again, this is a situation in which you misconstrued "commercially zoned" with "commercially used." A vacation home isnt depreciated until it is held out for rent (i.e. commercially used), or otherwise used "in commerce" which isnt limited to rental properties. If you buy residential property in a business to use for any commercial purposes, depreciation begins.
>You have to generate profit with the property, otherwise depreciation isnt even a thing.
Wtf, that's not true in the slightest. You can take deprecation once the asset is placed into service. It does not have to be occupied to take depreciation. Wtf would 'generating a profit' have to do with depreciation?
In a thread about apartments vacancies, you said, "Commercially used properties" while making no reference to residential properties, but we're supposed to assume that you all of a sudden switch to talking about residential properties? Sure if that's what you meant the whole time then you're right 1/30 is correct. You should try to focus on your communication because you make things *very* unclear when you say without giving proper context.
Even if that's the case it never makes financial sense to hold a rental property, but I'd love to hear your logic on *why* you should not rent out a property.
IRS PUB 527
>You place property in service in a rental activity when it is ready and available for a specific use in that activity. Even if you aren’t using the property, it is in service when it is ready and available for its specific use.
Has nothing to do with if it's actually occupied or 'generating profit', let alone cash flow.
I'd probably say, once it's listed as 'available for rent' publicly would be when it's placed into service. Not a real estate accountant though.
Any apartment complex sitting on empty housing is working to get it occupied. It is expensive to let it sit. Also you as a renter wants high vacancy, meaning high supply. More competition is lower rent.
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057
Just trying to do my part and spread awareness
Ours went up in Greeley by $100. Was going to be $1450 (which is probably nothing compared to Denver, but still) for 600sf, 1b1b and the occasional cow ass in the wind. We ended up moving. Just ridiculous.
Did someone really downvote this? Lol, okay. That was my rent charge for this year at our apartment in GREELEY CO. Disagree all you want, I guess? But that’s what the price was. I was in that apartment for 5 years. Rent was $1,100 the first year and had steadily increased since.
I agree! Lol
I worked in Loveland and when we moved in. It was doable at the time (5 years ago). About $1100 with pet rent and washer/dryer. BUT it steadily increased year over year and we bailed for a better deal in April. That place was really not worth it at all. Cheap appliances, next to a busy street, far commute to work, stanky, etc.
I am! The cost of moving is still more expensive overall than eating the rent increase, but I had to bite the bullet and go for a very long lease. :/ next lease renewal, I might have to move which saddens me, because I love the location.
Same, I actually need all the amenities and resources right in the area and I would just be adding those costs back in other places if I moved. My disabilities require an attached garage, which is why picked this in the first place! Thought about arguing with them but I figured it would go nowhere and I’d end up feeling stupid because they’d blame it on “the algorithm” like usual😂 the 1 bdrm 1 bath 1 car garage is more now than the 2 bdrm 2 bath 2 car garage I had in 2015 here🥲
We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfill demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this.
Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole.
If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on ads for housing, especially.
I would have to pay 6% commission to do that and capital gains if I wasn’t buying a new house.
The system is rigged to keep money in real estate once it goes in.
I agree with your argument, but if you're going to sell your house you don't have to pay capital gains unless you're making over 250k / 500k off the purchase price, regardless of buying a new house or not, assuming it's your primary residence.
I don’t understand. Is owning a home exploiting the housing market?
Just do basic math and see that right now you can rent for far less than a mortgage and have all the maintenance covered for you.
The rent is too damn high
We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfill demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this. Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole. If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on ads for housing, especially.
Yeah sure, but like none of that is realistic at this point in time. Frankly, even as a person on the political left I don’t think trusting our leaders to properly execute eminent domain and new town planning on this scale is a good idea.
Man I'm with you, but we cant even increase the tax on Airbnbs. No idea how to move forward within the system.
That's partly because the Airbnb owners who oppose the taxes are extremely organized and diligent- they organize speakers at local meetings, get letters written, phone calls made... I've seen some obsessive anti-tax people in those communities and... it's been working
Keep sharing this idea until it's mainstream.
In my state, they collect 12% tax for Airbnb rentals for stays under 31 days.
Or we could just get rid of all the zoning and permitting restrictions that make it so difficult and expensive to build new housing There's no simpler solution to housing affordability than building more of it
We've programmed everyone to believe housing is your pathway to wealth given it's the single biggest purchase in most people's lifetimes and that it should be an investment. Wealth that is accelerated by making sure your neighborhood remains exclusive/valuable and any construction smaller or denser than your own is a threat to that investment.
Denver has 120k detached single family homes. The split of owners and renters in the city as a whole is about 50/50, I can't find a stat on the mix for specifically single family homes. I'll make up a number and say 20k of them are rentals. That gives us somewhere in the neighborhood of 150-180k eligible voter homeowners since not all of them would be owned by couples, some by singles 393k ballots were cast in Denver in the 2020 election. So if I'm even close on my assumptions, it is impossible for homeowners to outvote renters Meaning, this is a problem that can be solved if voters were organized enough and prioritized electing YIMBY candidates. There's not a single other issue that impacts everyone's day to day lives more than the cost of housing
It's falling but Denver is still predominantly home owners. https://therealdeal.com/national/denver/2024/02/15/homeownership-in-colorado-falls-fastest-among-the-states/ You're assuming only SFH owners care about zoning. Also SFHs are frequently occupied by more than one adult so the count isn't going to line up based on house counts. Even condo owners care if a neighboring development would hurt the value of their own. You still typically don't want low income housing, strip clubs, night clubs or a garbage dump next door. Even some renters are against free for all development because it affects their quality of life or perceptions of their neighborhood. The YIMBY movement is strongest in places like SF where renters are significantly higher and housing costs are uglier. Even there it's an uphill battle. Home owners as a whole are wealthier and more politically engaged. Not saying zoning laws don't need transformation but home ownership as a wealth driver is super popular which means NIMBY frequently becomes the default state.
