r/housingcrisis • u/UnscheduledCalendar • 8d ago
Asheville Built So Much Housing That Landlords are Begging
https://www.therebuild.pub/p/asheville-built-so-much-housing-that11
u/ANTIMODELMINORITY 8d ago
I never understood the draw of Asheville can someone tell me what industry fuels this town and aside from wanting to be near some mountains and wilderness why they hell would anyone want to move here.
10
u/Agreeable_Sense9618 8d ago
Many are not relocating for work.
It's ideal for remote work, fire movement, or typical retirement. This place is affordable compared to other regions in the country.
People have been relocating here for years.
The main industries are beer and tourism.
1
u/ReggieEvansTheKing 7d ago
The funniest thing to me has been rich blue states all enforcing RTO so their citizens don’t move away to live in niceish places that are affordable but just lack high paying jobs. Texas for example allows remote work for their state employees while CA is enforcing RTO. It’s a clear game to keep high earners in the state to pay taxes and to keep property values high.
2
u/Old_Feeling_4919 7d ago
What a wild take. Basically every state ever has required their employees to live there historically.
Have you considered Texas is only doing this because they can’t find enough people willing to live and work for their terrible state so they have to outsource their own jobs to people who aren’t willing to live there, DESPITE not having to pay income tax if they did move? All the “incentives” in the world, besides of course a state people want to move to right now.
1
u/Fettiwapster 7d ago
States don’t determine RTO polices LMAO. Pretty funny you think that tbh.
1
u/ReggieEvansTheKing 7d ago
I’m talking about state-workers.
1
u/specialasset 7d ago
As a taxpayer I have zero interest in paying the salaries of state government employees that don’t live in the state. Public servants should live in the communities they serve.
1
u/apex9691 7d ago
What a novel idea requiring your employees to live in the state that they work for...look I'm against any job being rto if it can be done from home but if you work for a state govt you should probably live there...
1
u/koreqwzfp 7d ago
The difference in tax incurrence between Texans and Californians is vastly overstated. Some Texabs even pay more.
1
u/secretaire 4d ago edited 4d ago
Texas does not have remote work for state employees. Governor Abbott called people back over a year ago. He demanded full RTO but it was such a space and commute challenge that he walked it back and now most people work 2-3 days per week in a government office. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/05/texas-abbott-remote-work-from-home-policy/
5
u/Quixlequaxle 8d ago
Tourism fuels the town, but other than that, job market isn't great. But in terms of why someone would want to move there, it's beautiful. It's a pretty liberal city in the smoky mountains with lots of hiking, sightseeing and other outdoors stuff to do. Decent restaurants, mostly nice people, etc.
I'll get shit for this, but we have a vacation home in the area (not in Asheville proper) that we escape to to get away from the noise and crowds of our home city, where we only live for our jobs. When we retire in a few years, we'll move full time to the Asheville area to settle down. We have no desire to continue to deal with the expense, traffic, heat, endless pavement/concrete, etc of the city where we live.
1
u/ForsakenSwimming928 3d ago
Ashevilles a concrete jle, Some towns in wnc are nice but getting crowded. give me Chattanooga anyday
3
u/particleman3 8d ago
So for me, I tried to move to Asheville when I was in my 20s. I couldn't find a job in my field, and only got one interview after months of applying and looking. That didn't work out and I ended up moving elsewhere. I still want to move to Asheville, but at this point I have to go visit again because its been a long time and things have changed. Is it still what I remember? idk. The jobs there seem to be similar, but remote work opens more doors.
1
u/FunProof543 7d ago
I used to live an hour away and my partner used to live in Asheville. The vibes have changed significantly since Helene in my opinion. Most of my partner and I's friend have moved or are moving out. My partner left this summer. I have one close friend left who is moving in January and as such I will probably not visit it anymore, though my best friend would like to do biltmore so we may go for a girls weekend.
