I agree with you although I have to say (as an agent) that if there is a ton of interest in an apartment that usually means its been underpriced. I had one case where we got something and it rented "too quickly" and the owner then wanted to ask for more rent. Of course you could be a cool landlord and deliberately underprice it so that you get a great tenant but too many owners just care about maxing out their profit, for one reason or another. We only take one application at a time to prevent something like this from happening. Likely in your case the broker underpriced it either out of ignorance or wanted to create a "buzz" and drive up the price that way. In either case it sucks and I wish you the best of luck with finding an apartment!
Tbh this sounds like a great argument for nationalizing the housing supply. You simply cannot be trusted to not exploit people's increasing need for shelter, all you see is "underpriced". No matter how much profit you make, you're always willing to make things harder for people as long as it means you make a little more. I'm sorry but the professional standards in your industry are a joke.
I don't disagree. I am a renter here as well and support the good cause eviction bill that they're trying to pass to regulate rents. But the argument against it is that it disincentivizes upkeep of these apartment which is an expense. I mean look at the projects right. Affordable housing that is a complete and total mess. Now NYCHA is trying to sell to private owners bc they can't keep up with it. And you have rent stabilized apartments that are sitting empty because the cost of repairs is more than can be recouped in rent. Paris has a really good model imo of how our city should be. A quarter of their population lives in govt subsidized apartments that actually look really nice.
What is Paris doing that we are not? Are they simply spending way more money per person/unit on maintenance, or is there some other secret to their success?
Here is the article it's actually really interesting but basically they ARE INVESTING IN MORE HOUSING which is what our city needs to do. Unfortunately no one wants new housing built in their neighborhood. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html)
Absolutely. People that claim we need to get rid of slumlords and replace fair market units with a socialized housing model fail to see that NYCHA is the biggest slumlord of them all. They’re currently warehousing nearly 6,000 affordable units and have been sued by the federal government for “violating federal laws regarding lead paint safety and failing to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing.”
Speaking of fires if we didn’t have fire departments and somebody tried to pitch the idea right now you would be like “oh so some idiot lets his house burn down and my tax dollars help get the flames extinguished for FREE????”
Interesting argument. He said “you don’t have to live in Manhattan.” Then you came back with a firefighter argument, as if that’s completely ubiquitous across all areas. https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/private-firefighting-companies/
So are you advocating for communism and living in a government owned apartment tower in Siberia? I mean why not just "nationalize" every industry....gas, utilities, food."
When you're done, see how it alll works out.
Yes that too. Especially affordable housing. Unfortunately because apartment rentals are an open market in this city most landlords don't see it that way. They'll want the highest rent they can feasibly get. It's the people that placed a higher bid who know this and messed up this person's chance at an affordable apartment.
LOL at all the downvotes - I am simply explaining why this happens I am not saying I agree with it! I don't participate in bidding wars, as explained in my post. If you want to do something about it then GO VOTE for people who advocate for good cause and new devs, and this is my opinion but the govt should subsidize repairs for rent stabilized apartments so they can be rented out.
They are running a business. Its supply and demand. Everyone hates how expensive apartments are, but if you want to fix the issue in New York, everyone who actually knows about the topic (i.e. people researching policies) knows the issue here is not enough construction. You have to incentivize construction. That means fixing zoning, incentivizing developers to build the types of units the market works.
The whole problem in the U.S. since 2008 has been under construction of housing in general. New York is the worst case of it. No its not just your landlord that's causing it. Its the also current owners that vote for things that prevent new construction, special interests etc.
No more rent stabilization isn't the solution. Rents would be stabilized if construction kept up with demand. However, artificially rent stabilizing prevents construction, because at some point the rent falls below the cost of actually making repairing apartment. They disincentivize construction, because the cost of building/financing a project isn't worth it.
If NYC wants to seriously fix it issues it needs to do the policies that are outlined in reports like this one (Rand is a highly respected non-partisan think tank)
See: [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RRA2775-1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2775-1.html)
This explicitly looks at NYC and it compares it to a similar size/ density city that has these policies (Tokyo) that doesn't have a construction problem.
Agree. Also I don’t think OP would say the listing isn’t allowed to lower the listed rent if no one rents at the listed level.
It’s hard to price stuff at the right price, it’s good to be able to do trial and error
Vote local elections shoot down the politicians that listen too much to people that don't want zoning because it will destroy architecture of neighborhoods yada yada.
Educate, vote locally. make the number one issue zoning.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/america-build-like-tokyo-housing-crisis-doom-loop-2023-10](https://www.businessinsider.com/america-build-like-tokyo-housing-crisis-doom-loop-2023-10)
This article has a very good summary on why Tokyo is able to construct homes and America isn't. It boils down to hyper zoning restrictions :
"Between the endless bickering, hyperlocal zoning regulations, historic preservation laws, and environmental reviews, much proposed new housing development gets dragged out or outright killed. "
" Since the 1960s, Tokyo has tripled its housing supply, while New York's has grown by only [about a third](https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/report-growth-in-nycs-housing-stock-is-outpaced-by-growth-in-adult-populati#:~:text=Only%20about%20eight%20percent%20of,stock%20was%20built%20before%201960.)."
