The Rent Is Too Damn High!

[Kalmado]

Just no...... things were inflated 5-10 years ago before the market wrecked in 2008. I work in financial services including real estate appraisals and I would advise you look into HVCC and Dodd-Frank regulations that largely limit any influence on appraisers or attempts by banks to inflate value. I know PHX's prices plummeted, as did a lot of parts of FL, CA, Chicago, the rust belt, etc. Just the other day I saw borrowers and sellers renegotiate a price down $60k on a 500k'ish house cause the appraiser came in $60k below the initial negotiated price. In the past, the bank would've twisted the appraisers thumbs to find a way to magically increase it that 60k/10+%. In terms of 2007 vs 2014, for example, my parents house was assessed by the county at $215k awhile back and now its assessed at $110k (although with a homestead) as nothing has sold on their street or the adjacent street for over $150k in several years.

Your individual market may suck or you may simple be naive in what you really deserve / should be able to own in relation to what you do and how much you make but just remember all those "badly inflated" home prices and resulting mortgages had to be signed off and agreed to by the borrower so they share some portion of the responsibility but as several people here have indicated, if you can slowly save up for a significant deposit, the resulting mortgage, taxes, and insurance are usually a discount on the rent you'd otherwise have kept paying. I recommend you also look into federal as well as potential state and local programs that encourage home ownership since everything went down in 2008; there's a lot of initiative by the government to get families back into homes they own.

A lot of truth in this post and sound advice. I skimmed the OP because it's a lot of nonsense, but that gem you quoted is amazing. As Sep said, price is based on location and I can say for certain in the south to southeast portion of Michigan prices are significantly down on market value. My sister in laws house appraised for $350k in 2003 ish. They recently refi'd and the appraisal came in at $179k. This is common.

Just my opinion, and I may catch a lot of heat for this, but I think blaming the banks for 100% of home pricing is weak. The banks held the carrot in front of the public, but it was us who chose to finalize the deal. I can still remember radio ads in the mid 2000's claiming you would pay something ridiculous like $400/month for a $300k mortgage. That is a "too good to be true" scenario. Without a question there were bankers and predatory lenders that really screwed people over, but there was always the choice to say no to that refinance.

[Howie Roary]

mine is just under 30% sharing a place with my gf. Some of my coworkers chose to live in a place which was 45% for living solo in a 1BR, although this is compensated by doing more overtime than I do. Living alone in Toronto in a place without roaches or sketchy neighborhood is pretty hard to do.

[Roranora]

At my apartment complex, we are required to pay for a 'valet waste' service. Can't opt out. Another $22/mo on top of $1400/mo apartment. It's the laziest shit, and I'm insulted it's even a legitimate service. I can handle a walk down the hallway every 10 days or so to drop off the trash.

alligot

I can't know my % of income currently cause it approaches infinity. But soon enough, I predict it'll cost around 35-45% of my income.

[Serra]

Eviction sounds so much worse, but I really think it'd be, essentially, a breach of contract. Unless you're month to month, the landlord is providing a service which the tenant has agreed to pay for. The two have agreed on a price, and so if one side suddenly decides to stop following their side of the contract, what reason does the other have to keep it up?

It's been a few years since I've rented, but I believe most of the places I've rented from in the past have had fees attached if you're late (like for every day late, up till a point, then they have grounds to evict the tenant). But, that was all in the lease, and I believe it will vary from location to location, situation to situation. I know with my parents, their tenant has been late once, but called to ask for an extension, which they were ok with giving. I imagine different states have different laws when it comes to eviction too. I need to call a lawyer friend who lives in San Antonio to make fun of him for being down to Dallas tonight, so I'll check and make sure this is all correct.

So, after consulting with my friend, a couple things. First off, eviction is not just dragging you out of your apartment because your rent is five days late. In every state he knows (and so presumably all states, but don't hold me to that), there's some form of written notice. The landlord must notify the tenant that they're being evicted and why -- not paying the full rent would qualify as a reason for it. Once the notice is served, the tenant has a number of days to vacate the premises or remedy the problem (by paying rent). That number is variable by state as well. It can be as few as three days, to like thirty to sixty. Once that notice is served, if the period passes, the landlord has the right to take the tenant to court if they have not vacated the premises and to sue for money owed, etc. This is just personal opinion, but I highly doubt a legal defense of "I'm part of the movement for fair rent" is not going to fly in court.

