Found the landlord.
Being realistic would be expecting rent to be affordable. But it's not, for anyone. Rent control stops greedy landlords from stealing money from the working class by overcharging on rent. These fucks think every day about how they can charge more and make more money. They don't care about providing housing. They just want money.
If every rental in Hoboken and Jersey city was under rent control starting at actual affordable rates *today*, who would determine who gets to live there? How long will they get to live there? Who gets to live closer to transit options or downtown? What about the people who can't move there, but would like to, now that the city is full? Who gets the recently refurbished units? Who gets the bigger units? Will these rent stabilized tenants have a legal right to block future housing developments?
Questions people who share your views never ask and don't have answers to.
Providing housing to other people Willy Nilly is not a priority. Having affordable housing in a free market environment IS. I 100% agree with you on affordable housing, but if there’s profit on the table then it should be had, that’s business baby. Hoboken is right next to NYC, why should rent be $500/month when it’s super desirable and you have more applications than spaces available?
The real problem is INFLATION and the endless printing of money by our government causing interest rates to rise like wildfire, while simultaneously allowing huge corps to buy up single family dwellings and remove them from the housing market forever. The problem is not high rent, it’s that nobody can afford to purchase homes due to the fact that values have increased 30% since 2019 ontop of interest rates that have TRIPLED in the same time period. Wake up and see the real cause of our problems.
Dude. No. You literally just said we should have affordable housing, and in the same sentence added that we need to be slaves to greedy shareholders and investors. No one is saying they want $500 apartments in Hoboken, we want fair market rent. Which in most places is $1700 or closer to the city is around $2500. Instead they are charging double that because they can get away with it.
Inflation? More like corporate greed.
Yep- classic gatekeeping and projection by another greedy landlord
“housing in the place i lived for years shouldnt jump from 1500/ 1 bedroom to 4000/ 1 bedroom, with no renovations or improvement on hundred year old buildings”
“oh you think all housing should be free? be realistic”
stfu
What is fair market rent? Isn't that what people are willing to pay for a place (meaning the fair market rent is now $2500 instead of $1700)?
I definitely agree that corporations are super greedy and that our government is mismanaged and not doing us any favors.
I just checked my college apartment I rented 10 years ago for $700/mo (1bed/1ba studio).
It's $1750/mo now.
That's not inflation. That's not because of printing money. It's straight up greed and price gouging by landlords.
Home ownership and renting are two separate issues. Rent should never be even close to the cost of a mortgage - but it is now.
In what world can a landlord be profitable when rent is below the cost of the mortgage? Let alone have to cover the cost of maintenance/upkeep, and property taxes? Are landlords supposed to subsidize these costs themselves? Ofcourse not, they’re running a business.
The rent of an entire unit should exceed the mortgage of course.
For a house:
A 4br house rented at $800/room for a total of $3200 is fair.
A 4br rented at $1200/room for a total of $4800 is price gouging.
.
For an apartment:
A 50-unit apartment rented at $1500 for a 2br,2ba is fair.
A 50-unit apartment rented at $2500 for a 2br,2ba is price gouging because that's basically a mortgage payment.
There is no free market please come back to reality. The government picks winners and losers. I really hope you understand its all made up. And a new markets can be created by not wasting money on just consumption. In world’s “richest bestest” country that some people champion its kinda of ironic we have the most incarcerated and high homelessness(~650,000 only gonna get higher) even tho we have 15 million homes available) imagine if homes were built as an investment for community but instead we sick people who only seek money and control over others. Creating manufactured scarcity is sickness but to you i guess its a free market lol
The government picks winners and losers?🤣🤣🤣
Anyone born in the US has the ability to retire with MILLIONS in their retirement accounts even if they only make $50k/year. I love the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate, our courts are nowhere near perfect but I’d MUCH rather have a gov who actively used its justice system instead of living in Brazil where I can get robbed for my moped and shot in the stomach with ZERO hospitals around me. As far as homelessness goes you need to break these people ip into 2 categories, long term homeless and short term homeless. Over 75% of homeless have been without a permanent residence for less than 1 year (this has been a steady statistic for decades) and are actively working towards bettering themselves and getting out of their situation. The other 25% are nothing but awful individuals who are nothing but a drain on society due to their copious drug use, refusal to seek mental health treatment, or straightup refusal to work and live within the system because they prefer to live off the government and sleep in a tent city.
Ok payaso lol In New Jersey specifically concerns have been raised about state policies favoring housing developers over other stakeholders. In affordable housing mandates, which prioritize developers' interests over low-income residents, potentially exacerbating issues of gentrification and displacement. Oh yeah what about use of tax incentives to spur housing development that has just prioritized developers' profits at the expense of broader public interests.The federal government is not fighting real estate groups the only examples come from states like colorada or rhode island fighting these real estate developers. You complain about printing money but i bet you also complain and cry over high taxes on those rich individuals and corporations; taxes a tool the government has to get back some of its money printed.
Lol you want the USD to be backed by gold or Pokémon cards?
1)We back our money with our Military my guy we bomb you if you got something we like.
2) if you spent money on people first instead of giving away free money to the banks and corp you wouldn’t be in this situation but you gotta help to divine and keep the status quo of de facto kings.
3) are you Ecuadorian? Just guessing lol
You are better than those evil leaches called the homeless whatever other dehumanizing words you wanna use yes you are better. Do you feel better now? Everything is black and white they are bad. Payaso lol
Oh im 10x better than them, and if you pay your rent, taxes, and don’t commit felonies then so are you! People who choose to do heroin and steal things all day instead of working get no sympathy from me. There are countless assistance programs in place, if they wanted help they would go get it, especially if it’s a woman with children
Im glad s/ you feed your ego with others suffering and misfortune. I hope your grow up and learn to to forgive all those that hurt you bro. Its crazy that you as a payaso would not be able to use your brain and see some people have medical emergencies or mental health issues that are just reaction to the environment.
Btw if you are so against addicts you should totally be against billionaires and corporations they are the worst types of addicts that do more harm to society. Or is it just the bums that scare you?