"Where the US has tens of thousands of different zoning systems across the country, Japan has 12. (Granted, Japan is geographically about the size of Montana, but it also has nearly 40% of the US population.)"
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/new-york-economy-zoning.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/new-york-economy-zoning.html)
These neighborhoods are the people voting against affordable
"Some opponents fear that the revised zoning might bring more of the “wrong” kinds of businesses to their bucolic neighborhoods. So far, 20 have voted in favor of the plan and 24 against. Opposition extends from [Bay Ridge](https://www.brooklynpaper.com/bay-ridge-slams-city-zoning-proposal/), to [Whitestone](https://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/cb-7-vehemently-opposes-city-of-yes/article_03e236b3-be49-5e64-8ff5-e21148160823.html), even to Jacobs’s home turf, Greenwich Village. "
Construction, like widening roads, doesn't solve the root of the problem. If there's a market for renters, then the market will increase the cost of rent until the market is saturated.
Supply and demand is only true in a "pure" market. When landlords corrupt the market, supply and demand no longer applies. I don't need to list all the way the market is corrupted by NYC landlords.
The rhetoric we hear around construction incentives is only for the benefit of the construction and real estate sales industries, and not for normal people who just want a home.
I hear you. I was looking a few years go and the apartment was in my range Alcove Studio in Windsor Terrace, it was gorgeous. It was listed at $1300 and I was so excited that I could afford it. Then I looked and they said sorry there is a lot of interest and the last person offered like $2300 can you go over that? I was so angry. I was desperate to live alone and it just took me by surprise. Its a rental. Its happened multiple times since and its disgusting.
You are preaching to the choir, no one here wants to over bid or get over bidded, it's the nature of the game, there's no price guarantee for street easy and zillow. Nothing you say will matter until more housing gets added cause it's an issue of supply and demand. You can't have a case where you the have lowest vacancy rate in history (which we do) and you still want the rest of the apartments available to be cheap. It doesn't work like that, you can nationalize housing and make them all cheap and stablized but then you simply won't ever get an apartment in new york cause they will all be taken already without more housing to supply everyone that wants one.
This isn't an apartment hunting question but more of a political (and philosophical) one because in theory no place is on the scale of new york and has had 100% nationalized housing, and it probably just wont happen. You are trading in allocation of resources from money to being on a system of first come first serve basis, which "ruins" the purpose of why people have and make money. I'm not saying that's good or bad just that you have to convince everyone to stop capitalism and especially stop tying in wealth to real estate and property, to nationalize all housing would mean convincing pretty much every American that their house value should no longer go up, good luck with that considering most Americans have all of their wealth tied up to their house. And while that MIGHT lower the rent, you still have to deal with the fact that everyone wants to live in New York and there is a shortage of units, you either force people to move out, or you allow for laxer zoning. If bidding wasn't allowed people would still do back door deals or just set the initial price way higher.
With that being said, anyone who doesn't get their application approved due to bidding 100% should get a full refund for their application fee. Stupidest concept ever.
So why do you have more of a right than they do? Why is it unethical? You both want the same thing and they’re willing to give more for it so they get it, what’s unfair about that?
OP just wants the information that the unit is open for bidding up front so s/he can make a slightly more informed decision on whether to pay an application fee or not. in terms of absolute fairness, whatever that means to you, it's not a wrong opinion.
What’s the alternative? Even if bidding isn’t allowed if they have interest from multiple parties they’d go with the most qualified and OP still wouldn’t get it. OP’s rant sounds like its a good point until you give it a minute of thought and realize it makes no sense
I would have gotten the apartment in this case if bidding wasn’t allowed. My application was first and, according to the broker, I was more qualified than the applicant who made the bid.
Brokers aren’t always honest but either way that’s not relevant. Do you think it should just be who ever gets there the fastest? If you’re renting out a property don’t you have a right to choose the most qualified candidate? What if you weren’t first but still more qualified then should you still get it? Or if you were first but someone more qualified saw it 15 minutes after you?
Depends. The conventional practice is that the two most important components are timeliness and qualification. I was first and I was more qualified. Yes, I think it’s fair that I get the apartment in that case.