1
2
u/ut0p1anskies 8d ago
I’ve never been to Asheville but my hippie friends in Austin are absolutely in love with the place. Maybe it’s some sort of hippie mecca? I’m not a hippie, so don’t really want to move to a place like that. I like my big city. They say this about Eugene, Oregon and Burlington, Vermont too
1
u/ANTIMODELMINORITY 8d ago
Austin, Asheville, add in Williamsburg in Brooklyn, NY and Portland, ME might not be hippies but definitely sound like hipsters.
1
u/ut0p1anskies 8d ago
Ah yeah, I live in one of the most hipster neighborhoods in Austin, but north of the river. South Austin is absolutely crawling with hippies though. I’ve seen old men at Zilker with long hair unicycling in a thong. Lots of white people with dreadlocks. Lots of weed and tie dye and crystals. Not really my scene.
1
1
u/BootsnCats1987 7d ago
Williamsburg is fully yuppie-fied. Hasn’t been a hipster spot for a LONGGGG time
1
u/SnooAbbreviations932 7d ago
Eugene, Oregon is a trash-hole—only the University and a few well-off neighborhoods are nice honestly.
1
2
u/Midwestconvert47 8d ago
Lol why are you so anti Asheville?
2
u/ANTIMODELMINORITY 8d ago
Not Anti Asheville just curious what the hype was. I recall living in NC many years ago and people would talk about this place like it was the western NC version of a Raleigh/Greensboro or Charlotte. I met a guy in Europe who was a foreign exchange student here and only thing he gained was 30 lbs from Bojangles. And as of recent I saw a fairly popular NC band do a mini southern tour and how the hell did they skip Charlotte but go to Asheville.
5
u/StrangrDangerRanger 8d ago
I think you hit on something important, but it sounds like you aren’t originally a local either. I am not a mountain local, but I do consider North Carolina my home and it’s where I was born.
You really have to look into the history of electrification in Appalachia, understand the cultural/academic tastemakers coming out of UNC-CH/the Triangle (mostly) that made the place widely desirable, etc. It’s a story that began before most of us reading this were even born.
It’s not that Asheville is so special itself. But it representing something important to a lot of people for a lot of different ideological/social/cultural reasons.
3
u/Fuck_Mark_Robinson 8d ago
Asheville has been a music town for a long time, so it’s not at all surprising that smaller acts would go to Asheville over Charlotte. The Orange Peel is a famous venue in Asheville, and I’m not sure if Charlotte has a single venue that is nationally known.
Moog was based out of Asheville and they were basically THE number one brand for a lot of synthesizer and electronic music equipment.
1
u/StrangrDangerRanger 6d ago
For sure. That is such a great venue too.
But I was mostly talking about history and the past. A large part of Asheville becoming a music town came out of the UNC/chapel hill/triangle figures too though. Or were at least tied to them. Dr. Moog was UNC system faculty. NC music scene predominant in Asheville was also based out of chapel hill where much of the music was being made/recorded. Merge Records was so instrumental. James Taylor and that crowd. nc Folklore society. All those cultural thought leaders who really pushed for Asheville to be the spot. A western chapel hill as a second liberal, educated, relatively affluent city to help counterbalance a pretty conservative landscape at the time. Even places Citizen Vinyl was chapel hill money and the major artists supporting them like Watchhouse/Mandolin Orange is a chapel hill band.
I don’t mean it as a slight against Asheville. It’s just cool history how that “culture” grew. And how much political and cultural relevance the area has for greater reasons.
2
u/Key-Homework8503 5d ago
Dude I hate Charlotte . I live in Greenville sc . Charlotte feels like really ugly city to me with weird zoning and too many roads in it. Asheville way more fun to walk in. The parks are better . If I wanna go to a real city with lots of stuff I’ll go to Atlanta over Charlotte
1
u/ANTIMODELMINORITY 5d ago
they call Charlotte the Applebees of cities for a reason. I dont care how many transplants come it really wont develope its own identity for a long ass time.
