Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Luis__FIGO t1_j1essux wrote

Reply to comment by LawyersGunsandMoneys in Opinion: CT must act on Fairfield County education, housing issues by LawyersGunsandMoneys

No they won't. Rental companies make it more expensive, not less.

They don't care about making alkiving less expensive, they are naturally only there to create money for their owners.

Apartments will sit empty instead of reducing the rent, or keeping it the same. This is already happening in stamford and norwalk.

If you want actual low income housing then yes if agree with you... Which Darien already has on Allen O'Neil.

It's also interesting you talk about fairifels County when you live in Litchfield County which has less apartments.... Maybe focus in your area first before casting stones

4

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1etf9s wrote

I want all of the above, and more of it!

More housing units produced will result in overall cheaper housing. I don’t believe that there is any commodity where an increase in supply will cause prices to rise. If we increase the number of housing units that developers are allowed to build, the price per housing unit will go down.

Also my apologies, I have moved to Fairfield county since the post you reference.

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1ezlzx wrote

They do it because it’s ok to take a loss for a few months to hold out for higher rent on a longer term lease. Vacancy of a high value unit looks better on paper than a lower than market lease.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1ezz2c wrote

Yeah, but that’s holding out for a higher rent, it’s not just keeping a unit vacant to keep it vacant. Presumably if someone paid the asking price they would rent it to them.

Wouldn’t an environment with more competitors (i.e. more housing units available to rent) make this practice less economically feasible?

2

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f1r4h wrote

Also we don’t want cheaper housing, cheaper housing is a bad thing.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f24af wrote

If housing were cheaper wouldn’t that allow people to enjoy a higher standard of living? If I were paying less on my mortgage (or rent), I could spend that money on other things. I would be more likely to go on vacation, start a family, etc. it seems like a very desirable goal to me. I don’t know what the downside is.

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f2h3a wrote

You shouldn’t be able to have a higher standard of living if you can’t afford it. I want a house in the hamptons personally, but I can’t afford it. I’m not calling for them to get cheaper.

1

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f2qr8 wrote

So you’re saying that even if we have the ability to make housing less expensive for the average person, we should not try to do that?

1

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1f33uu wrote

Exactly what I’m saying. When did we become so entitled that we demand nice things for cheap? If you spent half the time you are fighting for affordable housing actually working, maybe you could afford to live in a nice place. This is America, you have to pay up for nice things. Stop complaining

2

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1f3xxc wrote

Large portions of our economy are predicated on building nice things for cheap. We love Americans who make nice things cheap. Henry Ford is widely celebrated for inventing a way to build an item formerly reserved for only the rich (cars) and making it much cheaper and accessible to more people.

Most, if not all, consumer goods are much cheaper now relative to average salaries than than they were when they were introduced, because companies innovated to make nice things cheap for everyday people.

Housing costs have risen though, because the pace of construction has not kept up with demand.

Why shouldn’t we let entrepreneurs do what they do best, and make nice housing cheaper? We just need to pare back some of the excessive regulations and let Americans do what they do best.

I love America, what’s more American than letting Americans get out there and build shit?

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1fb0u0 wrote

I am literally one of those Americans building shit and explaining to you why it isn’t good for our home state yet you’re not listening bc it goes against your opinions.

2

Luis__FIGO t1_j1etyt6 wrote

Price per housing unit is a bs stat. It's not making apartments more affordable, it's literally decreasing property values. That doesn't help anyone.

0

Frequent_Jelly_4138 t1_j1ezqp6 wrote

Affordable housing is a fallacy. The only reason it is ever built is for the tax credits, then once ten years has passed it goes to market rate.

0

Luis__FIGO t1_j1f3p2x wrote

Making appartments that already exist affordable is not the same as building affordable housing way to miss the point.

0

LawyersGunsandMoneys OP t1_j1exh48 wrote

Also (sorry) but if rental companies are only interested in create money for their owners, why would they leave apartments vacant? It seems like that’s just leaving money on the table- with a vacant apartment you’re just paying the carrying costs of taxes/upkeep, with no return.

1

Luis__FIGO t1_j1ey0a7 wrote

If you reduce the rent you devalue your own property, and then get other tenants asking for reduced rents etc.

I down own a rental company, you can ask them why they do it, I have just have lived, and have friends who currently live in apartment buildings with vacant apartments which would obviously rent if they were reduced.

2

bombbad15 t1_j1hlkmw wrote

I remember reading a while back that commercial building owners are perfectly ok leaving their buildings vacant for YEARS as it becomes some sort of write off and can be more advantageous than reducing rent prices. Same concept may be applied to residential as I’d guess their projections are based on a certain level of vacancy.

0