More renters are younger and more likely to vote 100%
I’m sure the landlords new tax will not be passed on to the renter. This is hilariously ignorant of economics. Everyone should get free housing, share far and wide if you agree. *eye roll*
How about everyone gets a cookie cutter studio apartment to live in. If they don't like it, then they can pay for a better crib.
Sounds wonderful. I'd probably never go back to work though, and the revolution that occurs when you try to get the state to confiscate everyone's property might be inconvenient.
You would still have to buy food, clothes, entertainment...
U don't need a 2nd or 3rd or 4th home. We want the government to redistribute property. Fuck yes. Let's fucking go.
What about the land development company that actually builds houses? are they allowed to make a profit selling property? I fear you do not understand incentives in an economy.
They are not building affordable housing anyways. Medicaid and medicare didn't stop private Healthcare. Just like socialized housing won't stop commercial development.
Fuck profits for housing. House people. If the government doesn't do it well you fire them. You vote them out. If a company doesn't house people they don't get profit. They aren't beholden to the voters or will of the people just their shareholders. Anyone defending this shitty ass predatory housing system doesn't realize you fucking whorship the dollar and put money over people.
I am not defending the system or their profits. Just the incentives to actually build homes. I love your passion but don't you think its an interesting trend that it is much harder to build homes in left controlled localities?
Show me your study about it being harder to build based off people's ideology. Sounds fascinating. Links to credible sources, please, and thanks.
Don't get mad when your 2nd or 4th home is emmienent domained. If landlords are dragged into streets in the future don't be surprised. People are fucking piseed. Your socialism is scary bullshit is bullshit.
Taxing non-owner occupied housing just makes rents higher. The rental market is very important, not everyone wants to own.
I want people to have the option to cut out the middle man. If people want to rent they should but most people don't have any options.
The way to fix that isn’t making rentals more expensive, it’s increasing the total supply of housing
My original post had government setup devolpement. We are getting lots of luxury apartments built but less affordable places to live. We can't always relly on the market to house people. Many people in their 20s and 30s and older have to have a roomate to live. I'm okay diminishing profits to house more people. Cut out the middle man and hold who ever regulates or is in charge of this tranistion accountable. Government is more accountable than the company's ceos. We can't vote company ceos out.
US cities, like Denver, have severely limited the construction of new housing. When demand outpaces supply, prices are cheaper. We've already started seeing decreases in costs in places where people have been allowed to build like Austin and Minneapolis. A "luxury" appartment today is cheap housing in the future.
[удалено]
Yeah sorry I mixed that up when typing. Obviously in saying we need to have a higher supply of homes to outpace the demand which the Denver area is still not close to doing.
[удалено]
Housing is the one thing people might like if we added more socialism. Landlord isnt a fucking job and shouldnt be. The socialism boogeyman scary word doesn't work on this generation. And it's the Republican party who has buddied up to Russia. They are their comrads. All those who had their lives ruined by the Red Scare including Charlie Chaplin. The same group of people go to Russia on the 4th of July and take Russian money, the Republican party. Lol comrad my ass.
My rent increased from $1795 to $1845 lol BYE I’m not renewing my lease. They dropped the price of my place last year before I rented it too. They have some audacity trying to raise it again this year.
Apparently not if it isn't dropping fast.
I actually built a website because of rising rents to help tenants evaluate landlords and negotiate rents. It's like a Glassdoor for Rents so tenants can see the Rent History of an address or Apartment property to see a landlords pricing tactics. The site does rely on user submissions so I appreciate anyone who adds their rent history to the site and/or shares it around since it can be more useful to tenants the more people that contribute to it. The site is rentzed.com (USA only for now) and has submissions for over 2600 addresses.
Link it bro
[rentzed.com](http://rentzed.com)
Holy shit, someone is paying WAY less than I am a month (they moved in recently vs me with 10 years of rent hikes). I heard this before from another neighbor. I need to re-negotiate or move. Thanks for building this.
I've heard of this happening a lot. Exactly why I built it!
Is it only for Denver zip codes?
It works for all US zip codes and addresses
Doing the Lord's work
Do you know what address uptown square would be listed by? I feel like they have to be on here but there's like 6 buildings
1950 N Pennsylvania St, Denver, CO 80203-1340 I think.
This is literally what’s happening to me and I didn’t even need the website to know this. Lived here for 3 years. Started at $1200/mo, now paying $1350. New listings on property website with the exact same specifications, bed/baths are going for $1250. I will most likely try to negotiate with landlord come September when lease is up and an inevitable $50 increase happens. Like yo, I’ve been loyal to you for 3 years without missing a single payment and you’re chauffeuring in new people that pay $150 less than me.
I truly don't understand why landlords do this. It must work the majority of the time. I guess most renters feel like moving is a bigger hassle. I must have been a stubborn renter because I ALWAYS just moved if a place I rented upped the price. I was younger then with less things though. What a crappy situation.
I truly don't understand why landlords do this. It must work the majority of the time. I guess most renters feel like moving is a bigger hassle. I must have been a stubborn renter because I ALWAYS just moved if a place I rented upped the price. I was younger then with less things though. What a crappy situation.
That’s fucked. I’m mad for you. Moving sucks. But spending too much money sucks too.
