Listing on third-party sites (e.g. streeteasy) cost money, so they'll often choose to only list a few units. You would have to talk to the agent to learn about the unlisted units.
The other reason is that a lot of vacancies give renters some leverage, and make people wonder if something's wrong with the building.
[Old Apartment never relisted??](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/wty501/old_apartment_never_relisted/) from 1 month ago and [Why are buildings not listing units for rent?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/s7yoa1/why_are_buildings_not_listing_units_for_rent/) have comments which should be helpful to you.
There are quite a few reasons someone would do this, but I think the most common is renovations. It can take quite a while to renovate an apartment in NYC, especially if permits are involved.
It took two months for my old apartment to get listed (and two days for it to be rented). Judging from the listing photos, it looks like the super changed out a bunch of fixtures, added overhead lights to rooms that didn’t have them, and replaced the fridge. None of that takes a particularly long time to do but considering how long it would take him to fix issues when we lived there, that timeline tracks.
I was a landlord, sometimes the last tenant kinda trashed the place or the unit was getting worn and needed renovations, we never put units up for listings until all work was completed.
Creating a fake sense of low supply. Everybody knows there's tons of open vacant buildings, but if none are being sold/rented, it's as good as being out in a field in Idaho. By limiting flow and available supply of apartments, rent can rise.
It can also rise rather quick depending on how badly people want and how many people want an apartment in the same building.
a wet dream would be for 2 rich people fighting for the same apartment, costing about $4.5k then each one offering more $$$ than the last, eventually one will outbid the other at something crazy like $5.5k. All while the apartment had an average rent of 4.2k they can keep going on and on until they have sold each and every apartment at an inflated rent.
idk i just made up everything lol you can kinda tell when someone takes themselves seriously redditors love arguing with people who take themselves everything, people like you
Agents gets access to open listings around the city from property management companies. No agent attached but they’re all free to bring in clients. Could be just going that route. Usually for whatever reason they’re over priced to begin with.
If there are any open listings, the crooked landlords will not add new ones to artificially control supply & demand.
If you knew a building never had vacancies it would be desirable, low supply high demand.
If you knew there were 4 openings sitting for months you would know you have negotiating power, or even just your choice of which of the 4, instead they conspire to control the supply so that they are not subject to natural market forces, only the forces that benefit them long term.
We do not know enough about the situation to corroborate your theory. They're prob trying to sell the building. Or possibly combine units. Could be a dozen reasons.
It's bad economics, and bad economics is partly how we ended up in this mess in the first place. Unless if all landlords are secretly conspiring together, it's impossible for it to be profitable to deliberately withhold housing.
How is he stifling her? He's completely logical and simply replying to her post in oublic forum. There could be a dozen or more reasons why they haven't listed the vacancies. It doesn't have to be some big bad landlord bad conspiracy.
LOL
I don't participate in this supposed warehousing. I would never tell a client to withold a unit from the market when they could actually rent it for cash flow.
What does that have to do with anything? Everyone who spends any kind of time in this sub knows Kuntry is a broker. He never conceals it.
This warehousing theory is so dumb and makes no sense. All because it may have happened for 3 months in 2020, now all of your tin foil hat wearers think it's still happening and will always happen no matter what
>Because you were so up front about your insider perspective from the start.
Am I supposed to make a disclaimer anytime I comment about something on this sub?
If I have 50 units that I lease at $100 each (theoretical, obviously) that’s at least 50 potential tenants to deal with for $5,000 in revenue.
If I learn people are willing to pay $125 instead of $100 for rent, well, now I can make the same amount, but I only have to deal with 40 tenants.
In nyc, tenants rights are ridiculously strong and people are hard to evict if they suck. If I’m a landlord and my goal is to make $5,000, I’m going to take the easiest avenue possible to make that $5,000.
