Seattle Rent Hikes
For the Seattle renters and landlords on the forum, what rent increases have you seen (or dealt) since RE hit its peak? I know there are HUD studies, etc., but anecdotal is fun too.
We just received an 8.5% annual increase in a mid-size Capitol Hill apartment building (were expecting about 5-6%). Many units turned over since spring because of this, but every single one filled within a week. We're not moving since we like the place, it seems to be the craigslist-market-rate, and is still 20-40% less monthly (net taxes, HOA etc.) than getting a mortgage on any of the nearby condos (all noticeably depreciating). So what have you seen (or dealt)? How far do you think you could stretch it compared to purchased housing in this market?
We just received an 8.5% annual increase in a mid-size Capitol Hill apartment building (were expecting about 5-6%). Many units turned over since spring because of this, but every single one filled within a week. We're not moving since we like the place, it seems to be the craigslist-market-rate, and is still 20-40% less monthly (net taxes, HOA etc.) than getting a mortgage on any of the nearby condos (all noticeably depreciating). So what have you seen (or dealt)? How far do you think you could stretch it compared to purchased housing in this market?
Comments
I've rented my current place for over 4 years and had only one rent increase of $50/month. I basically rent half a house -- turned into 2 completely separate units with different entrances and no shared space. My best friend lives in the lower unit, and he moved in when the landlord still lived upstairs. When the landlord moved to Mercer, he specifically wanted me to rent the upper unit because he knew I would take care of the place, since I'd already helped my friend do landscaping work and build a fence for his dogs. He gave me a very good deal for 2 years, then raised the rent $50.
I currently pay $900/mo + electricity/water/internet for ~750 sq ft with 2 bedrooms, hardwood floors and a garage, and a 10 minute non-highway commute to work. Still a pretty good deal.
Landlords that I am friends with one is a big commercial holder of 5000+ units, another is a small typical seattle holder of homes/townhomes/duplexes about 50+ units have all raised rents 10% from a year ago, and whimsically over some wine they joked that only 5% of their tenants went away. So they will be raising more.
LHR, you're lucky to find a landlord who just wants to cover the mortgage. If I were a landlord I'd charge what the market will bear, with a discount for higher-quality renters.
It looks like the rental company lost tons of money in the real estate market and is trying to compensate that loss from other source of income. In the past 12 months, I've seen 3 different groups of people living next door. And my landlord is not changing their attitude. I gauss I will have a new neighbor again next month...
They are going to charge me 1450+150(2 car-parking) for a 600 sq ft apartment this November. I am going to tell them I can not afford my rent anymore even though I make 6 figures this year. For that kind of money, I can rent a 2 bd room house in greenlake...
Hooray for landlords loving good tenants.
Of course, rents are somewhat local but I think landlords are in that phase homeowners were when prices started to decline: the denial phase. Sure, they can up the rents on existing tenants, but they will be trying harder and harder to get new ones without dropping prices. It will hit apartments pretty hard as more and more condos convert to rentals.
I've almost always got my deposit back when renting. A couple of times I didn't because I had to move before my lease was up, and that's the risk you take with your deposit when you do such a thing.
The best way to get your deposit back is to not trash the place. Given that you're a student, the most effective strategy for you is to remove your mouth from the bong before you cough. If you fail to do this, the burning ember of weed will fly out onto the carpet and make a little hole.
I did know someone who actually took their landlord to small claims court to get it back, and they won.
The term "economic eviction" has become the method in the Seattle Area for at least the past two or three years. I have been economically evicted twice now in the past year. Rents across the board have been increasing at an alarming rate for the past two years. I have had to follow that market closer than most due to necessity. The exceptions are fewer and fewer, as the pressure to sell/refi has been relentless for a long time.
Granted, I expected my rent to be raised as much as 10 percent, and would have paid that. However, I am not going to subsidze someone else's beliefs about the market, and lose a lot of savings for my own place at the same time.
Curse former mayor Charlie Royer for pushing the State Legislature to make it illegal for any rent stabilization ordinances to be enacted in Seattle or any other WA St. City.
What does the rentometer tell you about the new price for the triplex?
http://www.rentometer.com/
Rentometer showed the increased asking rent as $150 above the median for the listings available at the time. Now, you also have to take into account that there are mitigating factors about my unit, vs. the other two, that don't even justify the median. Those will become apparent to any new tenants shortly after they move in. Even the asking rent for the other two units is beyond reasonable to most people. But hey, there are still suckers born every minute I guess.
net result is usually 1) no new rental housing stock; 2) housing stock that does exist being of very poor quality and 3) surplus being extracted from the system by existing tenants and brokers in the form of "key money".
Santa Monica had the worst rental housing situation I had ever seen when I lived down there. the rent control was a travesty for all but the select few who got in at the start. bad idea.
Same result, different beneficiaries. Rent stabilization can be done right. Santa Monica and New York are always trotted out as the poster children for failure. Yes, that was not the best way to do it. It is not the only way. No one says you have to allow the "key money" and similar scams to exist. The money being made with the current greed of the status quo make that stuff look tame.
And then all those who people are not skilled enough to get a job at whatever salary you deem a basic human necessity, can't get a job at all and so never get onto the first rung of the ladder.
Price fixing doesn't work? Quick someone alert Hugo Chavez!
can you trot out the example that worked? I've only lived places where it didn't. I can't say I've ever heard the good side of the story
It is one of those things I am against to my very core. And it is based on my core beliefs about welfare and socialism in general. You nailed it with the Long-term comment. Most of these kinds of solutions seem like a good idea to those that don't think them through, but when long term ramifications are considered, there is the devil in the details. Welfare, Social security, medicare and Medicaid come to mind.
@Robroy
I hear that there are plenty of countries that don't have those things you have issues with. Of course their economies suck and the people are treated like dirt (wonder if there's a connection).
Social security, medicare and Medicaid are insurances most workers pay for; I realize we pay for it "as we go", but most very large organizations self insure in this way.
I don't fear any Socialism boogeyman.The Constitution is very socialistic. You know, We the People and all that. Socialism has many forms, even democratic ones. Rent stabilization was working in LA when I lived there for the most part, and it's working now. Of course your opinion is going to vary depending upon which side of the fence you are on. Fantasy Free market (that does not and never has existed), Or, more predictable costs of living for those that it really matters.
I know all the objections and counter arguments to rent stabilization. For every claim of lack of building maintainence, there is another of deliberate neglect to prove self-fullfilling greedy points. Kinda like the idea that government can't do anything right, then putting incompetent people in and cutting budgets to ensure it fails. The truth is usually somewhere in between. The bottom line is LA would certainly be more expensive for renters than it already is without it. People who are the most vulnerable to slumloards and abuse benefit from it. As well as those min. wage working poor. Yes, timing is everything. Everyone should expect to make a profit, but no one should expect to be greedy.
I am in agreement with the idea some have here that rents spike at the height of the bubble. That certainly seems to be happening over the past three years. My concern, as well as that of many others, is how long it will take for them to come down again.
I say this as a person who owns absolutely no real estate.
And the constitution is absolutely not socialistic in the classic definition. Far from it. Its absolute foundation is the preservation of INDIVIDUAL rights. That is the complete opposite of socialism.
'Course there are those who think you only have rights if you claim membership to some entitlement group. We'll see how this plays out.