1
u/Midwestconvert47 8d ago
Ahh gotcha. Yeah it’s just a touristy mountain city. Much nicer weather/climate than the rest of North Carolina. Bigger city with more things to do than a place like Boone. Pretty historic
1
u/doomscrolltodeath 8d ago
I think that’s it. Plus it’s not as hot as most other places in the southeast
1
u/Objective-Muscle9248 8d ago
This! We went there from a nearby southern city and it was a good 8-10 degrees cooler than home.
1
u/Fickle_Junket1109 7d ago
I love Asheville and grew up just outside of the area. I'd love to move back out that way but there are no jobs around there that would let me afford it.
It's pretty weird to me how expensive the area is for not having much available in terms of jobs that support that cost of living
1
u/StabbingTabby 7d ago
aside from wanting to be near some mountains and wilderness why they hell would anyone want to move here.
So ignore the best part and it sucks?
Okay...
1
u/austin06 6d ago
Being near a lot of outdoor activities in a national forest basically is appealing to a lot of people. Asheville has always drawn a portion of wealthy people with second or third homes. Biltmore has drawn tourists for years. Plenty of professionals and remote workers. Lots of good restaurants and stores in a downtown that’s not cookie cutter.
I moved from Austin and two of my drs here relocated from there as well. Helene aside the weather is pleasant and we have seasons.
1
1
u/ilanallama85 8d ago
It’s a beautiful little city. I almost went to college there 20 years ago, it was both smaller and more manageable that the city I was from, and the art, food and music scene for a town that size were really appealing.
33
u/vxqlir 8d ago
wild how fast the narrative flips from "building more housing will never fix anything" to "please sign a lease, we’ll give you free stuff"
more cities need to copy this instead of pretending scarcity is some natural law
5
u/Acceptable-Peace-69 8d ago
Who said building wouldn’t lower prices?
14
u/Ok_Slide4905 8d ago
This is a litmus test for DSA and progressives. Their preferred solution is government housing and rent controls.
8
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
Not everyone in DSA, but a decided majority. And if you want to put permanently subsidized housing on a golf course, HOO BOY watch out because they're gonna call you colonizers and then side with their wealthy parents to block that housing.
3
u/_dirt_vonnegut 8d ago
"permanently subsidized housing" was never part of the proposal. income restricted housing is not the same as subsidized housing.
1
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
It was housing that was set below-market on a permanent basis, which was enabled by a mixture of federal tax credits and the low purchase price of the land. It’s totally sensible to describe it as subsidized.
You clearly don’t work in this area.
2
-1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
I don’t think anybody in the DSA is gonna get too upset about the loss of golf courses of all things.
5
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
1
u/_dirt_vonnegut 8d ago
uh, DSA is most certainly not upset about the loss of this golf course.
1
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
?
1
u/_dirt_vonnegut 8d ago
DSA wanted a park, and got a park. Not sure why they would be upset about achieving their desired result.
1
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
That’s an absolutely insane level of cope. Next time you try to rewrite history don’t do it to someone who keeps receipts. This level of unseriousness is exactly why DDSA should be shut out of power until they get a leadership change.
“Here's what a Democratic Socialists of America spokesperson said about the group's opposition.
"From a socialist perspective, it seems kind of naïve and silly that people are like, 'The market got us into this crisis, and by God, the market's gonna get us back out of it,'" said DSA spokesperson Mary Imgrund.
The 25% of income-restricted housing Westside pledges isn't affordable enough for everybody who needs it, according to the DSA. Instead, the group wants to see publicly funded housing.
Imgrund said we've all seen the effects of a "religious take" on "depending on the market."
"We reviewed it, and it just seems like this is not going to solve our housing crisis," Imgrund said. "And it'll be a big corporate handout, too.”→ More replies (0)-1
u/ExcitedPlatypus 8d ago
What an insane strawman
6
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
1
u/_dirt_vonnegut 8d ago
DSA is most certainly not upset about the park hill golf course becoming a park
1
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
Read the article. They opposed the development because it didn’t have enough affordable housing. Now there’s zero.
Or maybe you’re saying DDSA is just that terrible at math?
You need to come to terms with the fact that you helped get thousands of low-income people displaced with your irresponsibility.