Some states have some protections against eviction, but not long term and not to the scope you'd need.

Let's be generous and say every state had that sixty day period. For a movement like you're proposing to work, sixty days is not enough. People need to be able to commit for more than two months, and people are going to be evicted by then, and then start incurring legal fees.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, if you feel you're spending too much on rent, move somewhere cheaper where there's less demand. Rent is a matter of supply and demand. If landlords are charging too much, people will think it's not worth the price and move away. But, if people want access to a limited supply, landlords are going to raise the cost of rent to match the demand.

[Blubbartron]

I think the point that was being made in the initial post was that, providing you get enough people to join the movement, there literally are not enough resources for the courts/police to handle the number of evictions that would be need done. At the same time, the landlords' income would drop dramatically, making the "well I'll just pay my team of lawyers to sue you" look like a less reasonable option, considering the suing and evictions would drag on for months, and months, and months.

The concept isn't terrible, but trying to get it started on the internet is the wrong approach, as others have said. Something like this needs to be done apartment complex by apartment complex (or rental corporation by rental corporation). You need something like greater than 90% compliance with the "boycott" in order to make it effective. A high local compliance rate is necessary to overwhelm the system in that area.

[Serra]

So maybe one of my issues is that I don't see this type of movement as able to generate the necessary critical mass. I don't think the legal system side of it would be that slow, just because I don't see "I want to pay less money in rent" as a legal defense. And why do they need police? Is someone going to be home all day? Presumably most people aren't going to stop working to squat in their homes. You leave to go to work, apartment complex changes your locks, and that's that. Also, from a business perspective, what's better -- incurring the immediate costs of suing people, evicting them, and getting the rent you want as well as being reimbursed for the legal fees, or just accepting that you're going to be paid less? Yes, it's less convenient, but I imagine most rental corporations will be willing to accept that inconvenience. And as far as individuals who rent out a property, I imagine a number of them wouldn't have an option -- they couldn't just accept less rent.

Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, there's a huge free rider problem attached to this. Why should I take the risk in the first month or first few months, when I can pay my rent, see what develops, and then join the movement if it's successful.

[Cantih]

And why do they need police? Is someone going to be home all day? Presumably most people aren't going to stop working to squat in their homes. You leave to go to work, apartment complex changes your locks, and that's that.

From what I understand, they can't do that. Apartment or house, a landlord can't change locks on you, or much of anything else, the only way to legally get you out is to go through the courts and get an OK to obtain a law enforcement officer to come around and enforce the judgement. If they try anything else, it actually hurts their chances of winning the eviction. So no, you just go about your normal business up to that point, keep working.

(And something a number of Occupy groups did that didn't get major coverage, was blocking LEOs from enforcing home evictions. If it goes that far, and you could get the remnants reformed, you wouldn't even need to squat out. Once the court hits your number, you alert Occupy and get them to send over a team, like the Patriot Guard riders counter Westboro at funerals. And if you're worried about randoms hanging around, remember, Occupy loves recording footage, get them to stream each action online, would go a way to keeping everything honest.)

And as blubbartron said, the reason why I'm focusing on something big rather than complex by complex, home by home, is to push it PAST something the courts and police can handle. Yeah, five units out of five hundred units in a complex means not much to the landlord, but if you get that all over the place, how many officers of a force can be spared to do that stuff at once. And the longer you have a group clearly staying and not paying, you get people who are paying looking at it, and seeing well, they're keeping theirs, why can't I keep mine? The longer it goes on, the better it can snowball. And lets say an eviction does go through. If it's widespread numbers, the landlord is running a gamble every time they try to refill a unit, every new renter after the date is a risk. Though yes, that's another point, before trying, something needs to be worked out for anyone who gets tossed.

And the point isn't "a movement" as legal defense to win, it's to run the clock. Though, idk if you can force it to jury, but if you can, and you can get participation (or even just sentiment) to over half, well, they're going to have a issues finding a clean pool.
As far as I know, anyone who could change things to speed the process would be an elected official. And it's an election year. If numbers are got, being in opposition would be a very bone-headed move. Hell, I know in some areas, judges are even elected, sheriff's too, so even more political pressure could be put on, but fair enough that wouldn't be the case in all areas.

