Hey, there! Log in / Register
The rent is too damn high
By perruptor on Mon, 04/10/2023 - 5:58am
States of desperation[Yahoo Finance]
In Massachusetts, Florida and New York, Americans spend 32.9%, 32.6% and 31.2% of their income respectively on rent, according to the Moody's report.
The article says people are told that rent should not be more than 30% of income. 50 years ago, we were told it should be no more than 25%.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So, you’re telling us
now that we’ve built thousands and thousands of more housing units in crazy dense developments, the cost of housing has gone up not down?
Sure
If rents are to decrease the region needs to be building an order of magnitude of new units. For all the new construction going on it's just a drop in the bucket. And the rate of new construction has been falling fast as developers contend with higher interest rates and increased stipulations from the city.
Also, density of existing housing has been decreasing. Units that once held a family (3-4 people) or multiple roommates now are being rented by a couple. People want more space, more privacy, and more bathrooms.
If the city was serious about building new units they'd drop most of the zoning restrictions and other stipulations and let people do whatever they want with their land. I'm not in favor of that approach but it would bring down rents after a decade or two of unrestricted building.
Why is this the case you ask
Read the article in the globe today if you pay for access - it says -"A little over a century ago the Massachusetts voters approved a constitutional amendment that gave the legislature a far - reaching new power in the seemingly humdrum question of where to build housing and what type to build. the 1918 amendment gave legislators the authority to "limit buildings according to their use or construction to specified districts of cities and towns"
So for the last 100+ years it's been legal for cities and towns to control where multifamily or dense areas of housing were built decreasing the supply of housing and increasing the demand thus making housing more expensive.
30% is a dumb metric
This 30 percent metric is nonsense.
A new car costs, more or less, the same price everywhere. Groceries have a small difference, but Market Basket in MA is roughly the same price as the Piggly Wiggly in NC. An iPhone is the same price everywhere, and thanks to Amazon, so are most things.
So if wages are substantially higher in MA than NC (65k vs. 52k), it's reasonable that a higher percentage of income is spent on housing in MA than NC.
To put totally made up numbers on it, let's say housing in MA is 30k, and NC is 17k. Both persons have 35k after housing costs -- they're essentially exactly as wealthy in either place since the rest of their stuff costs the same. But in MA, housing is 30/65 = 46% of income; in NC its 33%. In both cases, the person has the same amount of money after the bills each pay period.
And yeah, before you point out that it's not enough, (1) you're right, and (2) loads of people have roommates -- many of us are even married or in LTRs with ours. In that case, just use your "share" of rent or whatever.
And yeah yeah, money spent on transportation in Boston metro is way lower than national average, because plenty of folks don't own cars. AAA states a car costs $900/mo these days, all-in. A T pass and the occasional Uber ride comes in way below that.
So what's the right metric? There isn't a cute simple one, but loosely, it's wage minus housing costs minus transportation, since lower transpo costs align with higher housing costs...
And
Thanks to Mayor Wu's keen ability to be in touch with the non-Ivy League working class, landlords in Mass can raise the rent by a whopping 10% each year. And mine did.
I have a college degree and I'm a independent professional and I'll be priced out of living in Brighton in just a few short years.
You don't see this situation until it really is too late. It's like even someone like Wu, the best and brightest, well, count on her to be playing ball with "The Nothing" from the The Never-ending Story; that's our economy.
Brazil, China, Russia-- we make it easy for you to prevail.
Gee, some of you out there must be starting to hope for another "housing bubble" right about now.....
Reading is fundamental
No, she's not proposing 10% annual rent increases. She's proposing increases (in larger, older buildings, only) tied to the cost-of-living with a maximum of 10% (so if inflation goes up 12% one year, rents could only go up 10% in that year).
Also, this is not the law. There is no rent stabilization, let alone rent control, in Boston, hasn't been for quite some time. To enact this, Boston will need the approval of the state legislature and the governor. So if your rent is going up this year, blame your landlord, not her.
Somehow, New York City has continued to exist with its own version of this without succumbing to a red tide of Lenin-spouting screamers at City Hall.
Ha Ha
Your mostly direct put down of the local people who own three deckers (and typically live in one of the units) as an investment makes anything else you say meaningless.
GTFO if you don't like it. Go back to Medina Ohio or Bozeman or wherever you decided to drop in from to Boston. There is plenty of cheap housing in Watertown NY.
Also - "The Best and The Brightest" as put to use by David Halberstam wasn't meant as a compliment. Read the book dummy. It was about arrogance of those who think they are smarter than the "others".
It also appears your comprehension of local politics, the stakeholders in the area housing market (which is more than just your dreams of a $900 per month three bedroom in Oak Square), and where you fit into it doesn't match up to your situation as an, how did you put it "an independent professional with a college degree".
Wow an independent professional with a college degree. Golly gee, Boston is a better place now that we have an independent professional with a college degree in our midst.
Then again, Watertown NY could probably use an independent professional with a college degree. Go get 'em.
If you want to be the best and brightest...
You would have realized that not only did Halberstam not coin that phrase, but that it has been around since long before he, you or I were even born (and you are old enough that you should have heard it well before the book was published too).
So it's a bit rich when you call a poster a "dummy" for using the term as it was intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest#Origin_of_the_t...