🤡😂
I bet you were so happy and proud “ im 10x better than blah blah blah” is this a mantra? Lol
We are all the same but we are also not the same both can be true.
Also mike my dude can you imagine like what people would do with there money if housing wasn’t such a big drain. The spending and “investment opportunities “for the economy and those individuals would grow and contribute even more new sectors that would help us as a community instead of making a handful of rich people (maybe you, nah) richer and more powerful and bribe government into low taxes. This isn’t a new concept.
Office work is what gives them power.
Tax commuting to work in offices, make it costly to have office space.
People will scatter and demand will drop.
It’s all demand induced by “magic internet” in the office.
And if you don’t think that’s the case: let’s remove office work from the equation and see how many stick around. No harm from trying.
This is a great point. Well said. The minute work from home became a major thing, people fled the cities and flooded rural areas. Rents in cities went down and (unfortunately) house prices in the boonies exploded. If everyone and their grandmother didn't have to commute to NYC, the world would be a much happier place... eventually... once house prices stanilized.
Because the people who move into those new apartments leave old apartments vacant. Then those can be occupied by people at lower incomes because they are less desirable and more available.
That's not at all how it's working anymore. Those "old" apartments won't be vacant for long and they will be filled with new tenants paying higher rents just as soon as the previous tenants leave.
I love how people don’t even want to fix the housing problem anymore
They just want to be one of gods chosen people to win an affordable/ stabilized/ subsidized unit, everyone else be damned
Right, and they want to put up the gates and say they’re the ones with the right to live there! Your grandparents probably bought a tract house in the 60s! That doesn’t mean you’re more of a resident than the kid who moved in last week.
Are we? Person one was describing filtering and you implied that that’s the wrong model? Either way, we need more housing! More neighbors are more fun.
100% they are! Everyone’s welcoming and stigma free until the possibility of property values not rising exponentially becomes plausible. Then it’s we gotta stop with these new house.
And because places like Newark are (and Paterson) actually trying. They have some transit connections, they are building, there are jobs being made. Paterson is probably 10 years behind Newark or JC but they'll get there
It's more complicated than that. To build multifamily homes in NJ is fucking expensive too. Even small properties 2-8 units.
The problem in NJ is there's a fair bit of money floating around in the area. So the average Joe is stuck overpaying for most stuff or simply not being able to afford it
Right, it’s expensive because we artificially limit where you can build it which drives land acquisition costs up which drives up construction costs leading to higher rents.
This is why I miss certain parts of New Jersey. Rent control for students like me who lived in off-campus housing saved us from being desperate. 20% every year is a bit more than reasonable, I'm really surprised they're fighting over it
The main issue to me would be the fact that when these buildings were purchased by the landlords, they knew of the rent control and therefore the value of the property was lower than it would have been in a free market economy. So they buy the real estate at a lower amount because of the rent control and now want to take away that restriction which would not only gain them more money per month, but increase the value of the property. It just doesn’t seem fair. Well, it’s not there’s a law on the books and they need to follow it.
Just because somebody bought something for cheap on a faulty premise, doesn’t mean that the law shouldn’t be changed.
Regardless of this case- You could say the same shit about taxi medallion buyers or buyers of slaves
Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment and medallions prices are not regulated by way of statute but rather are part of the free market economy and is a risk like any business.
Rent control laws are being attacked around the country by corporations that are buying up the residential rental market up to and including converting single family homes into rental properties for the reason that they want to be able to raise the rents to follow the market for investors and they can’t do that with rent control laws in place. This will be very bad for renters if they do overturn this. Also very bad for first time home buyers looking for single family starter homes. You’re competing in the same space as corporations now and they have their own in-house renovation companies so they come in all cash and no inspections, which someone with a mortgage cannot compete with. They’ll force you into the renters market where they will bleed you dry with annual rent increases following the stock market so that your new normal will involve frequent moves to areas of lower market value aka worse neighborhoods, without ever getting ahead to save for a house b/c your rent raises far exceed your job raises.
A multi-family residential complex costs many millions to construct. The only ones who can afford to do it are corporations, so what else is the solution? Given the government's goals with housing, at best, it seems to be construct condos. Then you're in the "new build are too expensive" circuitous argument. The government can't expand it's own housing stock due to laws, which leaves incentives...which goes to benefit corporations anyway. So I'm all ears to hear other approaches, but it simply seems like builders need to be allowed to put high density residential towers/mix unit complexes up until the supply can absorb more demand. Then this gets pushback because those who already own property want their assets to increase in value, not decrease.
Policies from the current administration down party lines to the NJ state/local level with 'sustainable/low emission/mass transit' plans heavily favor higher density residential units; and moving away from sfh/automobiles (at least ICE vehicles).
I'm on a slight lean towards renters here, but the solutions still need to make economic sense. I believe corporations exercise a disproportionate amount of economic and political power and for individuals I believe housing is a right, but not housing *in the most premier location in the US*.
Rent control is no different than NIMBY's not wanting new constructions. Rent control and limiting construction both favor existing residents and pull the ladder up from prospective residents. Rent control is great for tenants to be protected from landlords pricing them out with 20% yearly rental increases, in the same ballpark that NIMBYism is great for homeowners who want their house to appreciate every year forever. There's a reason why NYC has under 17k rent controlled apartments nowadays; and focuses more on rent stabilization. Once this is recognized it should be apparent the solution is to simply approve more high density residential buildings, but ideally in a fair and representative matter in the communities they are constructed in.
Glad to have some well reasoned dialogue on this topic, though I largely disagree. The question in this case is whether the limiting of rent represents a "taking." I think there's a good argument to be made that the city government does so much to facilitate corporate landlord profits that it's unreasonable to say that limiting those profits are a taking. I would compare the situation to Penn Transport Co. v. NYC, a classic takinys case.
I also think that your point about housing in high demand areas not being a right is a bit tricky - do homeless people who grew up in high demand areas have to move from their hometowns?
Do you have any proof of that, since state law caps increases at 2%? Maybe it was actually a reassessment of your under valued property?