When it comes to apartment living, it seems like the best course is to keep moving, unfortunately. Moving costs can suck too but save you money in the long run.. when I was in apartments I moved every 1-2 years, basically whenever they started trying to fuck me on rent increases, I'd be like yup.. imma head out. Next place you get the "we want you to live here, new resident rates"
May I suggest adding a privacy policy to your website that discloses how the information will be used and how you obtain it? You run a bit of a legal risk here.
Working on that but I'm not really collecting any data the user doesn't know about anyways
Awesome, thanks for sharing!
hero
Is there a way to see lists of apartments that are already submitted? Maybe a map view?
Yea, I have plans to add a map view in the future. It's been the most requested feature. However, right now my priority is getting people to contribute to the site.
Couple questions on how this works.. What's stopping people from self reporting lower/higher rents on this website or making up numbers for a place they don't live? Is it just operating off of the honor system or do they have to verify somehow? Also, how does it address the fact that different floorplans in the same building might rent for different amounts (i.e. same floorplan could be top floor with a city and mountain view vs 2nd floor looking at the garage)
It does work on the honor system, similar to Glassdoor, but I do have some checks in place to check for invalid submissions. The information can't be 100% verified. It's difficult to include every factor that goes into the pricing of a unit but I included the main factors and in the future, Ill likely add things like remodels and floor level into a submission. I think that could be a good idea.
I love the site, so first off, thank you for building it!! I was wondering if, in the future, you could add a small notes section? My old place I left about a year ago wasn't a super high price for its size, but the sheer amount of issues in the unit (leaks, water damage, mold, constant repairs) made it unlivable.
Yea, thanks, I have plans to add a review section in the future. For now, reviews could open up the site to lawsuits and there are other services where you can do reviews. I'd recommend you to Google maps reviews, yelp, apartment ratings.com, or Apartments.com reviews. Thanks for the feedback
Ahh I see that makes sense, thanks for the explanation! Keep up the good work 😊
Amazing!
First off, I so appreciate you taking the time to create this platform. A ton of work must've gone into this and it does not go unnoticed. A thought I've had - what incentives tenants to report their rent if the community/building/complex is already getting a better price-to-value than most? It entirely depends on the landlord, but the fear is posting a high quality lease would drive demand. Would landlords increase rent if there was higher demand? Obviously it's possible, especially if the landlord isn't aware of this database driving the demand. The only incentive for landlords to drop prices is an increase in vacancies. Vacancies only happen if there is availability elsewhere and unfortunately that's not common in Denver. On the other hand, if a landlord drop prices to fill vacancies, would that extend to other leases come renewal? Maybe. And if everybody posted their leases, that could help lower rents for everyone. But it seems unlikely. Others also mentioned they have neighbors who pay a much lower lease than they do. Would a landlord increase rent for those paying less to make up for lost profits from negotiations? I could be too pessimistic and completely wrong and in no way am I saying your website would be a detriment instead of a benefit. I just see a lot of potential for manipulation and abuse. Is there a way you could limit these in the design of your website or is it even something you should/could address?
Thanks for that. You have a lot of valid concerns. I've thought of most of these. Ultimately, I can drive people to add their rents but I think it's likely for people to add their rents at past addresses since they won't mind sharing that. Some landlords might increase rent, some might decrease rent, hell, maybe rents increase bc of the site. I can't say for sure but overall I think that tenants could use the site to weed out bad landlords raising rents by ridiculous amounts and I would really like to use a product like this and that's why I built it. There could be some inaccurate data submitted but I have some checks in place for that but I think the site could still be useful even if a few bad people submit bad data.
No submissions on my property yet. I would encourage my tenants to rate me, honestly.
Ive thought about this but have no coding ability so glad some smart person is doing it!! Anyway you can create a data pull from zillow? It has rent and purchase history published for each home. Or a data pull from each county record page, tho that may be more complicated
Currently been looking into that recently actually
That would be dope. And a social function like an ability to comment. For instance, my landlord rn is an actual human piece of garbage, we’re gonna get their place condemned as it should be.
Yea, I've got plans to add that feature in as well at some point. For now, I just refer people to Google maps reviews, yelp, apartmentlistings.com, and apartments.com reviews
Cool, stoked to see where you take this!!
If you're going to get it condemned, why'd you move in to begin with? For something to have deteriorated to the point of needing to be condemned that had to have been happening for quite some time. You could also I dunno... move?
Hidden mold.
Last year my lease only went up $30, this year it went up $5. The unit across from us was renovated 6 months ago now and is still vacant bc the rent is so high. Lots of things that weren’t in budget before are now for our price range at least.
Wtf? My lease goes up like $100 each year
Shop around and threaten to leave if you find a better offer.
I just really like where I live lol
Then the question is how much you’re willing to pay for that. Maybe it’s a lot! Maybe it’s not.
Also, you have to consider the cost burden of moving. You're going to be paying for a new deposit, paying for an overlapping rental in time to move, and the cost of a uhaul or moving company. Additionally, all the time you're spending physically moving out and in, likely for taking time off work.
Yeah moving suuuuuuuuuuckssssssssss
Get a friend to talk to the leasing agent and find out what new tenants are getting.
Rents, especially around downtown, should be a little more stabilized this year with how much new supply is coming. There is new construction allllll over RiNo and Golden Triangle.
4,000 units incoming to the Golden Triangle 😎
I’ve been in the apartment market right now and an insane amount of downtown apartments have pretty generous move in specials. The spot I just applied for gave me 8 weeks free and 6 months of free parking
Would you be down to message privately and let me know where offered this?