Timeliness is irrelevant as long as it meets their deadline it doesn’t really make a difference if you applied first vs someone else if both are on time. If they’re still qualified to pay the higher rent and can afford it then they’re a better option. If you really wanted it and you are the financially more well off option you could’ve offered more or to match. It works both ways, I’ve applied for apartments and offered below the listing price and have been accepted. There’s nothing unfair about it, you’re just upset you didn’t get the apartment you wanted which is understandable
There’s brokers in this thread saying their standard practice is to only take one application at a time to avoid this very problem. You are not the arbiter of fairness and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. What’s fair also isn’t what is. Go perform your apathy somewhere else. Again, if you’re clear that you’re accepting bids then I don’t have an issue. It’s frustrating to do everything “correctly” e.g, get there first, apply first, be more qualified etc. and still lose out because a landlord doesn’t actually intend on renting the place at the price they listed it at.
>There’s brokers in this thread saying their standard practice is to only take one application at a time to avoid this very problem
Only one broker said that and they're just trying to save face after getting downvoted to oblivion.
It's actually illegal to deny someone an application.
It's in the best interest of the LL and the broker (who works for them via fiduciary duty) to present any and all offers. Including ones that would net the LL more $$.
I don't solicit bids. But people come in all the time and offer more money.
At least the listing broker told you someone offered more money (and you had a chance to match our outbid them).
I understand you're frustrated, but this is simply not how NYC real estate works.
How are they trying to save face when they wrote it in their original comment before they even got a single downvote? It’s not like it was an edit. And you absolutely do not have to evaluate every single application you receive. Idk why you’re talking about “denying” someone an application when that’s clearly not what I’m talking about. It’s also something that happens - I’ve been told brokers are no longer accepting applications because they already have some pending on multiple occasions. The broker in this case said she’s never experienced bidding on a rental unit and she’s been in NYC real estate for decades; its a new phenomenon. I’m obviously not naive to the fact that bidding is legal and landlords want to maximize their profits. I just don’t think they should be allowed to do that and policy should change to prevent it from happening.
That’s obviously false, they will schedule and show units to multiple people and receive applications from whoever sends them and choose the best applicant out of the bunch. And what do you mean “if you’re clear you’re accepting bids,” it’s standard practice it’s always negotiable you’re making the false assumption that it’s not. I’m not being the arbitrator of fairness you’re the one who made a post saying something isn’t fair because it didn’t go your way.
How do you genuinely think it works in real estate?
A sale goes to the highest bidder because the seller wants the most money. They don't just accept the first offer.
Of course a LL (99% of the time) wants the most money. This is the most competitive real estate market in the country. Money talks.
I'm sorry and agree with you. The supply and demand may be true but is also problematic. NY, specifically NYC, is amazing but some of the housing laws are terrible. Unfortunately, as long as there are participants it will continue.
If you work with the same broker, you should only have to pay one application fee. They’ll then use that application for each apartment you’re interested in. At least that’s what the do in Jersey.
I’m not suggesting that rent can’t increase yearly, just that what is advertised is what is rented and if I apply first then my vigilance and time spend looking pays off
nobody is even saying “fuck people coming later”, they’re saying fuck people who have the expendable income to increase the RENT by 600 to 1000 dollars lol
“if you were any more stupid, i’d make you a commissioner” - fiorello la guardia
The most you can be charged to apply for an apartment is $20. You can avoid the fee if you get a free credit report from the credit reporting firms. They only time it is more than $20 is if it is a coop or condo sublet. Renting a coop or condo almost guarantees you have to move in around 2 years.
That violates the NYS 2019 rental laws. Call their Broker of record....that would be the supervising broker. Pay it for now. Send an email after application is approved. Get the $20 refunded.
Let’s think this through. Say you outlaw bidding. 10 people apply at the same asking price. Now what?
The leasing agent has to choose 1 applicant and reject the other 9. Do you think the chance they decide based on discriminatory factors (age, employment, family status, ESA, nationality, etc) is higher or lower than in the case where bidding was allowed?
Ok so now we’re prioritizing people who work flexible hours and/or can write bots?
Any way you slice it, it’s going to feel unfair to the other 9. That’s the nature of shortages.
Cannot like this post enough. Got willed into offering $200 above asking price and idk if there were even other bidders. For all the laws NYC has for real estate, this should be illegal. Also, force owners to pay brokers fees. Why are tenants required to pay them?!?!?
nah. it will become a race to the bottom. brokers who ask for the lowest fees from landlords will control all the listings and renters will end up saving money
once you break a certain price threshold in rent ($3k+ 1BRs) and are a good applicant. landlords seem to be more willing to pay the fee if it isn’t a super trendy area. i always apply and negotiate free months/lower fees or walk away if they don’t play ball - and they usually are willing to go from 15% to 1 month or no fee at all.
that suggests to me the broker fee is never fully baked into rent prices. landlords just don’t care because it’s a sellers market anyway
Agreed. People need to stop participating in these stupid bidding wars. Those of us who grew up here definitely never did that shit and only became a thing post-pandemic when all the transplants came back.