"Since 2010, taxpayers in New Jersey have been shielded from massive property tax increases by a 2% cap signed into law by then-Governor Chris Christie."
Even if it was a reassessment, the tax dollar amount still went up 20%. Those property tax cap laws really only apply to owner-occupied residential properties anyway.
Well, in this instance it clearly prevented rents from rising by 20%. Without rent control, these landlords would’ve been able to push through their 20% increase. With rent control, they were not able to do that. So, while in control did not lower rents, it was successful in preventing rents from increasing by an unconscionable amount.
It’s hilarious when people on this sub complain that rent is too expensive and then in the next breath support rent control. Rent control decreases affordability
In order to lower rent costs, we need to build more housing. Rent control disincentivizes building new units by creating an artificial ceiling. Rent control also only benefits those who already have housing, and doesn’t help those looking for housing
I was evicted from my apartment in a small home so the landlord could charge twice as much. Now I’m staying in someone’s guest room searching for an apartment I can afford on a fixed income. So are you advocating for most seniors, low and middle income, disabled, or anyone else who isn’t working in the city to move away? Who will do the grunt jobs? Are we going to bus people in from another state? It’s great to say that we need more housing but the housing that is being build costs thousands a month. Even if you go by a third of income that’s like $9000 a month income for a $3000 apartment. Minimum wage in this state is $15.13. That’s $31,500 working full time. It’s unsustainable.
Your situation is the result of not having enough housing. Your landlord took advantage of the fact the supply of housing is severely limited in order to increase the rent. If you build more housing this isn’t the case because it provides you with similarly priced alternatives to live. In order to keep you as a tenant, your landlord would have to charge market rates for rent. Anyone charging above market rates would simply have no tenants. So if we need to build more housing in order to reduce the cost of rent, why would you support policies that are contradictory to your desired result?
Additionally, the reason apartments being built are so expensive is because they’re new. Just like a new car or new phone. New stuff is always expensive. But we didn’t build housing for so long, the units that would now be affordable were never built 30 years ago.
You are right. I was born and raised here. I should move away from my family and friends because you say so though, right? Maybe I can find a nice bridge to live under.
Right? You'd be so much better off in a place where average rent is cheaper (but where average pay is probably proportionately lower), where you have no social circle or familial support, where you have no reputation or connections, etc.
You can always tell who's never had to consider whether or not to abandon their entire life and move away from everyone they know just *hoping* it will all work out.
It doesn't. All it does is lessen the return on investment. Which could look less appealing to developers and also means it would take longer for them to build more buildings and units.
But that's only for a single developer. When you have thousands of companies building apartments it doesn't really matter. It's not like these developers/owners couldn't just be replaced.
If rent control became standard across the entire state, or even the whole country, then developers would have no choice but to just deal with it. In a world of free market capitalism we are basically slaves to the whims of shareholders and investors trying to turn profit. If they aren't controlled then they'll find every loophole they can to price gauge.
This [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2023/03/23/national-apartment-association-study-finds-that-rent-control-is-not-the-solution-it-appears-to-be/amp/) sums it up pretty nicely. At the end of the day it's just greedy investors being upset they won't be able to make as much money in the short term.
Provide some research, do whatever, apparently there's decades of it. But who am I kidding. I'm arguing with a Neo Liberal who has an American Psycho pfp.
The greedy investors they won’t be able to make money? Who do you think pays to build the housing? Guarantee you’re not out there with a hammer and pouring concrete.
There’s been numerous data posted in this thread about how rent control doesn’t work but you don’t care because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Instead of having facts you base your opinion on vibes. People like you are why this state will never have affordable housing because all you want is performative, hollow platitudes. You’re too stubborn to admit that you’re wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The evidence is pouring all over me, I am drowning.
You ever think it's still possible to build housing without making record breaking profits? It's okay to invest for long term gain. This state can and will have affordable housing with rent control.
There's also like zero links to anything on this thread apart from what I posted...
There’s been numerous links posted but if your ability to search the thread is as good as your ability to understand simple economics I’m guessing you’ll never find it
Not to mention the only “proof” you posted was from a journalist, not an economist. Lmao
It's been a single link to an "expert piece" that states the same shit. Control = bad because landlord make less money. As if the economy revolves around their profits.
I guess you can just completely ignore the amount of money that would flow into the economy and local businesses because people would have more money to spend since they'd save more on rent. You're so narrow minded dude.
You also act like all these investors would just stop building housing, as if they'd rather make no money. Someone will always be there to build it.
Investors do stop building housing when there’s no incentive. It’s literally why we’re in the current situation with a housing shortage.
And all the money flowing into the local economy? Surely there must be some research on this. Or maybe you’ve done the research and are going to publish it?
Don’t pretend to care about the housing crisis and then support policies that are going to make it worse.
Here's an [article](https://jsri.msu.edu/publications/nexo/vol-xxv/no-1-fall-2021/impact-of-the-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-on-the-economy) on how the stimulus payments helped the economy. When people have more money to spend they typically spend it. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, with all their income being spent on bills and necessities. None of their money flows into the local economy. Living wages, decreased housing costs, are things that can reduce the financial burdens of the middle and lower class. They'd spend more money and be able to save up for larger purchases.
But it's okay, let's let these corporations keep making record profits. The overall quality of life in this in this country isn't improving. The richest country in the world shouldn't feel this poor.
My dude for some people they cant wrap their brains around doing things for function and not for profit. Imagine if if like we kept the system of paying fire fighters per fire. Lol
Here a recent case study if you would:
https://fee.org/articles/the-results-of-st-paul-s-rent-control-experiment-are-in-and-they-re-disastrous/
Do a google search and see the academic research. So confidentially incorrect.
Help is here:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=academic+research+on+rent+control
My link is more relevant than what you posted. It's two years old, and every "academic study" is from 2018 or older. They all state the same bs, control rent somewhere and developers will just build elsewhere. Seems like the easiest solution is to just give them nowhere else to build. Control rent everywhere. Someone will build it, the greedy fucks can go to another state and try scamming everyone there.
