Quote:
Originally Posted by biggus diggus
I made an argument to you all quite some time ago that the occupancy numbers are false for a lot of these buildings because they've taken many units out of inventory to use as short term rentals.
That's now appearing to be a supported argument.
Add in the fact that they're having trouble renting units (if that's true) and we're getting pretty close to a market adjustment.
Interesting side note: The most expensive apartment building I have in my portfolio is getting me about $1,100 for two bedrooms. It's in Garfield. I haven't had a turnover in that building of 4 units in over 3 years. If anything I love the high rent prices. A guy like me who has a building without all the superfluous amenities can offer a reasonable price and none of my tenants can afford to move because everything else downtown is double the price!
|
I haven't seen anyone verify the 50% occupancy claims stated in the article. More than likely it is higher.
Many apartment complexes, including ones without an occupancy problem, are renting out units to companies like Sonder and Wanderjaunt. Why wouldn't a developer want a 25% increase in revenue from 10% of their units?
1 does not make a trend, especially 1 where the word on the street is that the complex is poorly managed.
Verify the low occupancy numbers at The Stewart and corroborate those with The Link and Block 23 and then we can talk about a market correction.