Slashdot Mirror
Bidding Website Rentberry May Be the Startup of Your Nightmares (gizmodo.com)
Renting is already fraught with pain, from annual rent hikes to extortionate lettings fees. But if a new service called Rentberry takes off, it could be about to get a lot worse. From a report: Rentberry has been operating in test cities and angering affordable housing advocates since 2016. But with its new expansion into 1,000 cities in the United States, the rental bidding website is about to piss off a lot more people. Alex Lubinksy, founder of Rentberry, seems to be pursuing an image that's closer to Uber's vilified Travis Kalanick than the do-gooder model of Elon Musk. Lubinsky courts the controversy that surrounds his startup and is known to include negative press when communicating his vision to reporters. But one big difference with Rentberry will be that if it takes off and becomes the new standard for renting apartments, most of its customers won't be able to run a #deleteRentberry campaign because landlords will have the control. The website essentially functions as a cross between CraigsList and eBay. A landlord lists a rental space and potential tenants bid against one another to claim the lease. Tenants' personal information is available to the landlord. The landlord then makes their final decision by weighing what the best offer is along with which bidder seems like they'd be the best tenant. For now, Rentberry charges users a $25 fee, but in the future, it plans to charge 25 percent of the difference between the asking price and the agreed upon rent. Whoever received the better deal pays the fee -- every month.
was suppose to make the world a better place? So far all I'm seeing is crap like this and Fake News. It's not lookin' good.
Oh, and you know, we could just ban stuff like this. I'm just saying...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Rather than allowing the economy to send out signals about what is wanted and needed, zoning regulations, building regulations, renting regulations, mortgage rate manipulations, lending quotas, etc., all distort those signals until nobody knows what's going on.
The outcome of such confusion is obvious: Resources get allocated poorly, producing too much of what the economy doesn't need, and too little of what the economy does need. And, when the whole thing comes crashing down, the fools who crafted the errant "policy" suggest that the problem was not enough "policy" in the first place.
Please, allow people to pursue their happiness (read: pursue their self interest); it is in your best interest to live within a society that runs smoothly.
Rent-seeking off those seeking rent. Oh the irony.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built. All of this yelling about "greed" and "rent control" and even worse -- high minimum wage -- are just bandaids that won't solve the root of the problem.
So politicians get to "champion the little guy" with ineffective measures while enjoying their large lots for their own housing and collecting expensive property taxes. But woe be you if you're a developer seeking to build more housing units. Fees and permits alone will scare away all but the most determined (and profit seeking).
What's unique about this? This sounds a lot like the usual rental process, where potential tenants submit rental applications that include personal details, financial details, employment details, and other relevant information. The landlord sets a minimum rent, and tenants can offer to pay more than that minimum price. The landlord takes all of this information into account, and decides whether or not to accept the application. If accepted, the tenant is allowed to sign a rental agreement and to then start renting the property.
So what exactly is new about this startup and their process?
Only on slashdot are we presented with an example of a startup giving complete control of rental housing pricing to the renters, and then told that this is evil. As a renter who has lived at both ends of the spectrum, I almost impaled my face with my own palm when reading this story.
As a quiet white guy who has no criminal history, I'm going to get the best deals! Huzzah!!!!!!!!!
What's next? Guys, you should immigrate from Americastan to a proper *Stan country.
Ever seen oddjob labourers standing on roadsides with "will do oddjobs A, B, and C for N amount kuais", swarming upon anybody with a work order?
I dunno if I'd be investing in this startup. All any municipality would have to do is pass a law that says "any quoted or advertised rental price must be the final price the tenant pays" and the whole concept of bidding wars goes out the window. I wouldn't something like that past San Francisco voters, for example ... our city government may be completely corrupt and in the pocket of developers, but there's also a referendum process that lets citizen groups put things on the ballot. And from the sound of it, that would pretty much be the end of Rentberry's business model.
Breakfast served all day!
This service is effectively illegal in Quebec.
Enjoy paying $3000 for a shithole in Manhattan you anti-regulation lunatics
NYC has a lot of residential units. problem is young kids want to live in a few trendy neighborhoods and then complain about the rents
Where is the value delivered to the paying customers, renters, for this service? Also, what does this startup controls that would prevent instant competition if this model becomes successful?
This has dotcom pets.com written all over it.