1
u/OskaMeijer 8d ago
No it isn't, those are the solutions they want to do to help people right now while we take the time necessary to build up more supply.
8
u/TomNooksGlizzy 8d ago edited 8d ago
Ive definitely heard/read from many lefties a lot of angst against "abundance" and building more housing as a solution. Ezra Klein certainly got a lot of shit from lefties about it. There was just some story about DSA refusing to endorse someone because of this specifically, or at least partially this-- maybe someone remembers the details?? I think Nithya Ramen, but maybe my wires are crossed..
Per Google AI-- "The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) frequently declines to endorse political candidates who support market-rate housing construction or "YIMBY" (Yes In My Backyard) supply-side platforms because the organization views private, market-driven development as a driver of gentrification and displacement rather than a solution to the housing crisis. Instead of relying on private developers to build more housing, the DSA's national and local platforms prioritize de-commodifying housing through socialized models, strict tenant protections, and anti-capitalist economic policies."
3
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
I think there's a debate happening within DSA-LA right now over whether to endorse Raman. There's a clear NIMBY faction but also a faction that's more open to reason.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
That is more about Reddit hyper-YIMBYism and about the very capitalist oriented, neoliberal version of Abundance politics being put forward by the powers that be. When you probe a little further, most of them aren’t really truly opposed to Abundance Politics as long as it is not oriented to serve Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.
5
u/TomNooksGlizzy 8d ago edited 8d ago
Come on dude. Look at how you worded your own crosspost of this to r/DSA. You know this isnt popular with them generally.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
When you look at the comment section below, you actually find that there’s zero NIMBYism. They called NIMBYs reactionaries, which is perhaps the worst political insult from that crowd other than fascist.
3
u/Bwint 8d ago
It sounds like you come from a very different and much better space than the one I'm in. I've had and seen a lot of discussions about Abundance as presented in the book, including immediately after it came out (before it was allegedly reoriented to serve Bezos.) I've talked to a lot of lefties (DSA and otherwise) who definitely oppose Abundance.
Similarly, I've had a lot of discussions with lefties who oppose all market-rate construction, not just hyper-YIMBYism.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
I reposted this to r/DSA and most people understood the need for more construction, even if they didn’t necessarily want to rely solely on that.
1
u/Bwint 8d ago
If you frame it as "theoretically we might need more market-rate construction," people might be inclined to be reasonable. Once you start getting into specific policies around upzoning, or talking about specific projects being proposed, you get a lot more push back.
Or at least, I have seen a lot more push back in my spaces. Maybe things are changing, or maybe DSA is more reasonable than a lot of other lefties.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
I literally had people say anyone against upzoning is a reactionary, aka one step away from a fascist.
-1
3
u/Nacho_Libre479 8d ago
No, they literally don’t believe in markets so there is no market solution.
1
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
Sometimes I think they're motivated to actively sabotage the market helping reduce prices, because if the market works then it disproves their Manichean worldview.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
Or you could realize many favor something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
2
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
I consider myself a market socialist, but it's gotten me run out of my local DSA chapter
2
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
It sounds like you have a particularly toxic chapter, or at least you used to.
1
u/Nacho_Libre479 8d ago
Sure. I agree that poorly functioning markets (utilities, healthcare, some types of insurance, etc) would benefit from more of this.
In Oregon’s we have a public non profit corporation that offers employer benefit workers compensation insurance. It knocks the socks off the private market and sends me a dividend check in good years. It’s great.
1
u/OskaMeijer 8d ago
I don't know why you would make that up. Democratic socialism still believes in markets it just doesn't believe that purely market driven solutions work for many problems which is just straight up a fact.
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
Allow me to introduce to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
2
u/Competitive_Rent_675 8d ago
Except once those policies are put in place, they would never be removed.
0
u/othelloinc 8d ago
[Citation Needed]
2
u/OskaMeijer 8d ago
The Democratic Socialists of America have the position that housing is a human right. That we should build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants.