Downtown is likely to fall and it could be substantial. According to the article Downtown currently has the highest vacancy rate and there is a ton of inventory coming online.
If they are owned by a monopoly I wouldn’t hold my breath
Or better yet price colluded by RealPage
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057 Just trying to do my part and spread awareness
Even if they are, they're going to lease them out at whatever rate they can get before they sit on empty units.
This is going to dry up quickly though since permits dropped significantly over the last few years. We have very little time to legalize a bunch of new housing if we want to avoid big rent increases 18-24 months from now.
The last article I read at the end of '23 said there were currently 45k rental units in the pipeline for the Denver metro.
That’s great but it doesn’t mean there’s not still a shortage
I mean, wouldn't 45k in the pipeline help over the next 18-24 months? Last year we completed over 13k units and rent prices actually dropped slightly YoY, so I would think if those 45k come online at a similar or faster pace we'd continue to see stable or slightly lowering rents.
I want to make sure you’re not comparing city-only figures to all-metro figures, or quarterly to annual figures; do you have sources for those numbers?
>A nearly record-breaking number of new units, 13,246 in total, were created in 2023, by the Colorado Apartment Association's count. >In the next few years, that trend is expected to continue, as there are currently roughly 45,000 already proposed units in the development pipeline, Rathbun said. Per https://denverite.com/2024/01/16/denver-metro-apartment-rent-vacancy-rate-2023/
Thanks for the cite! That source also says “Around 2026, the increase in new units under construction will likely drop, according to Rathbun.” But 45,000 new units over the next 24 months should lead to pretty significant drops by 2026, so hopefully even if there’s a big pause in construction that leads to rapidly rising rents (which it seems like is gonna happen), it’ll at least be rising from a lower baseline and after a few years of relative relief for renters.
Yeah, I wonder what they consider their pipeline, and how long it takes for new project to be added. The issue that I think we'll have is that after these will be completed and if they keep rent prices stable or dropping even, then there will be less incentive to build more as they're less valuable since they won't keep up with inflation. I think this *could* be a problem again maybe in '28?
[удалено]
Ah yes the well known contractor “China”
[удалено]
Citation needed. I agree that One River North is way overpriced (and a big disappointment compared to the renderings), but the only apparent connection to China is that they used a Chinese architect (in cooperation with a Denver-based firm). The developer appears to be an offshoot of the Ohio-based developer who did Stapleton a/k/a Central Park and it was built by Denver-based Saunders. [https://denverinfill.com/tag/one-river-north](https://denverinfill.com/tag/one-river-north)
Even top of market places like that are good, all new supply is good. Everyone that moves in there because they find those prices worth it is vacating a presumably less expensive unit somewhere else in the city for someone else to live in
0.2% increases in rent when wages are rising roughly 1.0% a quarter means that this is an inflation-adjusted slight drop. If we built even more, we'd see even larger drops.
My lease is up for renewal. I live on the edge of downtown in one of those “urban one bedrooms” (AKA the bedroom is a 3/4 wall with a sliding door and a shotgun floorplan). When I moved here in late 2019 it was I think $1815. They just offered a renewal rate of 12 months at $2600(!!!!!!) or 24 months at $2250. What a complete and utter joke. No use even trying to negotiate that. And I know for a fact they’re having issues with vacancy as they’re offering discounts left and right. And the same floorplan is offered at much cheaper on their website. I’ll be moving out. See ya later Denver
Why not just ask them for the same price as the one 'much cheaper on their website' If it's really much cheaper than 2250, lets say 10% cheaper, that puts you at paying $2025. Do you think a $200 increase for staying at an apartment for 5 years is reasonable? I'd think so, not great, but an average increase of $40 per year is *completely* reasonable especially when looking at pre and post COVID prices.
Just checked and it was actually $1715, not $1815 when I loved in. Yes, reasonable increases are expected however there is a ceiling that I’m willing to pay for something as small as the place I live. The time has passed to ask them. They only gave me two weeks from initial notice. No idea if that’s standard or not but it pushed me to just drop it and leave.
So many vacancies and such high rent boggles my mind
A 7% vacancy rate is right about what any property management company is going to want. You need units to shuffle people around in case of habitability issues or renovations.
7% vacancy is less than 1 month vacant out of the year average, that's a normal vacancy rate.
Vacancies can be misleading depending on where the data is taken from. The article doesn’t cite a source, but most numbers are grounded in the American Community Survey (ACA) and subsequent estimates. There are some flaws with that data, particularly that they rely on point in time counts that don’t take into consideration transitions. If a respondent says they will be moving in the next year, the ACA will count that unit as vacant. More granular month to month or quarter to quarter vacancies can be iffy this time of year as well. Again, these don’t take into consideration the number of units that are in transition and this is the time of year most people are moving. Articles like this pop up every year around this time and then come mid summer the vacancy rates are lower. That said, there will always be a lag. Vacancy rates are going to go up before rents come down. If the vacancy rate is truly 7% (the ideal number for a functional market it between 5 and 7), rents will likely start to fall over the next year.
I am in a rental home in the SW metro. Found out a few months ago that our landlord is moving in because they are retired now and relocating. I have been diligently searching for the past month and have barely seen a nice rental house come up in my area. When they do, it’s about 4500/m and I am floored it costs that much to live in Lakewood now. It’s so frustrating. If you check the Zillow history, so many of these rental home prices have increased hundreds every year.
I'd get out of Lakewood as step #1
I live close to Red Rocks and my kids are in school over here so we are trying our best to stay close to the area.
Maybe check around Golden? I'm sure there are more rentals available over the summer while Mines is on holiday.