I don't really care about free riders. A few percent may not be enough, but if you could get a third on, even with 66% non-participation, it still does something. Too big for the system to handle, and while it may only be a slight kick to rentiers on that scale, to the renters the money kept is a big fucking deal. Think about it a second, if you kept in pocket, what you pay on housing every month. Think about what you could do with that cash if you were smart with it.

Don't care about "you weren't there, you didn't do anything, so why are you benefiting", don't need everybody, just need enough. So those who look at their situation seriously, and just have to say they can't, then yes, do what you need to.
Hell, even if they could, but won't, as long as enough still do, it'll lead to a win. I only care about getting housing (a necessity, not as severe as water and food, but still a real necessity nonetheless) back in line with incomes, for EVERYBODY. Everything else is fucking details. Find me a solution, with a better chance of success, in a reasonable timeframe (anything longer than a year is too long), and I'm on board.

Also, it's not like I'm going "now, now, start TODAY"
Picking a date well in advance (out my ass at random, lets say August 1st), cross and dot all the t's and i's of worries and what to do, make an infographic, get an assist in spread, and just plaster the fucking internet (and from there IRL). Get people talking about it.
If, IF the concept can reach an okayish state, and say, then go to the relevant reddits and have the masses and interested parties bang their head on it more to make it better, I'm guessing the "spread the word" part might be ready by the end of May?

[Yes, a lot of ifs. I ain't going make everything elegant and perfect and workable all on my lonesome. I'm just one duder, ok. Welcome to the sassage factory, it ain't pretty.]

BUT

As hostile as a lot of you are to this, ok yeah, it'll fail.
This is mostly a "It'll work if enough people think it will. Won't if enough people think it won't." kind of thing. And if BG is a decent barometer, then alright, it's dead and I'm done.

I just wanted to try and resolve an issue for once, figure out and do something within my capability, instead of just bitching and moaning about it and leaving it to the status quo, as is the norm everywhere.

Go and read the article links again. No where, NO WHERE, are housing prices in line with incomes. Yes if you're making more than average and not being extravagant, you're sitting pretty, BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT MAKING ABOVE AVERAGE.
Just moving elsewhere does not address the problem, being complacent and hoping things will get better does nothing. A majority of new construction is chasing the high end, what little low end isn't anywhere enough units compared to the population.

And generally, when looking at the situation, the biggest single expenditure of most peoples incomes is the home. Trying to go after other stuff is like the government trying to cut the budget by going after NASA and PBS, when the biggest chunk is really Defense.
There are two sides to the equation, income and expense. Income is already flat yet expenses are rising anyway, I'll bet you dollars to donuts the attempt to up income is going to rapidly get gobbled by expenses. So going after the other side of the equation is going to have to be done as well.

[Zetanio]

A few correction from your generalizations in the bottom.

And generally, when looking at the situation, the biggest single expenditure of most peoples incomes is the home. Trying to go after other stuff is like the government trying to cut the budget by going after NASA and PBS, when the biggest chunk is really Defense.
There are two sides to the equation, income and expense. Income is already flat yet expenses are rising anyway, I'll bet you dollars to donuts the attempt to up income is going to rapidly get gobbled by expenses. So going after the other side of the equation is going to have to be done as well.

The three biggest expenditures are pensions, healthcare and education, in that order. Defense is fourth by a distant margin. The second thing to realize is that any metric of income being in line with rent/housing costs is outdated. People are still refusing to look at the current rent levels as an approximation of the new normal.

Does it suck? Fuck yes, it does. Shit is expensive. Walking out of thousands or even millions of units wouldn't fix any of these problems. Do you think a landlord would immediately rent you a unit for cheaper? No, they would rent to the millions of other people who think you're an idiot for vacating. This isn't even a plausible solution.

[Sepukku]

Also having a signature that says "Reach heaven through violence" also only makes you sound like a radical; if you tried spreading this idea around and it were to catch on, do you know how quickly media would be all over your posts highlighting that? And similarly, if you picked a future date months out, don't you think the judicial bodies would have time to prepare for a way to respond? Its not like they're ignorant to the point that this would catch them off guard after months of it being out in the open on the internet planning it.