So if my city comes and wants to change the park next to me to a smelter plant, that is in their best interest so I shouldn't have a problem with it?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
in the future, this company can be used to example the prisioner's dilema in a real life situation. If no one uses this application, it will fail and the life of everybody renting a place will be better (status quo), but should someone use the application, and others follow, everyone's life will be made difficult.
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
As a landlord we'd never use this service. Who the hell is gonna show the apartments and however long the bidding war takes means I am out that money if I just could have gotten it rented. And I have to pay a fee for my unit being vacant because of some stupid bidding war, and all my leases will just have random dates instead of something standard like the 1st of the months?
Sounds like a really stupid idea for most landlords
This sounds like a great deal for a renter to me. Just keep low balling properties until one sticks.
Is that landlords have access to bidders personal information, and that the landlord gets to "choose" among the bidders who actually gets to rent the property, regardless of their offers. The article compares the service to ebay, but a key difference is that on ebay the highest bidder always gets the item, provided they can actually pay up. By putting that power instead in the hands of the landlords, the company is really shooting themselves in the foot. Some landlord somewhere will eventually turn down a higher bid from a black/latino/etc potential tenant in favor of a white one, or a male tenant instead of a female one or vice versa, etc etc. Then both the landlord and the company will be buried up to their eyeballs in litigation from every conceivable direction.
No. NYC does not have enough rental units. Too many people prevent development, and I'm not talking about putting up 30 story buildings in brownstone neighborhoods - but allowing 2 and 3 story buildings to be replaced with 5 story brownstones would be great.
Downtown Brooklyn already has large buildings and the "don't develop" people are preventing more buildings going up in an area that makes sense to build up. Each time you restrict new apartments from going up you make the price more expensive for everyone else.
As a landlord I say thank you. My property value is going up. As a human being who cares about his city I think this knee-jerk anti-capitalist reaction is BS and hurting everyone.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
As someone who owns... you're conveniently forgetting the whole swath of people who can't afford to buy.
Hey, if you want to maintain your view of the beach ... join together with your neighborhoods to purchase that property, and maintain it as you see fit—and pool your resources together to fend off that violently imposed monopoly (something something eminent domain).
I did join together with my neighbors to purchase the property. It's called being a citizen and paying taxes.
Oh, wait, did you mean to pool together with such a small group that we could be easily overruled by a corporation?
Nope, no sig
Well, at some point, a city is a finite resource, and it sounds like NYC is about full, and people need to look elsewhere perhaps, to live?
Sure, everyone has a right to live wherever they want, but they don't necessarily have a right to "afford" to live wherever they want.
Everything in life has a price.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Resources get allocated poorly, producing too much of what the economy doesn't need, and too little of what the economy does need.
"The economy" doesn't need shit. It's people who need things.
Nope, no sig
I can tell you that before rentberry, the price is pretty much set by the market. You really can't raise it or even lower it much. Frankly, I can't see rentberry changing this much, any more than AirBnb already has. If rents get too high, people either move further out and accept a longer commute, or they buy. People flock to the cheaper areas.
The difference between a profitable landlord and a poor one is mainly due to two factors (both even more important in the age of AirBnb):
a) Keeping every apartment/ room filled. A vacant apartment eats all your profit. If you have a large enough portfolio of rental units, this becomes an accepted cost of doing business, but if you four or less units, it kills your profits.
b) Avoiding the bad tenant. The guy that needs to be evicted, or simply destroys the place. There is ZERO chance I would trust a website to figure out who is a good tenant and who is a bad one. You need to meet them in person and see what if any requests or issues they have.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
, and I will negotiate a lower rent, more amenities, or I'll move.
Oh wow, this makes me laugh. I own quite a few rentals and I guarantee if you tried to negotiate like that I'd have no problem not renewing your lease and finding someone else while simultaneously raising the rent. It's not as hard to find someone to replace you as you may think.
Now if you were a good tenant and not a dick about things, I wouldn't raise your rent, but I also won't be making "substantial improvements" as you think you deserve.
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
I own a duplex and live in one half. We do not cover our mortgage with the rental. I would look at this as an opportunity as, if you look at the laws in my state as well as many other Eastern states, the laws are heavily biased against the landlord. Because what the landlord sells is time, and you can never get that back.
So, what I found interesting is that the landlord gets information on the possible renters. That way, the landlord can pre-screen.