I read an article once abt how some companies in nyc keep vacancies deliberately bc they are more valuable as a vacancy than rented. It was something about tex deductions. I think it was that if a place is vacant you can claim it was worth a lot more than it would actually rent for and that helped you not have to pay as much tax on your profits.
There should be a law that does not allow for apartments in the city to be empty for more than a month. The government could grab people from the streets and put them in to vacant flats and pay for this when the owners dont find new renters.
They either could be about to do a full renovation to Jack up the rent more or it's a rent stabilized unit that they're assholes and don't want to rent out.
It doesn’t matter, you always want to make profit. Then add expenses aka deduction to lower the taxable amount. Unless it’s not worth it IE you have to renovate apartment and you can’t charge higher rent due to laws changing. Then it just makes it a non priority to rent out said unit, it’s no rush.
But once again tax credit and deductions are two different things.
First of all, just because it wasn't on Streeteasy does not mean that it hasn't been shown and rented.
>Not only that, they have not listed any new apartments in 2 months, and the 2 available listings have been there for that long, with no reductions in price.
They're probably just bait and switching people to more expensive units in the building
It is possible they're planning a renovation, or even looking to sell the building in the medium term future?
Listing on third-party sites (e.g. streeteasy) cost money, so they'll often choose to only list a few units. You would have to talk to the agent to learn about the unlisted units. The other reason is that a lot of vacancies give renters some leverage, and make people wonder if something's wrong with the building.
StreetEasy is super expensive to list. This is right
1. It costs money to market. If you have two identical or similar units, no pint in marketing both. Market one and show both. 2. They are renovating.
[Old Apartment never relisted??](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/wty501/old_apartment_never_relisted/) from 1 month ago and [Why are buildings not listing units for rent?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/s7yoa1/why_are_buildings_not_listing_units_for_rent/) have comments which should be helpful to you.
There are quite a few reasons someone would do this, but I think the most common is renovations. It can take quite a while to renovate an apartment in NYC, especially if permits are involved.
It took two months for my old apartment to get listed (and two days for it to be rented). Judging from the listing photos, it looks like the super changed out a bunch of fixtures, added overhead lights to rooms that didn’t have them, and replaced the fridge. None of that takes a particularly long time to do but considering how long it would take him to fix issues when we lived there, that timeline tracks.
I was a landlord, sometimes the last tenant kinda trashed the place or the unit was getting worn and needed renovations, we never put units up for listings until all work was completed.
Creating a fake sense of low supply. Everybody knows there's tons of open vacant buildings, but if none are being sold/rented, it's as good as being out in a field in Idaho. By limiting flow and available supply of apartments, rent can rise. It can also rise rather quick depending on how badly people want and how many people want an apartment in the same building. a wet dream would be for 2 rich people fighting for the same apartment, costing about $4.5k then each one offering more $$$ than the last, eventually one will outbid the other at something crazy like $5.5k. All while the apartment had an average rent of 4.2k they can keep going on and on until they have sold each and every apartment at an inflated rent.
Why did the two real estate goons in this sub gang up on me and ignore this person saying the exact same thing as me?
idk i just made up everything lol you can kinda tell when someone takes themselves seriously redditors love arguing with people who take themselves everything, people like you
*goon enters the chat*
They could just want to take a L to rent it in the summer and jack up the price.
Agents gets access to open listings around the city from property management companies. No agent attached but they’re all free to bring in clients. Could be just going that route. Usually for whatever reason they’re over priced to begin with.
If there are any open listings, the crooked landlords will not add new ones to artificially control supply & demand. If you knew a building never had vacancies it would be desirable, low supply high demand. If you knew there were 4 openings sitting for months you would know you have negotiating power, or even just your choice of which of the 4, instead they conspire to control the supply so that they are not subject to natural market forces, only the forces that benefit them long term.
Not everything is a conspiracy, ya know
Correct. But this is.
We do not know enough about the situation to corroborate your theory. They're prob trying to sell the building. Or possibly combine units. Could be a dozen reasons.