[Cantih]

Also having a signature that says "Reach heaven through violence" also only makes you sound like a radical

Fair enough, you're right. But that isn't the case, it's from a sweet webcomic http://killsixbilliondemons.com/ (specifically http://killsixbilliondemons.com/?comic=ksbd-2-34)
My last sigatar was from Space Pulp, but that ended it's run, so it was time for a change up, and KSBD beat out Unsounded for something workable.

[Sepukku]

Fair enough, you're right. But that isn't the case, it's from a sweet webcomic http://killsixbilliondemons.com/ (specifically http://killsixbilliondemons.com/?comic=ksbd-2-34)
My last sigatar was from Space Pulp, but that ended it's run, so it was time for a change up, and KSBD beat out Unsounded for something workable.

Understandable, but you got to realize the context in which you'll be viewed if you're looking to be generating new society and/or culture wide ideas - Huffpo, Fox NEWS, Time/CNN, and even TMZ time groups all will be looking into your background. Its not wrong to want to bring about change to something most people agree sucks but I don't think this particular idea is the right one and the signature thing is more or less just me giving you advice if you're going to continue to consider and propose additional ideas.

[archibaldcrane]

How long do you expect this movement to push rents below market value for? Is the idea that rents will stay low indefinitely because of the continued risk of renter non-payment?

[Cantih]

Basically, the end condition of the strike would be getting legislation to introduce factors to permanently bring the housing situation back in line with the thirty percent rule.
I'm not opposed to rich people having nice homes, or poor people having livable homes. Just opposed to poor people having shit homes, or paying an arm, leg, and firstborn to not live someplace where mold, rats, and roaches are the ones covering the other half of the rent.

The strike is essentially harder leverage to do it, do it properly, and do it in a reasonable amount of time. (EDIT: In fact, with lead time, if the legislation was introduced fast enough, a strike might not even actually have to happen. Add a secondary date that if legislation is promised but not delivered, strike goes live.)
I have no illusion that if you try to do this just as a petition, as legislation, lobbying is going to come out HARD. You will see shit coming up on TV to confuse things like nobodies business.


I am not sure what exactly the legislation should be. One man, not expert, just guesses, flaws may ensue.

---

The main problem as far as I've seen is that there isn't enough property at the low end (Or as Zet goes, this IS the low end), and there are more people at the bottom and are priced out (or excessively squeezed) of the middle supply.
It's slower, but the sensible approach is to increase the supply of units that are affordable to most of the population. Perhaps have the government pay more attention to demographics, and require construction so that there is enough housing to meet demand.
HOWEVER language would need to be included to make sure construction met certain minimum livability standards. We don't want another fucking repeat of the projects. Reasonable locations to workplaces and/or better/faster transit are also likely needed. If you sprawl out, commute times need to be kept under control. It may be a LA problem, but I do know people who have "moved where they can afford" and ended up eating daily multi-hour commutes.

The fine details of this option would be a bitch to hammer out. The more complex something is, the easier it is to fuck it up.

---

Another option, as a simpler pressure, you could work up a putative monthly fine for landlords that charge rents that exceed the renter's 30% of income. Rentiers would favor wealthier tenants, but if there aren't enough available, it would create a downward pressure to meet those with lower incomes. I seriously pulled this idea out of my ass minutes ago, I have no damn clue what the long term ramifications could be.

---

The last I got offhand is pretty brute force. You basically pull a big Prop 13, but include renters in the language. Housing gets locked at 30% of income. It'll cause weird scrambles, kill high end construction and fuck everyone holding anything inflated. It will actually favor cutting corners (or spur efficiency, but c'man, lets be pessimistic here) with constriction and maintenance (because what's the point), cause consolidation/monopolization of landowners because increasing your number of payers is one of the few ways to increase your bottom line.