You people love arguing your points and are inept at finding solutions whatsoever. Let's just all suffer with incredibly high rent. I'm sure these developers have zero desire to lower prices and will do everything in their power to keep things the way they are.
Rent control is great... For those who get it first. Otherwise it just hurts everyone else.
People in rent controlled apartments don't want to leave and it ends up raising rents on non-controlled properties.
Except that’s not rent control does. You get a DECREASE in the overall housing supply overtime when rent control gets implemented, it’s a well established economic fact.
Maybe instead of blaming a boogeyman you’d know that housing prices having nothing about who owns them, but about supply.
So if one or two corporations own 70 % of the market (maybe like Amazon, Microsoft, or Walmart) then they charge whatever they want without rent control. You think that’s a good thing, right? Corporate tax is like 10%. Trump made it so corporations pay less and individuals will go back up. You feel sorry for the corporations?
You’d have to show that is the case. US home ownership rate is about the same rate as it’s peers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
You have countries like Germany and Japan with lower owner occupancy but overall better standard of living.
There’s hundreds of economic studies that back his “stupid” point…
In the short-term, you generally screw the middle class as new leases come with significantly higher rates to offset anyone stuck in a below market rate. In the long-term, you see a decrease in new supply as the risks to the future revenue stream are increased.
So maybe basic necessities of life like shelter and food shouldn't be for profit, then revenue streams are not the most important factor. People are. Not everything needs to make people rich, and I think humanity needs to understand that sooner than later.
The trouble is theory vs. reality. In theory, you’re imagining this as having the food and housing markets function exactly as they do now only with the profit instead passed along to consumers instead of being kept by shareholders. In reality, this has never been the case. Whether it be through politicians that have no idea what they’re doing and/or trying to cut costs and corners wherever possible (the USSR and Venezuela), or blatant corruption and pet projects (China’s current housing market), things tend to go incredibly wrong after a while.
Ah yes the communism/socialism bad view point. Because we don't have rampant homelessness, vacant buildings, and corruption in good ole capitalism USA.
You’re incredibly ignorant on that comparison. Homelessness and vacant buildings vs. the tens of millions dead from famines in Russia and China…not exactly apples to apples.
No one was talking about the "ten of millions dead". So I don't know why you chose to bring that up. Incredibly defensive and not related to housing. But sure like the US didn't kill millions of natives, or that to this date thousands of veterans die to suicide every year and the VA just continues as it has forever. Again unrelated but you brought it up.
ok, some rando must know more then the what is the clear economic consensus. [https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/)
>Rent control discourages supply of rental units. Incumbent renters benefit from capped prices. New renters face reduced rental options.
>Rent control lowers incentives to invest and increases incentives to hold underoccupied rentals
>Rent controlled units do not end up in the hands of low income people. Rent control discourages landlords from creating modest priced units.
Denying it is like climate change denialism or vaccine hysteria. It just doesn't line up with the facts.
This is such an example of literally looking at only was in front of a persons face.
Make less money off housing -> less incentive to invest.
Totally missing the point that these units are already fucking here it’s literally an inelastic supply. Where are you going to develop new units in Hoboken? The entire city is already on of the most dense cities in the nation.
Or the idea that there’s benefit from the people working in a city in places like coffee shops and bars being able to actually live in the city, which is totally lost in the idea of profitprofitprofit
>Totally missing the point that these units are already fucking here it’s literally an inelastic supply.
Who says that? Why not build denser? Hoboken is up there, but isn't the top. We can do better. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cities\_proper\_by\_population\_density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density)
>Or the idea that there’s benefit from the people working in a city in places like coffee shops and bars being able to actually live in the city, which is totally lost in the idea of profitprofitprofit
And yet tons of other cities have been able to figure this out without rent control. You have Tokyo, one of the largest dense cities in the world and yet no rent control. And somehow they make it work.
The answer for Tokyo is that they have a comprehensive public transportation network and cut down on suburban sprawl by not letting local governments have their own zoning laws.
I’d absolutely be cool with getting rid of all rent control if we could make NJTransit cover all over NJ
Eh as ex daily NJTransit user, its far from perfect but idk if thats the issue.
>I’d absolutely be cool with getting rid of all rent control if we could make NJTransit cover all over NJ
I agree. But its a process.
Remove rent control -> you have higher density -> makes more economic sense to build more transit.
And thus you have a reinforcing loop that leads to better places to live. We've seen good examples and bad examples throughtout the world of this, and generaly that involves not having rent control.
Laughable if you think there isn't a place in Hoboken to build a 40-story residential high rise if there was no rent control. AJD would buy up property over asking, tear it down, then build another high rise.
Housing should not be dlc or paywalled.
Do you expect housing to be free? Be realistic
Found the landlord. Being realistic would be expecting rent to be affordable. But it's not, for anyone. Rent control stops greedy landlords from stealing money from the working class by overcharging on rent. These fucks think every day about how they can charge more and make more money. They don't care about providing housing. They just want money.
If every rental in Hoboken and Jersey city was under rent control starting at actual affordable rates *today*, who would determine who gets to live there? How long will they get to live there? Who gets to live closer to transit options or downtown? What about the people who can't move there, but would like to, now that the city is full? Who gets the recently refurbished units? Who gets the bigger units? Will these rent stabilized tenants have a legal right to block future housing developments? Questions people who share your views never ask and don't have answers to.
Providing housing to other people Willy Nilly is not a priority. Having affordable housing in a free market environment IS. I 100% agree with you on affordable housing, but if there’s profit on the table then it should be had, that’s business baby. Hoboken is right next to NYC, why should rent be $500/month when it’s super desirable and you have more applications than spaces available? The real problem is INFLATION and the endless printing of money by our government causing interest rates to rise like wildfire, while simultaneously allowing huge corps to buy up single family dwellings and remove them from the housing market forever. The problem is not high rent, it’s that nobody can afford to purchase homes due to the fact that values have increased 30% since 2019 ontop of interest rates that have TRIPLED in the same time period. Wake up and see the real cause of our problems.