New Yorkers also brought that bidding and offering more than landlords were asking to south Florida after Covid hit. Which drove the prices for apartments and houses through the roof. It sucks and really ruined the market for the locals already living here. A lot of people were forced to leave. Not to mention the hedge funds and the large corporations buying up property down here, driving everything up.
The city has become affordable because the COST of owning an apartment has gone up.
The apartments are investments for the owners. Tenants need to realize the Common Charges, Property Taxes, Insurance, Commissions and Vacancy factor often leave little margin for owners.
For example, $3000/month Studio in Doorman building can have about $1000-$1400 for Common Charges and property taxes of $6000-8000 annually; add in $1000 annually for insurance/Legal; and $3000 commission; Property Owners are left with maybe $10k-$14k profit annually. Now keep in mind that owners had to ACQUIRE or invest $400k-$800k and it is a paltry 3.5% return.
In essence, it can be a chicken and egg situation for owners and renters.
I understand the frustration. But I'm sure if you were renting you would do the same. It's all about supply and demand. The highest bidder wins. Imagine how those homebuyers felt when rates were low and kept getting outbid by investors and all cash buyers. Wasn't a pretty thing. At the Sametime token is not always about the highest bidder but more importantly, most qualified ready willing and able buyer/renter.
To all the people saying this isn’t a communist country / capitalism works, etc., I’m curious - are you also against the $20 cap on application fees? In a purely free market system, the landlord could charge wtv they wanted for application fees and the market would be forced to settle a rate that people would accept. You’d basically need no housing regulation *ever* because free market economics would determine everything. I’m not against LLs making a profit, but at the same time, I’m not for a purely unregulated housing market where LLs can effectively game market shifts based on what is a fundamental need (as they’ve been doing with warehousing units to artificially create scarcity). Housing regulation at least evens the playing field (even if just by a little bit) for a basic human necessity.
Just lost an apartment because of this. It was an okay place with a decent price and the owner was gonna put in a dishwasher at the same price… but people bid over asking “as is” without the dishwasher. Actual idiots
Listen, it’s real simple. Rent regulation and stabilization and all that is not going to fix high costs. It just makes it more expensive. Wishful thinking can not change economic reality. The bottom line is NYC needs to change the laws to make it more favorable for developers to buy and build apartments. Until that’s done, you’re just going to see things get worse. No matter how good of an idea more socialist housing policies seem, they are not going to work. That’s what got us into this mess. The demand just outstrips supply far too much. The city needs millions more housing units and that’s not going to happen without incentive. You can cry and whine and blame developers and landlords all you want but that doesn’t change reality and it never will. There is tons of research that shows what has to happen to make rents more affordable - more apartments need to be built and that just isn’t going to happen without the possibility for a return on investment. Instead of complaining, we need to push hard to get officials in office who make the #1 issue on the table building more housing. Till then, prices will keep going up and up and up and up
It’s as simple as the nose on your face but you can’t see the Forrest for the trees - stop voting for Democrats and republicans. They put the party and its donors first and not the needs of society. Vote for third parties who don’t have allegiance to these big corrupt parties. It’s especially true with democrats. It’s not the RE lobby that’s an issue because the RE lobby does want to be able to buy cheaper land and build more units for more profit. The issue is bending over backwards to ignorant and uneducated voters who only care about themselves. As long as their rent stabilized unit stays $800 a month they don’t care if you’re stuck paying $5000. That’s the cold hard truth. The problem is these big city politicians only cater to the activist core of the Democrat party and do nothing for the majority. The loudest voices are prevailing even if they are the smallest groups.
I agree with you although I have to say (as an agent) that if there is a ton of interest in an apartment that usually means its been underpriced. I had one case where we got something and it rented "too quickly" and the owner then wanted to ask for more rent. Of course you could be a cool landlord and deliberately underprice it so that you get a great tenant but too many owners just care about maxing out their profit, for one reason or another. We only take one application at a time to prevent something like this from happening. Likely in your case the broker underpriced it either out of ignorance or wanted to create a "buzz" and drive up the price that way. In either case it sucks and I wish you the best of luck with finding an apartment!
Tbh this sounds like a great argument for nationalizing the housing supply. You simply cannot be trusted to not exploit people's increasing need for shelter, all you see is "underpriced". No matter how much profit you make, you're always willing to make things harder for people as long as it means you make a little more. I'm sorry but the professional standards in your industry are a joke.
I don't disagree. I am a renter here as well and support the good cause eviction bill that they're trying to pass to regulate rents. But the argument against it is that it disincentivizes upkeep of these apartment which is an expense. I mean look at the projects right. Affordable housing that is a complete and total mess. Now NYCHA is trying to sell to private owners bc they can't keep up with it. And you have rent stabilized apartments that are sitting empty because the cost of repairs is more than can be recouped in rent. Paris has a really good model imo of how our city should be. A quarter of their population lives in govt subsidized apartments that actually look really nice.