It will also not control costs despite solving the issue for residents. Like Prop 13, once you cap, the only way to increase what you bring in is by ballooning prices. There's many factors for the housing bubble, but here in CA for the government and realtors, who get percentages based on sale and value, the only way to increase revenue would be to favor the (severe) rise of prices. People in homes wouldn't notice, but idfk what the ramifications would be.
The only other real benefit, since you lock it to income, would be to favor increases in income. Like locking executive pay to a multiple of the least paid worker (and accounting for contractor shenanigans), if they want to be a greedy bastard, they're gonna have to at least drag up the bottom with them.

I generally wouldn't recommend the last one though. But I mentioned it because since it was Archi asking, I'm pretty sure something like Prop 13 was at the forefront of his worries too.

[Sepukku]

Now this is just starting to sound like socialism, should we cap car costs? Healthcare costs? Sorry blahblahblah pharmaceutical, you can only charge $110 for a month's supply of whatever it took you $50mil in research and testing to perfect. Not to mention, wealthy people tend to be the ones who don't rent, so not only would high end multi-unit construction stop you'd still only end up with poorer people and lower rent dues, creating more barebones management and upkeep approaches, further creating a race to the bottom as far as living quality.

[Zetanio]

I'm done commenting here. You seem to be driving yourself deeper and deeper into fantasy land.

[archibaldcrane]

Sounds like white people problems really - "I want cheap rent, but I don't want to live where those dirty minorities live!"

[Serra]

It's simple supply and demand and honestly, what you're suggesting goes against this most basic of economic ideas. Again, where you live is choice. Know what the number one factor that impacts housing costs is? It's location (school districts being a part of location). You cannot say "I want to live in the bustling downtown and have a 10 minute commute to work, but I can only pay $500 a month -- make it happen!" This is a quintessential example of wanting everything while not being willing to give up anything.

[Aksannyi]

I have always believed in the free market speaking for itself and the prices will always rate what the market can bear.

That said, I would love if my income would increase at the same rates as my rent, insurance, electric bills, gasoline, etc. I haven't worked for an employer that gave me an annual raise since I left the military in 2004, and what minor raises I have gotten from employers have come up to less than half a dollar an hour, and average 10 cents/hour. (Pre-tax, that's $208/year. Gee thanks.) What ends up happening is that you are essentially forced to move every two years because you can't afford to live in the same place with the constant raises on rent. But it becomes difficult because (as I've said earlier in the thread) you have to come up with deposits - and you surely don't get your old deposit back in time to use it toward your next place - and moving expenses, and probably taking time off of your job in order to move.

I have gone back and forth living paycheck to paycheck and living comfortably over the six years I've lived here. I've basically had to get new jobs every few years just to make up for the increasing costs. The first job I got here paid me under $10/hr, but we got a lot of overtime. But then my rent went up, and even with the OT I couldn't afford it, so I had to get a different job. That one paid a little bit more and also had some overtime, and since I was driving so far, I moved to be closer - with the savings in gas from a 15 mile commute vs a 4 mile one, the higher rent evened out. Then the overtime dried up and I had to find a different job again. Now they're looking to raise my rent again. Granted $15/month is not a lot and I can definitely afford it, (and thank god for that). But next year will I be able to manage another raise in rent? How much will gas cost me next year? I live in Florida so my car insurance rates will continue to climb at least $25/month every six months (fucking crooks I swear to god) ... but my income will stagnate.

I don't know where I'm going with this, I may even be just bitching. I can afford to live make no mistake about that, but as a college student and growing expenses - and the concerns over how I will support myself when I have to do my final internship - I do have to wonder if I will be able to stay where I'm at while I put myself through school or am I going to have to search for another job that pays more money so that I can cover the costs of the rent and/or insurance increases again?

I get that things inflate, but it stings when everything goes up except the money coming into my bank account.

However, the only solution I have - because I have nowhere to go if I fail - is to keep working and paying, and hopefully when I graduate I can get the job I want and start making enough to offset the increasing costs. It sucks, but it is what it is. I'm certainly not going to do anything that will risk me losing the roof over my head and a significant amount of money I really don't have though.

[Senji]

Canlith solution thread#2: Cap auto loan payments to 10% of income over 3 years because my luxury coupe eats up too much of my paycheck. Roll car insurance into Obamacare too.

[archibaldcrane]

People are abandoning the suburbs and moving to / staying in the cities, there's not enough units to keep up.