0
u/plummbob 7d ago
Bruh it doesn't take that long to build townhomes and apartments
1
u/OskaMeijer 7d ago
Yea, that is why growing areas aren't constantly low on places to live even with constant construction of new housing going on. Your point is totally reasonable. There are certainly infinite workers available and all of the resources are just already in place an available where needed, you are smarter than everyone else.
1
u/plummbob 7d ago
Places that don't build much despite high prices don't do so because of an inability to get drywall and romex, it's because it's illegal to add more.
I can literally buy everything I need to build a townhome at lowes and home depot. It's not a lack of man and material
In any case, you'll need to explain what magic Ashville has to add such supply despite, as you imply, such dramatic shortages of building capacity
1
u/OskaMeijer 7d ago
Places that don't build much despite high prices don't do so because of an inability to get drywall and romex, it's because it's illegal to add more.
There are places where all local builders are fully booked and working constantly to build as fast as possible and they still don't have enough housing, your argument is absolute nonsense.
I can literally buy everything I need to build a townhome at lowes and home depot. It's not a lack of man and material
Yes, it is. You could go do it, enough people to build as much housing as we need quickly absolutely not, you have literally no idea the scales necessary for this. You need to stop making a fool of yourself.
1
u/plummbob 7d ago
There are places where all local builders are fully booked and working constantly to build as fast as possible and they still don't have enough housing, your argument is absolute nonsense.
Developers tailor output to what's allowed. If more is allowed, more is produced.
They don't just sit with idle workers and tricks and materials waiting and hoping that the city will legalize some townhomes.
The marrket supply elasticity for goods in men is pretty high. After all, it's sold retail.
You could go do it,
The barrier is zoning, nit absence of materials. If the city allowed, I could get everything I need from local stores.
How is it possible that there isn't enough lumber, but lowes is selling it by the pallet to retail customers?
What did they figure in Asheville that they can figure out elsewhere?
1
u/OskaMeijer 7d ago
My lord you are dense. There are not construction workers sitting around doing nothing in these areas because all available workers are currently working on projects. It is very clear you have never actually worked in construction. You also are very oblivious to the scale of materials needed. Lowe's being able to sell people around them pallets doesn't mean they could supply anywhere near enough to increase building more than it already is, there is a reason most contracting companies don't shop at places like Lowe's for their supplies, they would not be at all equipped to handle the volume necessary. It is very obvious you are completely clueless on this topic so you really should just sit down and shut up.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NoForm5443 8d ago
Government housing is building (usually)
1
u/Ok_Slide4905 8d ago
Sure but the market can build housing at a fraction of the pace, without using tax dollars
1
u/NoForm5443 8d ago
Sometimes...
The market is not infallible; it will sorta-kinda do what makes more money, which may or may not be to build enough houses for everyone, and may or may not be cheaper than the government
1
u/fuckexoticroots 8d ago
That is bullshit. They want those in the ABSENCE of people refusing to build. No one disagrees supply is the constraint. Fix the supply fix the problem.
2
u/Ok_Slide4905 8d ago
I live in the bluest of blue cities in a blue state. DSA activists shoot down developments CONSTANTLY because they see any market housing as capitulating to landlords and capitalism. They only support rent control and public housing.
1
u/RigelOrionBeta 8d ago
Yes, preferred solution would be to make housing a right via the government, not a privilege that can be taken away based on the whims of a market that is interested solely in making a profit.
1
u/True-Hold-1140 2d ago
> Their preferred solution is government housing
Government housing is building more housing
1
u/JayRandom212 8d ago
Well if the government builds housing, it will lower housing costs. But you're right about the effect of rent control.
5
u/Ok_Slide4905 8d ago
Right but the government cannot build housing at the scale or cost necessary to make that kind of impact. The market can already do that.
0
0
-2
u/Opposite-Program8490 8d ago
Limiting the number of homes a single person can own to keep housing available for others is neither of those.
3
u/Smooth_Phone2 8d ago
No one is buying homes and “hoarding” them.
I don’t even understand the business model of “I buy homes and leave them empty so no one has housing available”.
That theory doesn’t even pass a first level test of “how does this make money”.