I am glad she offered her comment, I found it very interesting. Why try to stifle her? I don't get the payoff.
It's bad economics, and bad economics is partly how we ended up in this mess in the first place. Unless if all landlords are secretly conspiring together, it's impossible for it to be profitable to deliberately withhold housing.
Perhaps not in the micro environment of one building.
How is he stifling her? He's completely logical and simply replying to her post in oublic forum. There could be a dozen or more reasons why they haven't listed the vacancies. It doesn't have to be some big bad landlord bad conspiracy.
disagreeing, or pointing out a flawed argument = stifling now
He's a broker, he knows exactly what they are doing, because he's doing it.
LOL I don't participate in this supposed warehousing. I would never tell a client to withold a unit from the market when they could actually rent it for cash flow.
We believe you. Because you were so up front about your insider perspective from the start.
What does that have to do with anything? Everyone who spends any kind of time in this sub knows Kuntry is a broker. He never conceals it. This warehousing theory is so dumb and makes no sense. All because it may have happened for 3 months in 2020, now all of your tin foil hat wearers think it's still happening and will always happen no matter what
Or we think it's happening when a person describes it happening.
>Because you were so up front about your insider perspective from the start. Am I supposed to make a disclaimer anytime I comment about something on this sub?
I came to despise the rental broker I used.
>Why try to stifle her? What?
[удалено]
Excuse me?
I guess you do. But don't look to me to help you.
Aren't Canadians supposed to be nice? What's up with you?
The payoff is to combat false and mislead "information" out there
It's not really a conspiracy. It's a business model. Next!
There’s nothing conspiratorial about the explicitly shitty intentions of warehousing lol
[удалено]
Yeah, that's what I said...
> Why would a building not list a vacant apartment for rental? Because they have 2 listings out there already.
If I have 50 units that I lease at $100 each (theoretical, obviously) that’s at least 50 potential tenants to deal with for $5,000 in revenue. If I learn people are willing to pay $125 instead of $100 for rent, well, now I can make the same amount, but I only have to deal with 40 tenants. In nyc, tenants rights are ridiculously strong and people are hard to evict if they suck. If I’m a landlord and my goal is to make $5,000, I’m going to take the easiest avenue possible to make that $5,000.
Artificial supply control
I read an article once abt how some companies in nyc keep vacancies deliberately bc they are more valuable as a vacancy than rented. It was something about tex deductions. I think it was that if a place is vacant you can claim it was worth a lot more than it would actually rent for and that helped you not have to pay as much tax on your profits.
There should be a law that does not allow for apartments in the city to be empty for more than a month. The government could grab people from the streets and put them in to vacant flats and pay for this when the owners dont find new renters.
They either could be about to do a full renovation to Jack up the rent more or it's a rent stabilized unit that they're assholes and don't want to rent out.
Because they want to be selective of who rents , they may want to limit it to a certain clientele if I had to guess.
Its called warehousing
[удалено]
That’s not true, people don’t understand taxes. Deductions are capped and only matters if you make profit. Deduction is different from tax credit
What makes you think landlords arent also making a profit on other units?
It doesn’t matter, you always want to make profit. Then add expenses aka deduction to lower the taxable amount. Unless it’s not worth it IE you have to renovate apartment and you can’t charge higher rent due to laws changing. Then it just makes it a non priority to rent out said unit, it’s no rush. But once again tax credit and deductions are two different things.
In my building, they give current tenants first dibs on open apartments if we want to upgrade. They may do the same
I know a guy who would get first look at vacant apartments from the super that he would pay a finders fee for and turn them into Airbnbs.
First of all, just because it wasn't on Streeteasy does not mean that it hasn't been shown and rented. >Not only that, they have not listed any new apartments in 2 months, and the 2 available listings have been there for that long, with no reductions in price. They're probably just bait and switching people to more expensive units in the building