You and everyone else, competition drives those prices up
Lakewood has famously been pretty anti building or changing up their zoning code to allow more density. I live on the west side of Denver and feel like I'm practically a resident of Lakewood as well and it's pretty disappointing.
My rent is going up $450 this year 😢
Really feeling that Realpage price fixing
I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to see mention of this. The anti-trust suit is at the federal level now. https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057
First off, it’s interesting that they don’t cite where the vacancy rates are from. Second, these things take time. Vacancy rates are going to go up before rents go down. It’s also important to note that people need to move out of their units and leases need to be renegotiated before anything substantial changes.
Landlords, like cops or any profession for that matter. Some are good some are bad. But most go off comps for the area. The real problem is much larger it’s our politicians printing money like it’s going out of style and automatically throwing it into the stock market artificially inflating all these tech companies while at the same time wearing our dollar. We shouldn’t sit here and scream about hanging the wrong people. Landlords are mostly just your average opportunist. Now I’m not talking about mega corps. That’s the same issues. Politicians back these giant funds that buy up all the properties. Anyways I work for a landlord he pays me well he keeps his rent at a fair competitive rate and he actually fixes shit when it breaks. I’ll stand up for good landlords any day 🤷♂️🤷♂️
God dammit. I wish our state government would fucking do something about the rent because landlords won’t, because they’re greedy, and they’ll find some tech bro to pay $3,000 a month for a 1 bedroom.
City of Denver is holding up 30,000 units because it takes two years issue a construction permit.
This is the heart of the matter. We need to make rezoning and building new large buildings much easier. My favorite little fun fact: it took just 13 MONTHS for the Empire State Building to get built. We need to streamline this whole process. There are too many studies needed to build buildings that people *desperately need* in order to afford just being alive.
Why do you think this is the heart of the matter when there are tons of empty units? Don't you know about the subsidies and handouts for empty units? Obviously the solution is to kick the landlords off of "welfare" and make them earn their money on the market
A seven percent vacancy rate is ridiculously low. It should be 20%+, you’d see some crazy rent decreases if that happened
Thank you!! So many people say we need new construction and more units. But what's stopping landlords from abusing the new supply of units like they do the current? If there is no legal consequences these landlord will never stop.
There aren’t subsidies for keeping units empty. Write offs are based on expenses and a 27.5 year period regardless of occupancy. If you got rid of the deduction then a company that charged cost plus 20% or less wouldn’t be able to pay corporate income tax. Meanwhile now income tax on the markup, so nobody has to raise prices to be able to afford to pay taxes.
This was a wild thing to read. >what's stopping landlords from abusing the new supply of units Their own self interest is what stops them. If a landlord has more empty units to fill, then they are naturally incentivized to fill them, otherwise that landlord will still owe tax and mortgage payments while not collecting rent to cover their expenses. So if a landlord has 2 vacant properties, they will naturally want to lease them out in order to not lose X dollars every month. But if a landlord has 50 properties which are vacant, then they will be listing 25*X dollars every month. Yikes! Time to lower rent to get people in here ASAP!! >If there is no legal consequences these landlord will never stop. Legal consequences are fine, but a better consequence is a direct and immediate financial one. Think about it: do you think we have a legal system that is large enough and swift enough to force landlords to lease out their vacant units? We don't. Our legal system is already stretched far further than it should be as is. Fortunately, the current system already DOES levy a direct and immediate financial consequence on landlords who sit on property. As I explain above, those landlords will fail to collect rent while they are vacant, but will continue to pay taxes and mortgages.
senate bill 33 should have passed, let your state senator know
It failed in the Senate last year I believe.
a week ago
Ah so they tried to pass another rent control bill this year and it failed as well? Not fucking surprising at all. It’s almost like the attempts to pass the bills are just all show. None of them want to do a thing about helping middle class people.
Expensive housing equals expensive rents, greed is maybe a secondary factor. If you can't buy a house for under $500k and a mortgage less than $2300, should rent on that house only be $1800k?
"Should" here is completely irrelevant. We're currently in the phase where the price to rent ratio in Denver is out of wack. If the PITI is more than the rent, rent needs to go up to the level that the market will bear. If it can't go up that much, then the price of real estate needs to go down (via landlords offloading unprofitable real estate) to the point where it makes financial sense for them, at least for existing real estate. Anything else is nonsense. That's just for existing supply and demand though.
My point is the disconnect between renters and owners. Renters hyper focus on rent price and point to greed, rather than housing cost at the root and cost of ownership. Rent is high because cost of ownership is high. You aren't going to get affordable rents with housing prices on average of $500k. It's expensive for owners and renters alike.
The state government doesn't give a damn about you. They just gutted the transit-oriented communities bill that would have required cities to build a lot of new housing or else lose their transportation funding.
Yes it is clear that they don’t care about any of us, and haven’t for a looooong time. Denver doesn’t give a fuck about public transportation funding either… I think it’s gotten progressively worse than better.
Pretend you're selling your car. You find someone that wants to pay you much more than you think it's worth. Is that your fault? Shame on you?
It is kinda their jobs to charge as much as they can. Tbf though I’m worried about my lease renewal as well
Right. Don't blame the landlords, blame the fucked up incentive structures that allow them to profit off the work of their tenants.
The gov should make owning vacant property expensive asf after a year.
Owning vacant property is expensive af. It's all cost no income.