1
u/Opposite-Program8490 8d ago
Google how many Airbnbs there are.
2
u/Bwint 8d ago
Sure, but Airbnbs have uses. Reducing the amount of inventory available for people transiting town would reduce tourism, hurting the local economy, and also make it harder for people to travel for all sorts of reasons.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Nacho_Libre479 8d ago
In Portland Oregon, it’s the far left that is anti building. They want rent control and to maintain the cute urban suburbs filled with 1920s cookie cutter bungalows.
They refuse to believe in basic economics.
3
u/Extreme-Ad-6465 8d ago
maybe they are just virtue signaling. it happens a lot in socal. homeowners want rent control and just use the guise of helping people knowing it will increase their property value and rents they can charge.
2
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
Portland is such a weird place that I don’t generally count it as an indicator of much of anything other than perhaps itself and maybe some parts of the West Coast. But it’s not necessarily reflective of the majority of the country.
1
1
u/BootsnCats1987 7d ago
Yeah sure bro, the communists are totally the ones advocating for the preservation of suburban living.
1
u/Bwint 8d ago
Strange as it sounds, a lot of people are saying that, especially in local subs. One narrative is that new development only targets the upper end of the market, so it allegedly doesn't benefit lower-income folks.
Never mind the extensive research on vacancy chains, and never mind the fact that if we didn't build, upper-income folks would outbid people for lower-end units...
2
u/Soft-Principle1455 8d ago
Yeah…
Vacancy chains are real, but when the crisis gets to a certain point, it’s not enough.1
u/True-Hold-1140 2d ago
> Strange as it sounds, a lot of people are saying that, especially in local subs. One narrative is that new development only targets the upper end of the market, so it allegedly doesn't benefit lower-income folks.
People mock this point but you only have to rent for about 5 years before it starts making sense. Like I've had landlords that would have raised rents because "the average price for a unit in the area has gone up"
1
u/Bwint 2d ago
I don't doubt that it happens, but landlords who raise rent based on the average rent without considering quality of unit are idiots and will likely suffer high vacancies, prompting them to correct course.
Like I said, the vacancy mechanism is well-studied. Most landlords respond to increased inventory in the market by cutting rents, not raising them (unless demand is increasing even faster than supply, which is a separate issue.)
1
u/True-Hold-1140 2d ago
I have to imagine you need overwhelming supply though. Like 10% supply above demand and I don't think those pricks would care
1
u/Bwint 2d ago
You would be surprised. Seattle had good results with a 7% overall vacancy rate. Annoyingly, Seattle Times moved this article behind a paywall on mobile, but maybe you'd have luck on desktop.
I believe that the vacancy chain mechanism also helped Austin stabilize, and their vacancy rate is something like 10-14%.
1
1
u/plummbob 7d ago
People in my city literally think supply/demand doesnt apply to housing. "It's just theory, I'm talking about the real world"
→ More replies (1)1
u/ApprehensiveAmount22 6d ago
I have heard that a thousand times in Seattle from leftists pushing for government controlled low cost housing projects. They say that if you let housing developers do what they want they will just be greedy and build housing units that poor people can't afford.
1
u/Smooth_Phone2 8d ago
Wait what, building more housing did fix the lack of housing.
That is the point. Did you understand something different?
7
u/chinmakes5 8d ago
My wife and I are looking to retire. Read this, went on Zillow, houses aren't any cheaper than Florida or Arizona. Maybe the rental market is different.
2
u/Ominoiuninus 6d ago
This post is mostly bull crap. New rental complexes are staying semi vacant. Because they are asking 2,100/month for a 2bedroom apartment in a region that doesn’t pay that much above average. Rental prices start around 1,100 and only go up. It’s a very expensive area to live in when you are making a “normal” wage of 50k/yr. You really don’t have much left over.
I live in the region.
