New York just surpassed San Francisco as the most expensive rental market in the U.S.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Gantz

44% of NYC rentals are rent stabilized

It would be interesting to know what that number was for San Francisco.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Gantz

The poor in NYC do not pay market rate rents, so rental prices do not really effect them much, even though they are counted in income calculations for NYC.
About 44% of NYC rentals are rent stabilized, then we also have the projects and section 8, and some legacy rent controlled apartments, etc. About ~500K residents live in NYCHA (projects).

Originally Posted by SFBruin

It would be interesting to know what that number was for San Francisco.

It's similar in SF.

Around 60%-70% of SF's rental units have rent control (all units built before June 13th, 1979). In addition to that there are several thousand public housing units, which are home to around 30,000 people. A lot of poor people live in SROs as well, which are concentrated in the Tenderloin, Chinatown, SOMA, and Mission districts.

[pj3000]

Anyone in this country who pays obscene amounts to reside in someone else's property is just a darned fool, I tell ya.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Anyone in this country who pays obscene amounts to reside in someone else's property is just a darned fool, I tell ya.

? Its all relative. If you make $200K per year you can afford the $6K per month rents.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Gantz

? Its all relative. If you make $200K per year you can afford the $6K per month rents.

It's not about having the ability to pay it. It's about being a darned fool for paying it... and still residing in another's property.

I'll go a step further... take that $6k per month figure (which is even a rather modest figure in some cases)... if you're giving away what amounts to a decent annual salary for the vast majority of the country to some other guy so that you can sleep and eat and have sex and watch TV and clean up in HIS house... because you can "afford" it, well, you're a fucking idiot.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's not about having the ability to pay it. It's about being a darned fool for paying it... and still residing in another's property.

I'll go a step further... take that $6k per month figure (which is even a rather modest figure in some cases)... if you're giving away what amounts to a decent annual salary for the vast majority of the country to some other guy so that you can sleep and eat and have sex and watch TV and clean up in HIS house... because you can "afford" it, well, you're a fucking idiot.

That's a strong opinion lol. I get the feeling that people who can afford $6k/month in rent understand what they're doing...

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's a strong opinion lol. I get the feeling that people who can afford $6k/month in rent understand what they're doing...

To someone who is quite wealthy and $6k+ per month isn't any different than a hundred bucks, sure, they don't even need to think twice about it.

But, as in the example above, if you're only making $200k per year, and pissing away greater than a third of your income, so that some other dude can use it to set up his whore with spending money and a nice apartment in Miami... well yeah, you're a fucking idiot, strong opinion or not.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

To someone who is quite wealthy and $6k+ per month isn't any different than a hundred bucks, sure, they don't even need to think twice about it.

But, as in the example above, if you're only making $200k per year, and pissing away greater than a third of your income, so that some other dude can use it to set up his whore with spending money and a nice apartment in Miami... well yeah, you're a fucking idiot, strong opinion or not.

To be fair, you wouldn't qualify for a $6k apartment in NYC if you're only making $200k/year.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

To someone who is quite wealthy and $6k+ per month isn't any different than a hundred bucks, sure, they don't even need to think twice about it.

But, as in the example above, if you're only making $200k per year, and pissing away greater than a third of your income, so that some other dude can use it to set up his whore with spending money and a nice apartment in Miami... well yeah, you're a fucking idiot, strong opinion or not.

And what's the other option. Move 30 miles away to be able to buy something?

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

And what's the other option. Move 30 miles away to be able to buy something?

Sometimes, people don't want to buy something - like if they have transferred to the area for 1-2 years, or don't want to be bothered with being responsible for maintenance. Or perhaps they don't like what can afford to buy (area, space, and price), and would rather have a nicer place (bigger and in a preferred area) even if it is a rental - may be a possibility for a few NYC renters.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Anyone in this country who pays obscene amounts to reside in someone else's property

I have circumvented this problem by not having money to spend.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

And what's the other option. Move 30 miles away to be able to buy something?

Maybe. Obviously plenty of people do it... and often it's more than 30 miles. Or, maybe choose to live somewhere that you can actually afford to purchase your own property somewhere that's not 30+ miles from the city... and thus not be a fucking idiot handing over ridiculous sums of money every single month and feeding into the entire bullshit scenario going on in these places.

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I have circumvented this problem by not having money to spend.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Sometimes, people don't want to buy something - like if they have transferred to the area for 1-2 years, or don't want to be bothered with being responsible for maintenance. Or perhaps they don't like what can afford to buy (area, space, and price), and would rather have a nicer place (bigger and in a preferred area) even if it is a rental - may be a possibility for a few NYC renters.

Agreed. That's what I was getting at. I rent in dtla because I love the area, energy and building. Buying a unit like the one I live in would cost me 750k which I don't have and I don't want to move to the boonies or the ghetto

[SIGSEGV]

Right, in some markets (NYC. CA. BOS), buying is way out of reach for many compared to renting. High expected property value growth often means investors drive up prices (a positive feedback loop... though it can't go on forever).

[ocman]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Right, in some markets (NYC. CA. BOS), buying is way out of reach for many compared to renting. High expected property value growth often means investors drive up prices (a positive feedback loop... though it can't go on forever).

You’re also paying about $1500 in property taxes + insurance on a $1M house plus whatever interest you’re paying on principal and god forbid, HOA fees. That’s already at least $18,000 year basically like rent. If you profit when you sell, great. But for a lot of people, it really doesn’t make better sense than to take that money and invest it something else.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ocman

You’re also paying about $1500 in property taxes + insurance on a $1M house plus whatever interest you’re paying on principal and god forbid, HOA fees. That’s already at least $18,000 year basically like rent. If you profit when you sell, great. But for a lot of people, it really doesn’t make better sense than to take that money and invest it something else.

Right, in some markets, if you're not paying with cash, renting and investing might be a better deal. Especially in a place like SF or NYC with rent stabilization where you know your rent cant arbitrarily get stratospherically higher.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ocman

You’re also paying about $1500 in property taxes + insurance on a $1M house plus whatever interest you’re paying on principal and god forbid, HOA fees. That’s already at least $18,000 year basically like rent. If you profit when you sell, great. But for a lot of people, it really doesn’t make better sense than to take that money and invest it something else.

After 40 years of inflation and living in the same place, my HOA fees now exceed my mortgage payment (I've refinanced twice).

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Right, in some markets, if you're not paying with cash, renting and investing might be a better deal. Especially in a place like SF or NYC with rent stabilization where you know your rent cant arbitrarily get stratospherically higher.

In SF you are also taking some risk that "the BIG ONE" could happen and wipe out your equity (if it doesn't kill you). That's partly why I want to continue to carry a mortgage: To keep my own money liquid. And of course if you are among the minority who insure against this possibility, as I am, it isn't cheap: about $1200/yr.