What we use now is Craigslist, Zillow and a broker (all three at once). We also put a sign out. We get "inquiries" off the websites and the only information I get is the name that the person decided to use on the website (which may not be real) and a phone number. When I call back the phone number to set up a showing, frequently the person will simply say, "Oh, I clicked by accident, I was just looking around." And I get no qualifications. Can they actually afford rent? Do they have full-time jobs? Are they the type that make their living off of screwing landlords (we had a couple who do that)?
So what we have is a long, three-page form we use for qualifications. We check credit, we check past employment. We check everything, except their last landlord who, if they are trying to get rid of a bad tenant will give them a very positive review. We also insist that their take-home pay is three times or more than the monthly rent.
Anything that would allow us to see who is interested in advance would be positive. As, if we need to get a tenant out, we are at a severe disadvantage. Landlords in our area must take at least three months in order to evict a tenant and, meanwhile, the tenant has full use of the apartment without paying any rent and will frequently trash it.
I do realize that lots of readers are good tenants who would never trash an apartment, and who always pay on time, but I have seen the other types and they are just not fun to live right up against. I never, again, want to hear the words, "You don't know what I'm capable of," from a tenant.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
It sounds like the basic premise of this is to normalize "key money".
For those not in the know, sometimes property managers of hot properties will accept bribes from prospective tenants (either directly or through intermediary apartment "brokers") to secure leases for properties where the landlord has delegated rental lease responsibility to the property manager. Now it appears the landlord is going to get a cut of this in cold-hard cash and it will be recurring... Sad that they are attempting to normalize this practice... Maybe one of the founders was burned by a shady apartment "broker" in the past and decided that they wanted a piece of that action...
"I did join together with my neighbors to purchase the property. It's called being a citizen and paying taxes."
You and your neighbours paid nowhere near enough in taxes to purchase control rights over that property. You are party to making countless others pay taxes too, and subordinate their personal preferences, in order to "purchase" your beach view.
as "Perverse Incentives". I mean, otherwise we might have companies like Rentberry lobbying to block the expansion of affordable housing...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How is this even legal? Your country is messed up.
Here the landlord cannot solicit or accept higher than advertised prices and it's first come first served (as the tenant is acceptable) on that basis.
If the price is too high they risk having an empty place until a tenant comes along wiling to pay it, so typically the pricing is quite realistic relative to the market as a whole.
That being said, we have a ridiculous bubble on house sales at the moment so it's not all great.
and if that doesn't scare you nothing will.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Protest, get the other neighbors to protest, usually all it takes is one resident to stand up and say "no" and the elected representatives will stand up for the residents that elected them.
Now, if your precinct is stupid enough to vote in a bought and paid for candidate, then I suppose you're getting what you deserve when his owners come and destroy your park.
This is public land, owned by the city, I cannot buy it. My taxes pay for the maintenance of it. But the city can say what they want to do with it without offering it for sale to me, so back to the original question.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This feels like a joke. This is a joke right? Because the value proposition, besides creating controversy, doesn't make sense. It seems like they're offering to solve information asymmetries, when supply differs from demand. But this creates new problems.
Landlords Now need to figure out when to close their auction to get the maximal volume of the best tenants paying the best prices. How do I even think about that?
Renters need to figure out on which rentals to bid. It seems like bids are binding - are they not? Is there conditional bidding and Rentberry is solving so complex logic problem? Or combinatoric bidding where renters can win only one item?
...or rent at higher prices.
Anything the increases the market efficiency is better for all players. Good renters will get the best price and will be able to market their rental "reputation" for lower prices (fewer parasites and destructive tenets) . Landlords will maximize their profits and maybe build more rental units which while ultimately lower prices.
But they did 'create value' by getting you more than you asked for in rent. If I'm trying to rent for 1200/mo and end up getting 1400/mo they created 200/mo in extra value for me.
You're confusing price with value.
In fact, both the middle-man company and the landlord are rent seekers. In the case of the landlord, literally.
(footnote: To be more precise, the landlord is not engaging in a rent-seeking activity to the extent that they provide a service: fixing up the apartment, custodial work and repairs, utilities, etc.: those are services. Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service.")
What's to stop the landlord from jacking up the asking price, settle for a lower offer and then get a kick back from the sit in the 25% cut?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is public land, owned by the city, I cannot buy it.
Who do you think "the city" is?
Nope, no sig
Pay a fee every month? yeah that guarantees that it will not become the standard.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
As a budding landlord, my first thought was, this sounds great. The ability to review an applicant's reliability and history sounds very desirable. After further reading, I'm seeing far less value than I had hoped and I probably won;t turn to this "service".