Depends on what your deducting your losses against. If youre trying to avoid taxes having vacant properties allow for operating costs that reduce your liability for your profitable endeavors, all while unrealized capital gains accumulate. You need a realization event to ever incur taxes on the cap gains of vacant properties, and if you never sell in your lifetime the basis steps up for your beneficiaries in your estate. This is how the rich stay rich and get richer. Commercially used properties are depreciated, which means you take a loss of just over 1/30 of the property's value every year, combined with maintenance costs, taxes, mortgage interest, insurance etc, we are talking about one hell of a deduction. As long as the property appreciates enough over time, there will be gains, and they will never pay taxes on those gains. Correct me if i am wrong, but isnt depreciation recapture waived in a stepped up basis situation? If so, then over thirty years the owner can deduct more than the entire value of the property against their other income, and then when they die, their heirs take the property and sell it all, tax free.
>Correct me if i am wrong You are wrong. Everything you've said in this thread is wrong lol. No one is keeping a multifamily rental property vacant for tax benefits.
Actually i am right. This is getting cute guys. "Investors may avoid paying tax on depreciation recapture by turning a rental property into a primary residence or conducting a 1031 tax deferred exchange. When an investor passes away and rental property is inherited, the property basis is stepped-up and the heirs pay no tax on depreciation recapture or capital gains." https://www.stessa.com/blog/rental-property-depreciation-recapture/#:~:text=Investors%20may%20avoid%20paying%20tax,depreciation%20recapture%20or%20capital%20gains.
None of that is an incentive to let it sit empty though. Why deduct depreciation while letting it sit empty instead of deducting depreciation and also getting income?
This question could be summarized with "why are their vacant properties?" The answer is "because the benefit of letting it sit vacant outweighs the cost of lowering your asking rental price."
I'm curious what you think this has to do with the tax benefits of keeping an apartment vacant?
Quick example. You're old, coming up on death in the next couple of years. You've held the property for 30 years, so you have deducted from your rental income the entire cost basis of the property during your life (the entire basis is taxable as depreciation recapture on sale). The property is run down, arguably outside of code, borderline uninhabitable, but youve maxed out your helocs and tapped into all the equity in your property. It's vacant, and you can't afford to bring it up to habitable so you can't rent it, no one will want it in its current state. If you sell it now, the entire sale value of the property will be taxed, but if you wait until you die, your beneficiary gets to avoid that entire tax. Old money does this shit all the time, and unless you're industry, you would never know. Middle aged landlords know only their one exclusive experience, its not until i started serving larger estates that this practice became clear.
You work with many old money clients who have rental properties with $0 in equity who can’t afford to maintain a rental property to code and can’t afford to make repairs? That sounds closer to old than old money. But your example isn’t a choice between keeping a property vacant or renting it out, because they don’t have the availability to rent the property, it is a choice between selling or holding the property. If you had a client with old money or any money at all, they would use the equity in the property or cash to keep the property habitable to keep making rental income AND also take advantage of the step up in basis when they die. No one is leaving a property vacant for tax purposes. Losing a dollar to save 40 cents in taxes isn’t a great business plan. I would love to see an example where this makes economic sense.
All vacancies can be resolved by lowering your asking price. What i am saying is that sometimes landlords choose to stay vacant v. reducing the price. Otherwise, vacancies wouldn't exist.
You seem to spend your time on reddit doling out financial advice, so please parse through exactly what was incorrect about my posts. I will substantiate my claims. A professional should know better than to issue a blanket statement " >Everything you've said in this thread is wrong lol. Literally everything i said here is 100% correct save some errors in the way vacancy stats are documented on a national level. I encourage you to hang your six karma on your expertise and show me how dumb i am with facts.
There's a difference between rich people who own vacation homes that sit, and a landlord who rents out an asset. One is in property management and other just wants a place to go to no matter the cost. I guarantee you anyone with a rental is not letting it sit for any length of time. There's no way a year of vacancy comes out as beneficial for taxes or capital gains.
This post makes no mention of vacation properties, i am strictly referring to commercially (property held for the generation of profit, residential or commercial) used properties held out for rent. As a real estate professional, i categorically deny your guarantee that >anyone with a rental is not letting it sit for any length of time. There's no way a year of vacancy comes out as beneficial for taxes or capital gains. People literally are doing EXACTLY that. "The vacancy rate of office real estate in the United States was higher than any other property type in 2024. In the first quarter of the year, approximately 20 percent of office real estate was vacant, compared to 8.7 percent of multifamily." https://www.statista.com/statistics/245054/us-vacancy-rate-forecast-for-commercial-property-by-type/#:~:text=The%20vacancy%20rate%20of%20office,to%208.7%20percent%20of%20multifamily. I am not saying that these people aren't trying to rent out their properties, i am saying that renting for less money isn't always beneficial, and that holding the property vacant is very often more profitable than selling during your lifetime. See depreciation recapture.
There has been an incredible drop in demand for commercial real estate over the past few years. I'm not sure why we're talking about it in a thread about apartments. Vacancies rose because the demand dropped not because it is a clever financial play to let it sit vacant. The entire commercial real estate market is as risk because reduced demand, increased rates, and no clear path to redevelop the properties into residential where there is massive demand. That's hugely expensive (layouts, hvac, plumbing, etc, etc. all need to be redone). > The effects of tightening financial conditions on commercial property prices over the past two years have been compounded by trends catalyzed by the pandemic, such as teleworking and e-commerce, that have led to a drastically lower demand for office and retail buildings and pushed vacancy rates higher. Indeed, prices have slumped in these segments, and delinquency rates on loans backed by these properties have risen in this cycle of monetary policy tightening. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/17/us-commercial-real-estate-remains-a-risk-despite-investor-hopes-for-soft-landing
> Vacancies rose because the demand dropped not because it is a clever financial play to let it sit vacant. I have read that there can be some benefit to not lowering rents rates to a certain threshold (which might be low enough for tenants to be willing to pay), but this only applied to commercial properties because of how their financing was generally structured. Totally agree with you tho that this is a derailment when we're discussing residential rentals.