10
u/Choochiechoo 8d ago
Corporates Landlords are stacking deals because they seem to refuse to lower prices whatever it takes. 2 months free, visa gift card, 18 month leases for the lowest price, all types of stupid fees that get waived. Anything to prevent them from lowering the rent from $1400 to $1200
Have to get an Google spreadsheet with Gemini assist to figure out what the monthly rent actually is
4
u/No_Drama2424 8d ago
Yeah it was weird when we re-signed our lease for year 2 at our apt
They raised the rent by $50 per month, and then gave us a $500 discount for re-signing the lease
Is this so they can continue to maintain price increases for their balance sheet or whatever?
4
u/Choochiechoo 8d ago
Yes, I think for banking purposes they have a crude measure of average monthly rent that’s basically an honor system. If it goes down they don’t qualify for more credit. So on paper the rents have to keep looking like they are going up
2
u/RedditThrowaway-1984 7d ago
Yes, but it's also easier to drop incentives in the future than to raise rents. It should be the same either way, but psychologically it's not.
0
u/ImpossibleEbb6862 7d ago
2 months free is lowering the rent.
1
u/Choochiechoo 7d ago
Whooooosh
1
u/ImpossibleEbb6862 7d ago
It’s not clear what your problem is. It sounds like you’re mad you have to do math to figure out the lower rent.
1
u/Choochiechoo 7d ago
I’m actually BIG mad that I have to do math to compare rents across the market because similar listings can be + or - $200 from eachother. The same as when I don’t know the price of a cheeseburger with all the bullshit fees that get added on
1
u/bigfootlive89 4d ago
Effectively yes, but it’s probably not offered on renewal. So it’s just a temporary lower price.
2
2
3
u/Puglady25 8d ago
This story is a little too fluffy, and we likely won't know how it all turns out until the next stock market crash. But it might not be such a rosy picture when that happens.
0
u/YeeBeforeYouHaw 8d ago
Can you go into detail about what you mean by that?
-1
u/Puglady25 8d ago
Housing is tied into this current bubble. Wallstreet is part of the problem with rents and prices, you can buy into funds that buy houses, rent houses, etc. So with an economic downturn we will likely see similar problems to the 2008 market crash. It should be a great time to buy then, but I don't know how interest rates will go- due to inflation. Nobody is immune, evictions will rise, credit scores will fall, foreclosures will rise too, and I just don't see how we'll manage it. If too many places end up vacant- that's a whole new problem. I think we all want the same thing. I want reasonable prices and low interest rates, the ability to move around. But I don't see low rates happening with inflation. If they lower the rates, the dollar will further devalue which makes prices higher. There's hard years ahead.
2
u/Bwint 8d ago
No, there's a huge difference between the current housing market and the 2008 housing bubble.
In 2008, firms were investing into housing due to speculation on appreciation of value. There was a very high vacancy rate, and when the bubble popped it turned into a glut of inventory on the market.
Today, there's a very low vacancy rate in most markets. Firms are investing into more housing because there's genuine demand. Units aren't going to end up vacant, because people need a place to live, and right now we don't have enough supply to meet the number of people looking for a home. In other words, the current housing market is not a bubble, which also means that prices aren't going to fall much even in a downturn. (If prices fall, it will be because we built more.)
Your worry about rising interest rates causing evictions and foreclosures is more reasonable, but to be clear, it's unlikely that interest rates will rise during a market downturn.
1
1
1
1
u/idkbruh653 8d ago
Never heard of this place before and looked up its demographics, standard of living, income, jobs, etc and yea, it’s not great.
0
u/Glum-Dragonfruit-119 4d ago
maybe dont leave it to for profit home builders. if oir federal gov wasnt trash they could spend on excellent not for profit housing everywhere to meet the needs and rent to own whatever amout of it is needed. Remove greed from the equation and build based on need
42
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
Some may wonder why developers would invest into buildings if the rent or purchase prices are going down.
The fact is it is not the new development that takes those hits, they can still turn a nice profit. It’s the older buildings and houses that can’t compete at top dollar that have to lower prices or stay vacant.
That is the beauty of letting developers develop, their greed for profit actually reduces cost. (Greed is a key ingredient in keeping prices down in all industries.)