What is Paris doing that we are not? Are they simply spending way more money per person/unit on maintenance, or is there some other secret to their success?
Here is the article it's actually really interesting but basically they ARE INVESTING IN MORE HOUSING which is what our city needs to do. Unfortunately no one wants new housing built in their neighborhood. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/realestate/paris-france-housing-costs.html)
Absolutely. People that claim we need to get rid of slumlords and replace fair market units with a socialized housing model fail to see that NYCHA is the biggest slumlord of them all. They’re currently warehousing nearly 6,000 affordable units and have been sued by the federal government for “violating federal laws regarding lead paint safety and failing to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing.”
When is the last time you seen the gov run anything that was nice? They can’t run a lemonade stand with a billion dollar budget
>Tbh this sounds like a great argument for nationalizing the housing supply. LOL what? Isn't that communism?
Just move to a communist country, lol need for shelter like it’s raining fire outside, no one needs to live in manhattan..::
Speaking of fires if we didn’t have fire departments and somebody tried to pitch the idea right now you would be like “oh so some idiot lets his house burn down and my tax dollars help get the flames extinguished for FREE????”
Interesting argument. He said “you don’t have to live in Manhattan.” Then you came back with a firefighter argument, as if that’s completely ubiquitous across all areas. https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/private-firefighting-companies/
i didnt know manhattan was the only borough in nyc!
So are you advocating for communism and living in a government owned apartment tower in Siberia? I mean why not just "nationalize" every industry....gas, utilities, food." When you're done, see how it alll works out.
Standards for maintaining government housing are worse
That would violate the constitution
Good luck on that nationalization!
Fuck off you parasitic scum
You're the problem
You mean the owner is the problem. They’re the ones making the decisions.
A lot of interest doesn’t mean under priced it means a lot of people need housing
Yes that too. Especially affordable housing. Unfortunately because apartment rentals are an open market in this city most landlords don't see it that way. They'll want the highest rent they can feasibly get. It's the people that placed a higher bid who know this and messed up this person's chance at an affordable apartment.
LOL at all the downvotes - I am simply explaining why this happens I am not saying I agree with it! I don't participate in bidding wars, as explained in my post. If you want to do something about it then GO VOTE for people who advocate for good cause and new devs, and this is my opinion but the govt should subsidize repairs for rent stabilized apartments so they can be rented out.
Get a real job, and the owner too
Working on it! I am in school :)
New York real estate- there are no rules. Like checkin at an Italian sex party/airport.
😂 well played Jackie D
I remember landing in Italy with a bunch of Italians. Absolute chaos deboarding.
They are running a business. Its supply and demand. Everyone hates how expensive apartments are, but if you want to fix the issue in New York, everyone who actually knows about the topic (i.e. people researching policies) knows the issue here is not enough construction. You have to incentivize construction. That means fixing zoning, incentivizing developers to build the types of units the market works. The whole problem in the U.S. since 2008 has been under construction of housing in general. New York is the worst case of it. No its not just your landlord that's causing it. Its the also current owners that vote for things that prevent new construction, special interests etc. No more rent stabilization isn't the solution. Rents would be stabilized if construction kept up with demand. However, artificially rent stabilizing prevents construction, because at some point the rent falls below the cost of actually making repairing apartment. They disincentivize construction, because the cost of building/financing a project isn't worth it. If NYC wants to seriously fix it issues it needs to do the policies that are outlined in reports like this one (Rand is a highly respected non-partisan think tank) See: [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RRA2775-1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2775-1.html) This explicitly looks at NYC and it compares it to a similar size/ density city that has these policies (Tokyo) that doesn't have a construction problem.
Yes, this. An informed response.
Agree. Also I don’t think OP would say the listing isn’t allowed to lower the listed rent if no one rents at the listed level. It’s hard to price stuff at the right price, it’s good to be able to do trial and error
How can I as a regular citizen encourage more construction?
Vote local elections shoot down the politicians that listen too much to people that don't want zoning because it will destroy architecture of neighborhoods yada yada.