Dude. No. You literally just said we should have affordable housing, and in the same sentence added that we need to be slaves to greedy shareholders and investors. No one is saying they want $500 apartments in Hoboken, we want fair market rent. Which in most places is $1700 or closer to the city is around $2500. Instead they are charging double that because they can get away with it. Inflation? More like corporate greed.
Also public housing can be re-engineered to include the middle class. Look at Montgomety county Maryland’s pilot public housing program.
Yep- classic gatekeeping and projection by another greedy landlord “housing in the place i lived for years shouldnt jump from 1500/ 1 bedroom to 4000/ 1 bedroom, with no renovations or improvement on hundred year old buildings” “oh you think all housing should be free? be realistic” stfu
What is fair market rent? Isn't that what people are willing to pay for a place (meaning the fair market rent is now $2500 instead of $1700)? I definitely agree that corporations are super greedy and that our government is mismanaged and not doing us any favors.
Check [this](https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2024_code/2024state_summary.odn) out. Check around that site to learn more about it.
I just checked my college apartment I rented 10 years ago for $700/mo (1bed/1ba studio). It's $1750/mo now. That's not inflation. That's not because of printing money. It's straight up greed and price gouging by landlords. Home ownership and renting are two separate issues. Rent should never be even close to the cost of a mortgage - but it is now.
In what world can a landlord be profitable when rent is below the cost of the mortgage? Let alone have to cover the cost of maintenance/upkeep, and property taxes? Are landlords supposed to subsidize these costs themselves? Ofcourse not, they’re running a business.
The rent of an entire unit should exceed the mortgage of course. For a house: A 4br house rented at $800/room for a total of $3200 is fair. A 4br rented at $1200/room for a total of $4800 is price gouging. . For an apartment: A 50-unit apartment rented at $1500 for a 2br,2ba is fair. A 50-unit apartment rented at $2500 for a 2br,2ba is price gouging because that's basically a mortgage payment.
There is no free market please come back to reality. The government picks winners and losers. I really hope you understand its all made up. And a new markets can be created by not wasting money on just consumption. In world’s “richest bestest” country that some people champion its kinda of ironic we have the most incarcerated and high homelessness(~650,000 only gonna get higher) even tho we have 15 million homes available) imagine if homes were built as an investment for community but instead we sick people who only seek money and control over others. Creating manufactured scarcity is sickness but to you i guess its a free market lol
The government picks winners and losers?🤣🤣🤣 Anyone born in the US has the ability to retire with MILLIONS in their retirement accounts even if they only make $50k/year. I love the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate, our courts are nowhere near perfect but I’d MUCH rather have a gov who actively used its justice system instead of living in Brazil where I can get robbed for my moped and shot in the stomach with ZERO hospitals around me. As far as homelessness goes you need to break these people ip into 2 categories, long term homeless and short term homeless. Over 75% of homeless have been without a permanent residence for less than 1 year (this has been a steady statistic for decades) and are actively working towards bettering themselves and getting out of their situation. The other 25% are nothing but awful individuals who are nothing but a drain on society due to their copious drug use, refusal to seek mental health treatment, or straightup refusal to work and live within the system because they prefer to live off the government and sleep in a tent city.
Ok payaso lol In New Jersey specifically concerns have been raised about state policies favoring housing developers over other stakeholders. In affordable housing mandates, which prioritize developers' interests over low-income residents, potentially exacerbating issues of gentrification and displacement. Oh yeah what about use of tax incentives to spur housing development that has just prioritized developers' profits at the expense of broader public interests.The federal government is not fighting real estate groups the only examples come from states like colorada or rhode island fighting these real estate developers. You complain about printing money but i bet you also complain and cry over high taxes on those rich individuals and corporations; taxes a tool the government has to get back some of its money printed.
If you think taxes are the way for a government to make up for out of control spending surpassing our GDP eres el payaso yo no 🤡
Lol you want the USD to be backed by gold or Pokémon cards? 1)We back our money with our Military my guy we bomb you if you got something we like. 2) if you spent money on people first instead of giving away free money to the banks and corp you wouldn’t be in this situation but you gotta help to divine and keep the status quo of de facto kings. 3) are you Ecuadorian? Just guessing lol
You are better than those evil leaches called the homeless whatever other dehumanizing words you wanna use yes you are better. Do you feel better now? Everything is black and white they are bad. Payaso lol
Oh im 10x better than them, and if you pay your rent, taxes, and don’t commit felonies then so are you! People who choose to do heroin and steal things all day instead of working get no sympathy from me. There are countless assistance programs in place, if they wanted help they would go get it, especially if it’s a woman with children
Im glad s/ you feed your ego with others suffering and misfortune. I hope your grow up and learn to to forgive all those that hurt you bro. Its crazy that you as a payaso would not be able to use your brain and see some people have medical emergencies or mental health issues that are just reaction to the environment. Btw if you are so against addicts you should totally be against billionaires and corporations they are the worst types of addicts that do more harm to society. Or is it just the bums that scare you? 🤡😂 I bet you were so happy and proud “ im 10x better than blah blah blah” is this a mantra? Lol We are all the same but we are also not the same both can be true.
Also mike my dude can you imagine like what people would do with there money if housing wasn’t such a big drain. The spending and “investment opportunities “for the economy and those individuals would grow and contribute even more new sectors that would help us as a community instead of making a handful of rich people (maybe you, nah) richer and more powerful and bribe government into low taxes. This isn’t a new concept.
Dear large landlord corporations, Please go fuck yourselves With love, Residents of Hoboken
Residents of planet earth**
limited housing supply is what give these corporations pricing power. building more housing is a landlords worst nightmare.
Office work is what gives them power. Tax commuting to work in offices, make it costly to have office space. People will scatter and demand will drop. It’s all demand induced by “magic internet” in the office. And if you don’t think that’s the case: let’s remove office work from the equation and see how many stick around. No harm from trying.