I know that in the article they take the renter's point of view that 'all landlords are inherently evil'. But, from the landlord's perspective, it's no picnic!
First they won't pay the rent and thanks to tenant friendly laws in my area, I can't easily evict them. It's a month long(minimum) process that costs quite a bit in attorney and court fees to get hem out. The tenants know this game all too well and leverage it to the hilt.
Next you get into the unit and they have done no maintenance/cleaning in months. There is rotting garbage everywhere, the smell is immediately nauseating. There is usually caked dirt and sugary drinks/food in the carpets, destroying them. Many times there is pet feces about. Did I mention that pets aren't allowed? Thick mold in all wet areas. Usually roaches and their mess because of the food an garbage. Walls and ceiling need paint, at least. Usually there are several large dents or holes...
So, after spending money to evict non-payers, making the rental an expense, rather than a profit, I then have to clean and sanitize for days, replace carpeting, repair walls, paint, sometimes appliances... Thousands of dollars in expense to get the unit ready for another renter.
This whole process takes two months, and depending on how selective I am on the next renter, it might be at least another month before I can get one that looks decent. That's a quarter of the year with no rent coming in and lots of money going out, all the while taxes and insurance are sucking out cash.
I've been trying to make a go of rentals for three years now and when I look at the bottom line, there's no profit.
It's no picnic for the landlord.
P.S. For those that might think they can go after the renter for rent and damages, it just doesn't work out.You wind up spending even more money going after people that you can't find, have no money, or just don't give a fuck about court judgments against them. They treat it like some sick game and they are seasoned players, while I'm a pathetic newb. They simply don't pay, but the landlord does. I can easily see why landlords have a reputation for being harsh and unwavering tyrants, their renters made them that way.
Yes, you too, hipster dude and granola munching girlfriend who is absolutely sure you're different. Yet, still fail to pay because of circumstance "beyond your control" and spilled vape juice everywhere, never cleaned a bathroom evar, poked a "tiny"hole in the wall with your fixy's handle bar...
That highly depends on the real estate market and the landlord. Where I live rents are high, and indeed, a landlord with one or two apartments can't afford to wait. I have however talked to landlords who have 20+ apartments. They can and do wait because if they have 15 occupied apartments, they can afford to wait to fill the 5 remaining with the rent they want to get. It's no big deal and they do it.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Very insightful. I'm convinced.
That's what zoning laws are for. Residential neighborhoods don't just get industrial buildings. Don't like the zoning (cheap mixed residential/light industrial land), don't buy the property.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Indeed. Here, most landlords are of the ownership type. Buying anything is cost-prohibitive for most middle class people. So getting a mortgage to rent the property isn't usually going to pass the banks approval unless you can pay a significant part yourself.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Also, keep in mind you can deduce unrented property as a loss for tax purposes. (At least here you can)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Exactly. Buy a house in a neighborhood zoned residential and you know your investment is good. Without assurances there can be no private housing market. It all falls apart.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
to one month's rent. I'm sure Attorney General Healey is going to be very interested in this.
I expect my landlord to make substantial improvements over the course of my lease just to keep rent the same.
Uh......what market do you live in where that happens at all?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is evil and deserving of a painful death.
Welcome to the race between the well-off the the more well-off.
In other words, if you're poor, fuck you.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
What I want and need is to feed my sewage waste water into your swimming pool, there's no regulation right?
There are of course many, many places to find rentals. Different venues provide different value to the renter - Zillow is was useful when I was renting because their map of properties that fit my criteria was helpful. One local locator (a knowledgeable person) was able to suggest properties that fit what I wanted for requirements that aren't on Zillow.
Renters will only use this new platform if it provides them done benefit, some value. If it doesn't, renters will continue to use other existing services that do create some value for them.
A free market doesn't require that everyone have the same information
Free market, somehow vaguely defined, perhaps doesn't. But perfect market, in context of a market transaction, at least requires that the entities interested in making a transaction have perfect transaction-relevant information. That's the point with perfect competition.
Ezekiel 23:20
No i'm pretty assured they won't turn the park into a smelter plant, because it is currently illegal to put one there. Remove zoning laws and there are no assurances.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Accepting applications has long ceased to be a first come, first served business for landlords in markets like San Francisco, or Sydney, Australia. They accept all of the offers and then wait to see who will offer the highest rent. It's basically an auction, except you don't get to see what other people bid, so you have no idea if you're competitive of not. I don't have a problem with this. It's awful, yes, but it's a symptom of skyrocketing rental prices, and actually at least you get to see what the current highest bid is.