Our Brighton triple decker landlord lives overseas
And for the other 5 triple deckers on each side of our block, I can count one that is owner occupied. The rest I believe are managed by the same realty firm our landlord uses. Certainly anecdotal to a degree but far less reactionary or dripping with vitriol like your rant.
I mean $900 per bedroom in a 3 bed unit wouldn't be so bad right? Thats about where our unit started in 2020 but has steadily increased by 21% since then
But I dunno why you had to invent a person seeking $900/month for a 3 bedroom in Oak Square. Sounds a little out of touch to be honest.
The rest is just old man, clouds, pot, kettle, etc. (And before you try that other "GTFO" bit, I was born in Brighton!)
A Good Portion of the Wu Voting Block
And that extends to Cambridge and Somerville who are mentally with her, think that voting for her was a way to get back at someone who invested in Boston real estate.
A vote for Wu in their minds meant a way to pay less rent and more time living in former working class areas and the units that the working class used to occupy until that "independent professional with a college degree" class forced out. (See - JP - The second rent control ended in Brookline and Cambridge - present, Savin Hill - 2010 - present, Somerville 1998 - present, Brighton 2000 - present, Roslindale - 2005 - present, Roxbury - ramping up fast).
There was a cultural clearance in Boston and now the people who took the housing want to preserve it artificially for themselves. Not fair.
At Least Cantibridgians Lives Rent Free...
in your head. Where apparently our dastardly "mental votes" are intended to get back at your equally apocryphal hardworking triple-decker-owning strawmen.
In your world every electoral motive seems to stem from grievance and retribution. Consider for a moment that a lot of people voted for Wu in the hopes that she'd fulfill her campaign promises and increase the availability of affordable housing while working to keep rents controlled for existing residents.
But what do I know, I'm just some latte-sipping liberal from across the river?
"electoral motive seems to stem from grievance and retribution"
Yes - See North End Restaurant owners charged for outdoor dining. - Other neighborhoods, not so much.
See the safety / bike lane efforts and which neighborhoods receive priority.
The game of petty Boston politics has not changed, only the team at bat.
Treat everyone the same, and things will get better. Keep up the old system of revenge, and nothing changes.
As as Cambridge goes, well my latte liberal friend, I remember rent control in Cambridge and for the most part, the people who benefited weren't Mike at the Edison, or Daisy working as an assistant manager at CVS. It was "independent professionals with a college degree" who grabbed a lot of the apartments on Harvard and Inman Streets. Not exactly for whom rent control was intended.
Yes Cambridge Had Rent Control Starting in 1970
And here is a case where non-mythical outside votes from the suburbs ACTUALLY took it away from us, despite its popularity IN Cambridge.
I don't know how you, the king of whining about supposed outsiders and newcomers telling you what to do, can support THAT vote.
what an awful (perfect) example to lead with
saying a thing over and over again doesn’t make it true. trust me, i can’t tell you how many times i’ve told my mirror i’m 6 feet tall
And your point is?
In a resource-allocation tussle between North End residents and (mostly out of town) restaurant owners, she gave the residents what they had been asking for. This is evidence of what?
Does sound like you're inventing people/thoughts to be mad at
The thing is, you are sort of right about people who took housing and want to preserve it artificially for themselves, I just don't think you've shown your work to place the blame on Wu voters. Broken clocks/worst person you know, you get it.
Still waiting on your campaign to Beacon Hill to fix this and many other societal issues. Clam up!
The solution is
a higher property tax rate for rental property, compared to non rental residential property. For rental housing, raise the annual tax from 1% to 2.5%, which is the tax rate for commercial property. If rents are rising because landlords are making more profit, then the City should siphon some of that profit for public benefit. First, though, the state legislature will have to pass a law allowing a new "rental real estate property tax rate" to exist.
You might argue that higher tax on rental units will drive up rents, but that won't happen. Rents in Boston since the 1990s have been 100% driven by supply/demand not by landlords' expenses. Rent is "elastic". If taxes go up, some landlords might end up selling, but those units will more likely be bought by people who will live in them. That's an ideal outcome, converting rental units into owner occupied units. A unit of Demand goes away at the same time a unit of Supply goes away.
1976
I realize it was a long time ago. My paycheck was $135/week. My studio apartment on Huntington Ave was $95 a week. Among my friends and associates, 25% was the high end of the equation.
I took the Green Line and Red Line to work, and don't remember any problems with public transportation.
and nobody wanted to move here...
...from elsewhere in the country. Students who came to the Boston area to study left after graduation due to the lack of jobs here. It's the opposite these days. Nostalgia is the enemy of fact and reason
It was that number that made
It was that number that made me say we were the first American generation who would do worse than their parents. That and the massive legalization of usurious lending practices. And the drop in corporate taxes. And the offshoring of industry. And runaway insurance costs. And education costs.
But rent. That’s a biggie.
More like upwards of 50 or 60
More like upwards of 50 or 60%.
I object
Average income is 35% lower in Florida than Massachusetts, so the rent is only high in Florida given how low their income is.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=259515&rid=249
25%!
25% of a single income household!! That was the rule of thumb for like, 3 generations. It's literally the whole premise of Roger Miller's "King of the Road": a bum could earn his keep for a quarter-day's work.