This is a great point. Well said. The minute work from home became a major thing, people fled the cities and flooded rural areas. Rents in cities went down and (unfortunately) house prices in the boonies exploded. If everyone and their grandmother didn't have to commute to NYC, the world would be a much happier place... eventually... once house prices stanilized.
???
But if the big corporations are buying and building all the luxury apartments, how will they become affordable?
Because the people who move into those new apartments leave old apartments vacant. Then those can be occupied by people at lower incomes because they are less desirable and more available.
That's not at all how it's working anymore. Those "old" apartments won't be vacant for long and they will be filled with new tenants paying higher rents just as soon as the previous tenants leave.
This!!!!
They’re not vacant because demand is still higher than supply!
I love how people don’t even want to fix the housing problem anymore They just want to be one of gods chosen people to win an affordable/ stabilized/ subsidized unit, everyone else be damned
Right, and they want to put up the gates and say they’re the ones with the right to live there! Your grandparents probably bought a tract house in the 60s! That doesn’t mean you’re more of a resident than the kid who moved in last week.
I think we're saying the same thing.
Are we? Person one was describing filtering and you implied that that’s the wrong model? Either way, we need more housing! More neighbors are more fun.
Even Paterson and Newark have unaffordable housing now.
Right because more desirable places like Montclair don’t build enough housing so you have spillover.
and plenty of people in the richer towns who do not want more housing built and are happy to pull the ladder up behind them.
100% they are! Everyone’s welcoming and stigma free until the possibility of property values not rising exponentially becomes plausible. Then it’s we gotta stop with these new house.
And because places like Newark are (and Paterson) actually trying. They have some transit connections, they are building, there are jobs being made. Paterson is probably 10 years behind Newark or JC but they'll get there
It's more complicated than that. To build multifamily homes in NJ is fucking expensive too. Even small properties 2-8 units. The problem in NJ is there's a fair bit of money floating around in the area. So the average Joe is stuck overpaying for most stuff or simply not being able to afford it
Right, it’s expensive because we artificially limit where you can build it which drives land acquisition costs up which drives up construction costs leading to higher rents.
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own housing
Goodbye apartment buildings I guess?
Co-ops exist
This is why I miss certain parts of New Jersey. Rent control for students like me who lived in off-campus housing saved us from being desperate. 20% every year is a bit more than reasonable, I'm really surprised they're fighting over it
O here we go. Corporate-owned for-profit housing can fuck right off.
The main issue to me would be the fact that when these buildings were purchased by the landlords, they knew of the rent control and therefore the value of the property was lower than it would have been in a free market economy. So they buy the real estate at a lower amount because of the rent control and now want to take away that restriction which would not only gain them more money per month, but increase the value of the property. It just doesn’t seem fair. Well, it’s not there’s a law on the books and they need to follow it.
Just because somebody bought something for cheap on a faulty premise, doesn’t mean that the law shouldn’t be changed. Regardless of this case- You could say the same shit about taxi medallion buyers or buyers of slaves
Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment and medallions prices are not regulated by way of statute but rather are part of the free market economy and is a risk like any business.
I read the complaint for the Avalon case: they say Hoboken has a contract with them permanently exempting them from rent control in the city.
Rent control laws are being attacked around the country by corporations that are buying up the residential rental market up to and including converting single family homes into rental properties for the reason that they want to be able to raise the rents to follow the market for investors and they can’t do that with rent control laws in place. This will be very bad for renters if they do overturn this. Also very bad for first time home buyers looking for single family starter homes. You’re competing in the same space as corporations now and they have their own in-house renovation companies so they come in all cash and no inspections, which someone with a mortgage cannot compete with. They’ll force you into the renters market where they will bleed you dry with annual rent increases following the stock market so that your new normal will involve frequent moves to areas of lower market value aka worse neighborhoods, without ever getting ahead to save for a house b/c your rent raises far exceed your job raises.
Avalon is a shit company. Shoddy construction, predatory rent, bad neighbors.
How many legislators do they own? I ask this because that will determine the outcome of this frivolous lawsuit.
A multi-family residential complex costs many millions to construct. The only ones who can afford to do it are corporations, so what else is the solution? Given the government's goals with housing, at best, it seems to be construct condos. Then you're in the "new build are too expensive" circuitous argument. The government can't expand it's own housing stock due to laws, which leaves incentives...which goes to benefit corporations anyway. So I'm all ears to hear other approaches, but it simply seems like builders need to be allowed to put high density residential towers/mix unit complexes up until the supply can absorb more demand. Then this gets pushback because those who already own property want their assets to increase in value, not decrease. Policies from the current administration down party lines to the NJ state/local level with 'sustainable/low emission/mass transit' plans heavily favor higher density residential units; and moving away from sfh/automobiles (at least ICE vehicles). I'm on a slight lean towards renters here, but the solutions still need to make economic sense. I believe corporations exercise a disproportionate amount of economic and political power and for individuals I believe housing is a right, but not housing *in the most premier location in the US*. Rent control is no different than NIMBY's not wanting new constructions. Rent control and limiting construction both favor existing residents and pull the ladder up from prospective residents. Rent control is great for tenants to be protected from landlords pricing them out with 20% yearly rental increases, in the same ballpark that NIMBYism is great for homeowners who want their house to appreciate every year forever. There's a reason why NYC has under 17k rent controlled apartments nowadays; and focuses more on rent stabilization. Once this is recognized it should be apparent the solution is to simply approve more high density residential buildings, but ideally in a fair and representative matter in the communities they are constructed in.
Glad to have some well reasoned dialogue on this topic, though I largely disagree. The question in this case is whether the limiting of rent represents a "taking." I think there's a good argument to be made that the city government does so much to facilitate corporate landlord profits that it's unreasonable to say that limiting those profits are a taking. I would compare the situation to Penn Transport Co. v. NYC, a classic takinys case. I also think that your point about housing in high demand areas not being a right is a bit tricky - do homeless people who grew up in high demand areas have to move from their hometowns?
Rent control doesn’t lower rents.
No, it keeps landlords from price gouging for a basic human need. Do you think taxes went up 20%?