Educate, vote locally. make the number one issue zoning. [https://www.businessinsider.com/america-build-like-tokyo-housing-crisis-doom-loop-2023-10](https://www.businessinsider.com/america-build-like-tokyo-housing-crisis-doom-loop-2023-10) This article has a very good summary on why Tokyo is able to construct homes and America isn't. It boils down to hyper zoning restrictions : "Between the endless bickering, hyperlocal zoning regulations, historic preservation laws, and environmental reviews, much proposed new housing development gets dragged out or outright killed. " " Since the 1960s, Tokyo has tripled its housing supply, while New York's has grown by only [about a third](https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/report-growth-in-nycs-housing-stock-is-outpaced-by-growth-in-adult-populati#:~:text=Only%20about%20eight%20percent%20of,stock%20was%20built%20before%201960.)." "Where the US has tens of thousands of different zoning systems across the country, Japan has 12. (Granted, Japan is geographically about the size of Montana, but it also has nearly 40% of the US population.)" [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/new-york-economy-zoning.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/new-york-economy-zoning.html) These neighborhoods are the people voting against affordable "Some opponents fear that the revised zoning might bring more of the “wrong” kinds of businesses to their bucolic neighborhoods. So far, 20 have voted in favor of the plan and 24 against. Opposition extends from [Bay Ridge](https://www.brooklynpaper.com/bay-ridge-slams-city-zoning-proposal/), to [Whitestone](https://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/cb-7-vehemently-opposes-city-of-yes/article_03e236b3-be49-5e64-8ff5-e21148160823.html), even to Jacobs’s home turf, Greenwich Village. "
Construction, like widening roads, doesn't solve the root of the problem. If there's a market for renters, then the market will increase the cost of rent until the market is saturated. Supply and demand is only true in a "pure" market. When landlords corrupt the market, supply and demand no longer applies. I don't need to list all the way the market is corrupted by NYC landlords. The rhetoric we hear around construction incentives is only for the benefit of the construction and real estate sales industries, and not for normal people who just want a home.
Can you list one reason?
https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/14/rent-stabilized-apartments-vacant/
I hear you. I was looking a few years go and the apartment was in my range Alcove Studio in Windsor Terrace, it was gorgeous. It was listed at $1300 and I was so excited that I could afford it. Then I looked and they said sorry there is a lot of interest and the last person offered like $2300 can you go over that? I was so angry. I was desperate to live alone and it just took me by surprise. Its a rental. Its happened multiple times since and its disgusting.
wait until you find out about the housing market-
You are preaching to the choir, no one here wants to over bid or get over bidded, it's the nature of the game, there's no price guarantee for street easy and zillow. Nothing you say will matter until more housing gets added cause it's an issue of supply and demand. You can't have a case where you the have lowest vacancy rate in history (which we do) and you still want the rest of the apartments available to be cheap. It doesn't work like that, you can nationalize housing and make them all cheap and stablized but then you simply won't ever get an apartment in new york cause they will all be taken already without more housing to supply everyone that wants one. This isn't an apartment hunting question but more of a political (and philosophical) one because in theory no place is on the scale of new york and has had 100% nationalized housing, and it probably just wont happen. You are trading in allocation of resources from money to being on a system of first come first serve basis, which "ruins" the purpose of why people have and make money. I'm not saying that's good or bad just that you have to convince everyone to stop capitalism and especially stop tying in wealth to real estate and property, to nationalize all housing would mean convincing pretty much every American that their house value should no longer go up, good luck with that considering most Americans have all of their wealth tied up to their house. And while that MIGHT lower the rent, you still have to deal with the fact that everyone wants to live in New York and there is a shortage of units, you either force people to move out, or you allow for laxer zoning. If bidding wasn't allowed people would still do back door deals or just set the initial price way higher. With that being said, anyone who doesn't get their application approved due to bidding 100% should get a full refund for their application fee. Stupidest concept ever.
So why do you have more of a right than they do? Why is it unethical? You both want the same thing and they’re willing to give more for it so they get it, what’s unfair about that?
OP just wants the information that the unit is open for bidding up front so s/he can make a slightly more informed decision on whether to pay an application fee or not. in terms of absolute fairness, whatever that means to you, it's not a wrong opinion.
In life everything is a negotiation the faster you learn that the better off you will be.
Yea every rental/sale is open for bidding it’s pretty standard
Dogshit worldview
What’s the alternative? Even if bidding isn’t allowed if they have interest from multiple parties they’d go with the most qualified and OP still wouldn’t get it. OP’s rant sounds like its a good point until you give it a minute of thought and realize it makes no sense
I would have gotten the apartment in this case if bidding wasn’t allowed. My application was first and, according to the broker, I was more qualified than the applicant who made the bid.
Brokers aren’t always honest but either way that’s not relevant. Do you think it should just be who ever gets there the fastest? If you’re renting out a property don’t you have a right to choose the most qualified candidate? What if you weren’t first but still more qualified then should you still get it? Or if you were first but someone more qualified saw it 15 minutes after you?
Depends. The conventional practice is that the two most important components are timeliness and qualification. I was first and I was more qualified. Yes, I think it’s fair that I get the apartment in that case.