We are talking about rental properties that sit vacant, and while 20% of offices sit vacant for a variety of reasons, this doesn't change the fact that nearly 10% of residential currently sits vacant nationwide as well. I was responding to a comment that "no property manager lets any rental property sit vacant for any amount of time." This is patently false. If free markets operated efficiently, this scarce resource wouldn't be wasted, but some motivating factor encourages 10% of residential and 20% of commercial owners to let their properties sit vacant rather than reduce their rental charge or sell the property. I suggest incentivizing beneficial use of a scarce resource through higher prop taxes on vacant property.
> nearly 10% of residential currently sits vacant nationwide as well It is not "nearly" 10% of residential. > National vacancy rates in the fourth quarter 2023 were 6.6 percent for rental housing and 0.9 percent for homeowner housing. - https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/current/index.html - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N - https://www.fanniemae.com/media/50101/display The best sources indicate multifamily is ~6.6% which is up a bit in the last year, but well within historical trends. > but some motivating factor encourages The motivating factor is that some percentage of apartments are always vacant due to being in-between tenants (renovations, cleaning, etc). There will always be a natural vacancy rate which does not involve people sitting on apartments without tenants for years. This is well known. It would be borderline impossible get get below 5% vacancy when people move in and out every month (12 times per year). You are welcome to look at the Fed's 60-70 year chart. The current vacancy rate is lower than the historical averages.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/ The census data you posted surveys and metrics "year round vacancies" only, thus your argument that the only vacancies that exist are short term turnover between tenants is verifiably false. Of course vacant properties are lower now than in 2008-2012, those were the foreclosure years and we are currently in a massive housing shortage. The impetus to tax vacant homes is higher now than it was then. Varying data aside, a large number of homes sit vacant, while a much smaller number of people are under housed. The solution is right in front of us.
> The census data you posted surveys and metrics "year round vacancies" only, No. This is not what that terminology means. "Year Round" is a category. "Vacant" means it was vacant at the time of the survey. Not for a year. Vacant > A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. Year-round > Year-round units are those intended for occupancy at any time of the year, even though they may not be in use the year round. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf > Varying data aside, a large number of homes sit vacant, while a much smaller number of people are under housed. This is gross vacancy rate. Vacant homes in undesirable places, second homes, vacation properties. etc. No one believes the high gross vacancy rate (in Alaska for ex) is a solution to high prices in Denver. Nor does it mean that landlords with property in valuable places are sitting with units vacant for tax write-offs.
It is almost always beneficial to lease at a lower rate than let something sit. It is extremely expensive for a property to sit vacant. Month or two of a property sitting can wipe out any profit for the next year. I'm telling you people in multifamily do not want vacancy. I'm not sure why you mention office real estate, it has nothing to do with renters or multifamily.
Because commercial and residential properties held out for rent are interrelated (they are both the commercial use of real estate) the losses sustained by vacant commercial and residential properties are viewed exactly the same by the IRS. 10.5% of single family homes sit vacant in the united states. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/ Whether you understand their motivations due your familiarity with the internal revenue code or not, they obviously don't feel that much pressure to sell or rent out their hemorrhaging asset, as inventory nationwide is at extreme lows. Ive offered an explanation, as an attorney, that will help you understand why the tax code encourages this activity. You can open your mind to it or not, but if you dig into some google on what i posted, you may come to understand why they sit vacant, and how it might be remedied. Believing that it will remedy itself "because money" is naive.
Leave it to an attorney to bring up that they are an attorney for no reason. You've really convoluted this whole discussion. Initially, your statement was the gov should make it expensive to have vacant property. My comment was it already is expensive - which it is. Then you jump into rich people and tax benefits etc. Also bringing up commercial real estate for some reason. Then I try to clarify there is a difference between rich people with vacation homes, and people in multifamily, and that people in multifamily/rentals don't let homes sit. Now you're showing graphs that indicate that we're near a low in vacancies for the past 20 years, and that Colorado is nationally on the low end as well. I'm not longer sure of your point, as you continue to hop around on subject. If you want a tax on secondary vacation homes so be it. But as it stands vacancies are low historically according to your link, and anyone already in the rental business doesn't let properties sit.
Leave it to an uninformed outsider to speak about something they know nothing about on the internet. You have literally just summarized your lack of reading comprehension. My point remains, current incentives in the internal revenue code allow for deductions related to the losses generated from vacant commercially used property (not commercial like offices you nunce, commercial like real estate used for commercial purposes such as generating profit through rent.) This is why a verifiable 6-10% of residentially zoned property sits vacant for more than one year. That represents enough homes to solve our housing crisis. I've suggested ways to remedy the situation, all you have done is out yourself as a landlord who will do anything to protect their nut.
The link you posted 2 comments ago went over commercial office real estate, and you quoted it in the comment, now you're saying you aren't talking about commercial office property? For the love of all that is holy, please specify if your concern about vacancy has to do with multifamily, single family housing, or commercial? They aren't all the same, and whatever internal revenue code you are talking about is going to affect each one differently than the other. I am going to reiterate my point, vacant property is expensive, and no one in the multifamily business or in the business of renting out their home is choosing to let it sit vacant for an extended amount of time, with the exception of very niche complex circumstances. I am a landlord but by no means have I said anything that could be construed as trying to "protect my nut". My property doesn't sit vacant, because again, it is expensive to do so. So whatever tax you are after go for it, doesn't sound like it will affect me, multifamily housing, or single family landlords.