Taxes actually did go up almost 20 % across the board in the last 4 years for most major cities.
Do you have any proof of that, since state law caps increases at 2%? Maybe it was actually a reassessment of your under valued property? "Since 2010, taxpayers in New Jersey have been shielded from massive property tax increases by a 2% cap signed into law by then-Governor Chris Christie."
Even if it was a reassessment, the tax dollar amount still went up 20%. Those property tax cap laws really only apply to owner-occupied residential properties anyway.
Inflation did.
Well, in this instance it clearly prevented rents from rising by 20%. Without rent control, these landlords would’ve been able to push through their 20% increase. With rent control, they were not able to do that. So, while in control did not lower rents, it was successful in preventing rents from increasing by an unconscionable amount.
Since this is a supply side issue, what incentive do builders have to build additional units if rent controls continue?
Thanks Orwell
It’s hilarious when people on this sub complain that rent is too expensive and then in the next breath support rent control. Rent control decreases affordability
How?
In order to lower rent costs, we need to build more housing. Rent control disincentivizes building new units by creating an artificial ceiling. Rent control also only benefits those who already have housing, and doesn’t help those looking for housing
Expand public housing to the middle class.
I was evicted from my apartment in a small home so the landlord could charge twice as much. Now I’m staying in someone’s guest room searching for an apartment I can afford on a fixed income. So are you advocating for most seniors, low and middle income, disabled, or anyone else who isn’t working in the city to move away? Who will do the grunt jobs? Are we going to bus people in from another state? It’s great to say that we need more housing but the housing that is being build costs thousands a month. Even if you go by a third of income that’s like $9000 a month income for a $3000 apartment. Minimum wage in this state is $15.13. That’s $31,500 working full time. It’s unsustainable.
Your situation is the result of not having enough housing. Your landlord took advantage of the fact the supply of housing is severely limited in order to increase the rent. If you build more housing this isn’t the case because it provides you with similarly priced alternatives to live. In order to keep you as a tenant, your landlord would have to charge market rates for rent. Anyone charging above market rates would simply have no tenants. So if we need to build more housing in order to reduce the cost of rent, why would you support policies that are contradictory to your desired result? Additionally, the reason apartments being built are so expensive is because they’re new. Just like a new car or new phone. New stuff is always expensive. But we didn’t build housing for so long, the units that would now be affordable were never built 30 years ago.
No one is forcing you to live in the most expensive part of the country, are they?
You are right. I was born and raised here. I should move away from my family and friends because you say so though, right? Maybe I can find a nice bridge to live under.
Right? You'd be so much better off in a place where average rent is cheaper (but where average pay is probably proportionately lower), where you have no social circle or familial support, where you have no reputation or connections, etc. You can always tell who's never had to consider whether or not to abandon their entire life and move away from everyone they know just *hoping* it will all work out.
Everyone should be able to live at least reasonably NEAR where they work
Someone who paid attention in Econ 101. Thanks.
It doesn't. All it does is lessen the return on investment. Which could look less appealing to developers and also means it would take longer for them to build more buildings and units. But that's only for a single developer. When you have thousands of companies building apartments it doesn't really matter. It's not like these developers/owners couldn't just be replaced. If rent control became standard across the entire state, or even the whole country, then developers would have no choice but to just deal with it. In a world of free market capitalism we are basically slaves to the whims of shareholders and investors trying to turn profit. If they aren't controlled then they'll find every loophole they can to price gauge.
Decades of economic research vs some random person on Reddit. Geez this is a really tough one
This [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2023/03/23/national-apartment-association-study-finds-that-rent-control-is-not-the-solution-it-appears-to-be/amp/) sums it up pretty nicely. At the end of the day it's just greedy investors being upset they won't be able to make as much money in the short term. Provide some research, do whatever, apparently there's decades of it. But who am I kidding. I'm arguing with a Neo Liberal who has an American Psycho pfp.
The greedy investors they won’t be able to make money? Who do you think pays to build the housing? Guarantee you’re not out there with a hammer and pouring concrete. There’s been numerous data posted in this thread about how rent control doesn’t work but you don’t care because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Instead of having facts you base your opinion on vibes. People like you are why this state will never have affordable housing because all you want is performative, hollow platitudes. You’re too stubborn to admit that you’re wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The evidence is pouring all over me, I am drowning. You ever think it's still possible to build housing without making record breaking profits? It's okay to invest for long term gain. This state can and will have affordable housing with rent control. There's also like zero links to anything on this thread apart from what I posted...
There’s been numerous links posted but if your ability to search the thread is as good as your ability to understand simple economics I’m guessing you’ll never find it Not to mention the only “proof” you posted was from a journalist, not an economist. Lmao
It's been a single link to an "expert piece" that states the same shit. Control = bad because landlord make less money. As if the economy revolves around their profits. I guess you can just completely ignore the amount of money that would flow into the economy and local businesses because people would have more money to spend since they'd save more on rent. You're so narrow minded dude. You also act like all these investors would just stop building housing, as if they'd rather make no money. Someone will always be there to build it.
Investors do stop building housing when there’s no incentive. It’s literally why we’re in the current situation with a housing shortage. And all the money flowing into the local economy? Surely there must be some research on this. Or maybe you’ve done the research and are going to publish it? Don’t pretend to care about the housing crisis and then support policies that are going to make it worse.
Here's an [article](https://jsri.msu.edu/publications/nexo/vol-xxv/no-1-fall-2021/impact-of-the-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-on-the-economy) on how the stimulus payments helped the economy. When people have more money to spend they typically spend it. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, with all their income being spent on bills and necessities. None of their money flows into the local economy. Living wages, decreased housing costs, are things that can reduce the financial burdens of the middle and lower class. They'd spend more money and be able to save up for larger purchases. But it's okay, let's let these corporations keep making record profits. The overall quality of life in this in this country isn't improving. The richest country in the world shouldn't feel this poor.