>The fact that you worry about people living in the streets proves that there will be people who choose to allocate their own capital to help those very people;
Quite the opposite. There's nothing stopping them from doing so now, yet the problem persists. In fact, it's been a persistent problem throughout the entire history of capitalist economies going back millenia - why do you suppose that is?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The problem is that the money, at least for real estate developers, is in building luxury housing. Why build rentals or housing aimed at the middle class when there are high profits to be made building and selling mcmansions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You have to be creative. This is the era where the bigger fish eat the smaller fish. Until only the big fish remain. Rent a house with friends or people you get along with. And have similar lifestyles and rhythms. Example: you sleep - they sleep. Rent a room in a house and pack your seasonal extras in a modest storage facility.
You're ignoring network effects, which is the reason why facebook is dominant and will remain so for at least the foreseeable future.
The choice does not like with the renter, it lies with the landlord. As soon as a significant percentage of landlords list their properties on this site, renters will have no choice but to use it, no matter what the terms of service are. This will entice even more landlords to list their properties here (because that's where all the tenants are, and they'll get sucked in to a bidding war just like on ebay), forcing even more tenants to have to sign up if they want somewhere to live.
That's the business model of this company: to exploit network effects to bootstrap themselves into a monopoly, and then enjoy the benefits of economic rent (aka unearned income) ever after.
Entirely wrong, that is exactly the opposite of reality, the exact opposite of what works.
Socialism works quite a lot better if it tolerates well-regulated markets in luxuries, non-essential goods and services....as long as they don't make life worse for everyone and aren't corrosive to society, human well-being, or the environment.
You can't patch up laissez-faire capitalism by layering a few welfare programs on top, we've got decades of evidence proving that. They're inherently just band-aids, not solutions, because the solution is antithetical to capitalism.
By contrast, we've got decades worth of experience in northern europe and (in, more limited form, many other places around the world) showing that democratic socialism with well-regulated markets alongside DOES work extremely well...at least, it does until the international finance industry (aka Wall Street, american business) gets big and powerful enough to fuck it up.
Also, there's no such thing as a free market. It's a fictional ideal, a thought experiment, not a reality (and never has been)...and, without regulations preventing it, markets always tend towards monopoly capture.
You're quoting trickle-down bullshit? and you somehow expect to be taken seriously?
See , cities offer the job, but if you cannot live there , then not only you are poor, but the burden of a longer more costly (in time and money) transportation will fall on you. So you worsen the the situation for the poorest of all. So while what you say is true, one has to consider what you want for a society, and if you really want to push the head of those without much money even further under the water. Because at some point those will simply decide that destroying the system may as well be a better solution than participating. Just sayin'.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
> to exploit network effects to bootstrap themselves into a monopoly
Network effects (or more properly two-sided markets in this case) work exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Network effects work 100% to the advantage of the INCUMBENTS, and a monopoly would create a nearly impenetrable network, not the other way around. You can't "bootstrap" into an established market with network effects. On the contrary, network effects are a BARRIER to entry to established markets - the buyers are all on Zillow and Craigslist, so it would be irrational for any landlord to contract with this new company.
Facebook has the network effect BECAUSE it had the mmonopoly. Even mighty Google and Microsoft can't successfully enter that market because the network effect keeps new entrants OUT.
Unlike the "non-taxi" taxi services, there will be enough pressure to stop this cold.
It's bad enough to have rent as it is, it's another to throw another degree in uncertainty.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
For someone that has seen both sides, this isn't exactly a good thing. If anything, the landlord's the one that has lost their perspective for offloading risk.
Better to kill this thing with fire and nuke it from orbit. Then point to the crater when anyone thinks of following in their footsteps.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
There have been plans to do that, but obviously there is serious lobbying against exactly that.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Thank goodness for regulation to slap things like this down.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Someone with only 2-5 properties probably owes the bank something on all of them, and as such, servicing those without the income from rent would be very difficult.
Maybe they should have started with a better business plan then.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What I want and need is to feed my sewage waste water into your swimming pool, there's no regulation right?
No no, if you remove government interference everyone starts behaving rationally in their best economic interests, I read it in an "economics for dummies" book.