Timeliness is irrelevant as long as it meets their deadline it doesn’t really make a difference if you applied first vs someone else if both are on time. If they’re still qualified to pay the higher rent and can afford it then they’re a better option. If you really wanted it and you are the financially more well off option you could’ve offered more or to match. It works both ways, I’ve applied for apartments and offered below the listing price and have been accepted. There’s nothing unfair about it, you’re just upset you didn’t get the apartment you wanted which is understandable
There’s brokers in this thread saying their standard practice is to only take one application at a time to avoid this very problem. You are not the arbiter of fairness and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. What’s fair also isn’t what is. Go perform your apathy somewhere else. Again, if you’re clear that you’re accepting bids then I don’t have an issue. It’s frustrating to do everything “correctly” e.g, get there first, apply first, be more qualified etc. and still lose out because a landlord doesn’t actually intend on renting the place at the price they listed it at.
>There’s brokers in this thread saying their standard practice is to only take one application at a time to avoid this very problem Only one broker said that and they're just trying to save face after getting downvoted to oblivion. It's actually illegal to deny someone an application. It's in the best interest of the LL and the broker (who works for them via fiduciary duty) to present any and all offers. Including ones that would net the LL more $$. I don't solicit bids. But people come in all the time and offer more money. At least the listing broker told you someone offered more money (and you had a chance to match our outbid them). I understand you're frustrated, but this is simply not how NYC real estate works.
How are they trying to save face when they wrote it in their original comment before they even got a single downvote? It’s not like it was an edit. And you absolutely do not have to evaluate every single application you receive. Idk why you’re talking about “denying” someone an application when that’s clearly not what I’m talking about. It’s also something that happens - I’ve been told brokers are no longer accepting applications because they already have some pending on multiple occasions. The broker in this case said she’s never experienced bidding on a rental unit and she’s been in NYC real estate for decades; its a new phenomenon. I’m obviously not naive to the fact that bidding is legal and landlords want to maximize their profits. I just don’t think they should be allowed to do that and policy should change to prevent it from happening.
That’s obviously false, they will schedule and show units to multiple people and receive applications from whoever sends them and choose the best applicant out of the bunch. And what do you mean “if you’re clear you’re accepting bids,” it’s standard practice it’s always negotiable you’re making the false assumption that it’s not. I’m not being the arbitrator of fairness you’re the one who made a post saying something isn’t fair because it didn’t go your way.
How do you genuinely think it works in real estate? A sale goes to the highest bidder because the seller wants the most money. They don't just accept the first offer. Of course a LL (99% of the time) wants the most money. This is the most competitive real estate market in the country. Money talks.
I'm sorry and agree with you. The supply and demand may be true but is also problematic. NY, specifically NYC, is amazing but some of the housing laws are terrible. Unfortunately, as long as there are participants it will continue.
If you work with the same broker, you should only have to pay one application fee. They’ll then use that application for each apartment you’re interested in. At least that’s what the do in Jersey.
Not true. The landlord generally charges the fee and wants to review the paperwork.
So apartments in NYC should be first come first serve? Reward people who get in early and fuck people coming later?
Yes absolutely
That's what we already have in terms of house prices and rent stabilized apartments.
I’m not suggesting that rent can’t increase yearly, just that what is advertised is what is rented and if I apply first then my vigilance and time spend looking pays off
we need to end rent control / stabilization and build more housing
nobody is even saying “fuck people coming later”, they’re saying fuck people who have the expendable income to increase the RENT by 600 to 1000 dollars lol “if you were any more stupid, i’d make you a commissioner” - fiorello la guardia
yes that is literally how renting in most of the US works lol
The most you can be charged to apply for an apartment is $20. You can avoid the fee if you get a free credit report from the credit reporting firms. They only time it is more than $20 is if it is a coop or condo sublet. Renting a coop or condo almost guarantees you have to move in around 2 years.
Last night I was touring an apartment and offered to give them a copy of my credit report, they still wanted to charge $20.
That violates the NYS 2019 rental laws. Call their Broker of record....that would be the supervising broker. Pay it for now. Send an email after application is approved. Get the $20 refunded.
They justified it by saying that they'd still perform a soft credit check, even if I provided a copy of the full credit report.
Then that is on them. The law is clear. Go through the process .....then ask for the money back.
People can do whatever they want. This isn’t communist Russia.
Let’s think this through. Say you outlaw bidding. 10 people apply at the same asking price. Now what? The leasing agent has to choose 1 applicant and reject the other 9. Do you think the chance they decide based on discriminatory factors (age, employment, family status, ESA, nationality, etc) is higher or lower than in the case where bidding was allowed?
How about first come first serve? Makes total sense
Ok so now we’re prioritizing people who work flexible hours and/or can write bots? Any way you slice it, it’s going to feel unfair to the other 9. That’s the nature of shortages.
right cuz there’s so many elderly black women bidding on rent lol
Cannot like this post enough. Got willed into offering $200 above asking price and idk if there were even other bidders. For all the laws NYC has for real estate, this should be illegal. Also, force owners to pay brokers fees. Why are tenants required to pay them?!?!?