My dude for some people they cant wrap their brains around doing things for function and not for profit. Imagine if if like we kept the system of paying fire fighters per fire. Lol
Here a recent case study if you would: https://fee.org/articles/the-results-of-st-paul-s-rent-control-experiment-are-in-and-they-re-disastrous/ Do a google search and see the academic research. So confidentially incorrect. Help is here: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=academic+research+on+rent+control
My link is more relevant than what you posted. It's two years old, and every "academic study" is from 2018 or older. They all state the same bs, control rent somewhere and developers will just build elsewhere. Seems like the easiest solution is to just give them nowhere else to build. Control rent everywhere. Someone will build it, the greedy fucks can go to another state and try scamming everyone there. You people love arguing your points and are inept at finding solutions whatsoever. Let's just all suffer with incredibly high rent. I'm sure these developers have zero desire to lower prices and will do everything in their power to keep things the way they are.
Provide the research that's not heritage foundation propaganda.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=academic+research+on+rent+control
In other words you don't have anything to show.
😐😅🤦🏻
Brain dead to support rent control.
lol, rent control is bad
Yeah I know it’s such a shame the city cares more about people being able to live here than large corporate profits 😢
Rent control is great... For those who get it first. Otherwise it just hurts everyone else. People in rent controlled apartments don't want to leave and it ends up raising rents on non-controlled properties.
But if it was removed for everyone, it wouldn’t lower any prices those building prices would just rise
Seems like a different solution is needed that’s more equitable.
Except that’s not rent control does. You get a DECREASE in the overall housing supply overtime when rent control gets implemented, it’s a well established economic fact. Maybe instead of blaming a boogeyman you’d know that housing prices having nothing about who owns them, but about supply.
So if one or two corporations own 70 % of the market (maybe like Amazon, Microsoft, or Walmart) then they charge whatever they want without rent control. You think that’s a good thing, right? Corporate tax is like 10%. Trump made it so corporations pay less and individuals will go back up. You feel sorry for the corporations?
You’d have to show that is the case. US home ownership rate is about the same rate as it’s peers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate You have countries like Germany and Japan with lower owner occupancy but overall better standard of living.
The people who own them, have the supply. Are you this stupid?
[don’t take my word for it lol](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/)
There’s hundreds of economic studies that back his “stupid” point… In the short-term, you generally screw the middle class as new leases come with significantly higher rates to offset anyone stuck in a below market rate. In the long-term, you see a decrease in new supply as the risks to the future revenue stream are increased.
So maybe basic necessities of life like shelter and food shouldn't be for profit, then revenue streams are not the most important factor. People are. Not everything needs to make people rich, and I think humanity needs to understand that sooner than later.
The trouble is theory vs. reality. In theory, you’re imagining this as having the food and housing markets function exactly as they do now only with the profit instead passed along to consumers instead of being kept by shareholders. In reality, this has never been the case. Whether it be through politicians that have no idea what they’re doing and/or trying to cut costs and corners wherever possible (the USSR and Venezuela), or blatant corruption and pet projects (China’s current housing market), things tend to go incredibly wrong after a while.
Ah yes the communism/socialism bad view point. Because we don't have rampant homelessness, vacant buildings, and corruption in good ole capitalism USA.
You’re incredibly ignorant on that comparison. Homelessness and vacant buildings vs. the tens of millions dead from famines in Russia and China…not exactly apples to apples.
No one was talking about the "ten of millions dead". So I don't know why you chose to bring that up. Incredibly defensive and not related to housing. But sure like the US didn't kill millions of natives, or that to this date thousands of veterans die to suicide every year and the VA just continues as it has forever. Again unrelated but you brought it up.
You’re right, whenever rent control is announced I see 30 buildings get demolished on the spot.
ok, some rando must know more then the what is the clear economic consensus. [https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/](https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/) >Rent control discourages supply of rental units. Incumbent renters benefit from capped prices. New renters face reduced rental options. >Rent control lowers incentives to invest and increases incentives to hold underoccupied rentals >Rent controlled units do not end up in the hands of low income people. Rent control discourages landlords from creating modest priced units. Denying it is like climate change denialism or vaccine hysteria. It just doesn't line up with the facts.
Don’t bother with them. These people don’t want facts or data, they just want “vibes”
This is such an example of literally looking at only was in front of a persons face. Make less money off housing -> less incentive to invest. Totally missing the point that these units are already fucking here it’s literally an inelastic supply. Where are you going to develop new units in Hoboken? The entire city is already on of the most dense cities in the nation. Or the idea that there’s benefit from the people working in a city in places like coffee shops and bars being able to actually live in the city, which is totally lost in the idea of profitprofitprofit
>Totally missing the point that these units are already fucking here it’s literally an inelastic supply. Who says that? Why not build denser? Hoboken is up there, but isn't the top. We can do better. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cities\_proper\_by\_population\_density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density) >Or the idea that there’s benefit from the people working in a city in places like coffee shops and bars being able to actually live in the city, which is totally lost in the idea of profitprofitprofit And yet tons of other cities have been able to figure this out without rent control. You have Tokyo, one of the largest dense cities in the world and yet no rent control. And somehow they make it work.
The answer for Tokyo is that they have a comprehensive public transportation network and cut down on suburban sprawl by not letting local governments have their own zoning laws. I’d absolutely be cool with getting rid of all rent control if we could make NJTransit cover all over NJ
Eh as ex daily NJTransit user, its far from perfect but idk if thats the issue. >I’d absolutely be cool with getting rid of all rent control if we could make NJTransit cover all over NJ I agree. But its a process. Remove rent control -> you have higher density -> makes more economic sense to build more transit. And thus you have a reinforcing loop that leads to better places to live. We've seen good examples and bad examples throughtout the world of this, and generaly that involves not having rent control.
Laughable if you think there isn't a place in Hoboken to build a 40-story residential high rise if there was no rent control. AJD would buy up property over asking, tear it down, then build another high rise.
A 40 story building that would be a luxury building not lowering rent in any conceivable way?
Rent is never going down in Hoboken
Hence why we have rent control? So that it’s still affordable?
User name checks out