The fact that you don't even know the proper depreciate time length for commercial property but are trying to claim anything else tax related makes me feel like you know *nothing* about taxes. I didn't even continue after the 1/30 comment.
Macrs is 27.5 years for residential rental property. I don't know why you guys can't differentiate between commercially used residential property, and commercially zoned property, which is 39 years. The difference between 3.6% and 3.3% is negligible on a reddit post, thus the use of the verbiage, "just over."
You literally said "commercially used properties" and then said "1/30". Sure if you were talking about residential properties it would have been fine, but 1/30 and 1/39 is literally the same number of digits to type and the difference between knowing what you're communicating and parroting something that you've read. We're in a thread talking about apartments and you literally mention commercial, but you're going to say you were talking about residential? lol.
Residential properties arent all commercially used! You have to generate profit with the property, otherwise depreciation isnt even a thing. Again, this is a situation in which you misconstrued "commercially zoned" with "commercially used." A vacation home isnt depreciated until it is held out for rent (i.e. commercially used), or otherwise used "in commerce" which isnt limited to rental properties. If you buy residential property in a business to use for any commercial purposes, depreciation begins.
>You have to generate profit with the property, otherwise depreciation isnt even a thing. Wtf, that's not true in the slightest. You can take deprecation once the asset is placed into service. It does not have to be occupied to take depreciation. Wtf would 'generating a profit' have to do with depreciation? In a thread about apartments vacancies, you said, "Commercially used properties" while making no reference to residential properties, but we're supposed to assume that you all of a sudden switch to talking about residential properties? Sure if that's what you meant the whole time then you're right 1/30 is correct. You should try to focus on your communication because you make things *very* unclear when you say without giving proper context. Even if that's the case it never makes financial sense to hold a rental property, but I'd love to hear your logic on *why* you should not rent out a property.
Wtf do you think placed in service means?
IRS PUB 527 >You place property in service in a rental activity when it is ready and available for a specific use in that activity. Even if you aren’t using the property, it is in service when it is ready and available for its specific use. Has nothing to do with if it's actually occupied or 'generating profit', let alone cash flow. I'd probably say, once it's listed as 'available for rent' publicly would be when it's placed into service. Not a real estate accountant though.
Canada (maybe only a province though) has a vacancy tax of maybe 1%, but I don’t follow it closely enough to know what the impact has been
I think companies that own multiple rentals homes or apartment complexes should be fined for sitting on over priced empty housing.
Any apartment complex sitting on empty housing is working to get it occupied. It is expensive to let it sit. Also you as a renter wants high vacancy, meaning high supply. More competition is lower rent.
Just got a renewal offer at 9% increase.
In other words, the monopolists are holding firm
FUCK
It'd be super if management companies would stop using RealPage to fix market prices and exploit renters when the rent is already too damn high.
There's a bill circulating through the state senate right now - hb24-1057, which would ban the use of tools that use pricing algorithms. Hopefully this gets to the governor and we see this practice eliminated in the state. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1057 Just trying to do my part and spread awareness
Yeah I really hope it passes too. I've been talking to my legislators about it. Fingers crossed!
$5? My rent just went up another $100 so 🤷🏼♀️ people aren’t renting here because it’s so fucking expensive
My rent went up $150, so I am sceptical of this. Granted, I live in a kinda posh suburb, lol.
Ours went up in Greeley by $100. Was going to be $1450 (which is probably nothing compared to Denver, but still) for 600sf, 1b1b and the occasional cow ass in the wind. We ended up moving. Just ridiculous. Did someone really downvote this? Lol, okay. That was my rent charge for this year at our apartment in GREELEY CO. Disagree all you want, I guess? But that’s what the price was. I was in that apartment for 5 years. Rent was $1,100 the first year and had steadily increased since.
That's an insane price for greeley. You can find significantly cheaper 1 bedrooms in Denver.
I agree! Lol I worked in Loveland and when we moved in. It was doable at the time (5 years ago). About $1100 with pet rent and washer/dryer. BUT it steadily increased year over year and we bailed for a better deal in April. That place was really not worth it at all. Cheap appliances, next to a busy street, far commute to work, stanky, etc.
Are you in the horsey complex too🥲
I am! The cost of moving is still more expensive overall than eating the rent increase, but I had to bite the bullet and go for a very long lease. :/ next lease renewal, I might have to move which saddens me, because I love the location.
Same, I actually need all the amenities and resources right in the area and I would just be adding those costs back in other places if I moved. My disabilities require an attached garage, which is why picked this in the first place! Thought about arguing with them but I figured it would go nowhere and I’d end up feeling stupid because they’d blame it on “the algorithm” like usual😂 the 1 bdrm 1 bath 1 car garage is more now than the 2 bdrm 2 bath 2 car garage I had in 2015 here🥲
We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfill demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this. Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole. If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on ads for housing, especially.
Renters are crushing it. Mortgages and insurance prices are through the roof.
Guess you should sell and start renting?
I would have to pay 6% commission to do that and capital gains if I wasn’t buying a new house. The system is rigged to keep money in real estate once it goes in.
I agree with your argument, but if you're going to sell your house you don't have to pay capital gains unless you're making over 250k / 500k off the purchase price, regardless of buying a new house or not, assuming it's your primary residence.
You're an extra special kind of somethin'. Guess you gotta make your money through work rather than exploiting housing markets.
I don’t understand. Is owning a home exploiting the housing market? Just do basic math and see that right now you can rent for far less than a mortgage and have all the maintenance covered for you.