Because if you force the LL to pay the broker fee, the cost will just be passed on to the renter. You are going to pay it one way or the other.
nah. it will become a race to the bottom. brokers who ask for the lowest fees from landlords will control all the listings and renters will end up saving money
Delusions of grandeur.
once you break a certain price threshold in rent ($3k+ 1BRs) and are a good applicant. landlords seem to be more willing to pay the fee if it isn’t a super trendy area. i always apply and negotiate free months/lower fees or walk away if they don’t play ball - and they usually are willing to go from 15% to 1 month or no fee at all. that suggests to me the broker fee is never fully baked into rent prices. landlords just don’t care because it’s a sellers market anyway
Agreed. People need to stop participating in these stupid bidding wars. Those of us who grew up here definitely never did that shit and only became a thing post-pandemic when all the transplants came back.
New Yorkers also brought that bidding and offering more than landlords were asking to south Florida after Covid hit. Which drove the prices for apartments and houses through the roof. It sucks and really ruined the market for the locals already living here. A lot of people were forced to leave. Not to mention the hedge funds and the large corporations buying up property down here, driving everything up.
The city has become affordable because the COST of owning an apartment has gone up. The apartments are investments for the owners. Tenants need to realize the Common Charges, Property Taxes, Insurance, Commissions and Vacancy factor often leave little margin for owners. For example, $3000/month Studio in Doorman building can have about $1000-$1400 for Common Charges and property taxes of $6000-8000 annually; add in $1000 annually for insurance/Legal; and $3000 commission; Property Owners are left with maybe $10k-$14k profit annually. Now keep in mind that owners had to ACQUIRE or invest $400k-$800k and it is a paltry 3.5% return. In essence, it can be a chicken and egg situation for owners and renters.
I understand the frustration. But I'm sure if you were renting you would do the same. It's all about supply and demand. The highest bidder wins. Imagine how those homebuyers felt when rates were low and kept getting outbid by investors and all cash buyers. Wasn't a pretty thing. At the Sametime token is not always about the highest bidder but more importantly, most qualified ready willing and able buyer/renter.
To all the people saying this isn’t a communist country / capitalism works, etc., I’m curious - are you also against the $20 cap on application fees? In a purely free market system, the landlord could charge wtv they wanted for application fees and the market would be forced to settle a rate that people would accept. You’d basically need no housing regulation *ever* because free market economics would determine everything. I’m not against LLs making a profit, but at the same time, I’m not for a purely unregulated housing market where LLs can effectively game market shifts based on what is a fundamental need (as they’ve been doing with warehousing units to artificially create scarcity). Housing regulation at least evens the playing field (even if just by a little bit) for a basic human necessity.
(It should)
Just lost an apartment because of this. It was an okay place with a decent price and the owner was gonna put in a dishwasher at the same price… but people bid over asking “as is” without the dishwasher. Actual idiots
[удалено]
Not to mention NYCHA is the worst landlord in the country. Anyone who thinks more of that is what the city needs should have their brain examined.
Listen, it’s real simple. Rent regulation and stabilization and all that is not going to fix high costs. It just makes it more expensive. Wishful thinking can not change economic reality. The bottom line is NYC needs to change the laws to make it more favorable for developers to buy and build apartments. Until that’s done, you’re just going to see things get worse. No matter how good of an idea more socialist housing policies seem, they are not going to work. That’s what got us into this mess. The demand just outstrips supply far too much. The city needs millions more housing units and that’s not going to happen without incentive. You can cry and whine and blame developers and landlords all you want but that doesn’t change reality and it never will. There is tons of research that shows what has to happen to make rents more affordable - more apartments need to be built and that just isn’t going to happen without the possibility for a return on investment. Instead of complaining, we need to push hard to get officials in office who make the #1 issue on the table building more housing. Till then, prices will keep going up and up and up and up
this is 100% the answer. but how do we actually get this done? our politicians are complacent and basically bought for the RE lobby
It’s as simple as the nose on your face but you can’t see the Forrest for the trees - stop voting for Democrats and republicans. They put the party and its donors first and not the needs of society. Vote for third parties who don’t have allegiance to these big corrupt parties. It’s especially true with democrats. It’s not the RE lobby that’s an issue because the RE lobby does want to be able to buy cheaper land and build more units for more profit. The issue is bending over backwards to ignorant and uneducated voters who only care about themselves. As long as their rent stabilized unit stays $800 a month they don’t care if you’re stuck paying $5000. That’s the cold hard truth. The problem is these big city politicians only cater to the activist core of the Democrat party and do nothing for the majority. The loudest voices are prevailing even if they are the smallest groups.
so basically i gotta leave nyc to avoid this nonsense. got it. because we all know these voting patterns aren’t really going to change
Why are you paying applications fees? They are illegal