And it's the government that makes people into criminals, because if there were no laws to break, you couldn't be a criminal. Or something...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Disrupting taxi services is one thing, most normal people only use them once in a blue moon, but to try to fuck up the house rental market is a whole new level of evil.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Also, keep in mind you can deduce unrented property as a loss for tax purposes. (At least here you can)
I doubt it. You can certainly deduct the expenses (mortgage, tax, upkeep, depreciation, etc.) associated with those unreneted properties, but the not the value or purchase price.
Deducting expenses from your income, but they are still expenses, but not having expenses is better than havig expenses that are deductable, even though one's tax burden is higher.
Does the German government also tax people for the imaginary children they don't have?
I think that NYC can add another 50% to it's population without become a nightmare. Of course mass transportation (probably light rail) will have to be increased but there are huge swatches of Brooklyn and Queens with 2 family buildings that are poorly constructed, Those neighborhoods would look better and hold more people with 5 story brownstones.
Furthermore as these neighborhoods are mostly working class it would provide more housing for middle class / working class people.
There is an island with an old fort in the harbor (Governor's Island) that is perfect for building Dubai sorts of towers for the mega rich. This way the mega rich (1/10 of 1% don't push out the very rich who don't push out the 1% who don't push out the upper middle class who don't push out the middle class (who then gentrifies the working class neighborhoods).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
i think it's not the state or the country, also which may own public land.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The value of those developments drops really fast in the first 10 years. You buy a "brand new" house for $500k, you won't ever sell it for that, if you're lucky, you get 50-70% of that when you sell it again. As such properties will circulate back to the 'middle class'.
There are also plenty of developments that do apartments, especially in and around larger cities, again, initially you'll pay $1500 in rent for those "luxury apartments" but over time their value drops.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Don't like it, form your own well-armed militia.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
What are you, 12 years old? Because if you were any older you would know the market fluctuates. You don't drive a house of the lot and watch it's value plummet that way. You are thinking of cars.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I didn't check the other two you mentioned, but Myspace amd Facebook both lanuched in 2004.
Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service."
Sure it is. Letting someone else use your apartment is every bit a service.
Not in economic terms, no. It's rent.
No voluntary arrangement can properly be considered rent-seeking.
It is rent seeking by defjnition.
Learn real economics terminology. Despite the belief of many people that they know everything about economics without bothering to actually learn any economics, it actually is valuable.
If there weren't some value added no one would choose to pay the rent. Only arrangements based on force can be rent-seeking, at the hands of either a government or some other form of criminal organization.
That's simply gibberish. Force is not rent. If you don't know what the phrase "rent seeking" means, don't use it.
I'm a building official and can tell you that building regulations are prescriptive and at minimum standards for safety and longevity. The age of barely restrained building practices brought the Triangle shirtwaist factory fire and the events fictionalized in the novel "Christ in Concrete" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I hope the restraint my office provides keeps all of the residents and craft workers in my town safe and that their grandchildren will also be safe in a well maintained home or apartment.The "Nobody" who doesn't know what's going on hasn't done his homework and should not build. More likely he is feigning ignorance hoping someone with thew city or county will let him do less than the minimum in building that he might maximize his own profits and the public be damned. Of course I'm more than a little cynical from having developers and builders lie to my face day after day.
If you could buy a brand new house around here for $500,000, you could make a million or 2 profit by selling it the next day. Houses have been going up by close to 20% a year here for quite a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm not familiar with the details, but I know having an unrented apartment can have a positive impact on your taxes. Depending on what exactly you want, that might be enough to keep your apartment unrented until a suitable candidate comes along. Remember... In the "you have more than 15 apartments" scenario. The little landlord obviously can't afford this.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I'm not familiar with the details, but I know having an unrented apartment can have a positive impact on your taxes. Depending on what exactly you want, that might be enough to keep your apartment unrented until a suitable candidate comes along. Remember... In the "you have more than 15 apartments" scenario. The little landlord obviously can't afford this.
I think you overstate "can have a positive impact on your taxes". Your taxes will be lower if you have an unrented apartment because your income is lower when you have an unreneted apartment - lower income generally results in lower income tax.
So, yes, if you have a very high income, having a decrease in your income might be less of a problem than if you did not have a very high income to begin with, but it really isn't because "you can deduct unrented property as a loss".
Well, I admit I might be mistaken. Alas, I'll never be in a position to verify how badly mistaken I am.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)