When private equity buys your apt complex

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I never said to deny them the right to vote. 60% of the residents of my voting precinct are renters according to County records. And 30% rent a property for a year or less according to mail forwarding stats from the Post Office. So my property tax bill is controlled by people that don't directly pay property taxes, and like I said, often will have moved before the tax hike goes into effect.

Except your entire comment was about how renters "who probably won't even be living here anymore when the bond they voted for goes into effect." It doesn't matter that someone rents if they have the legal right to vote they should be able to do so without someone saying basically saying eww you're a renter, you must not care.

It sounds very much like your area is changing, that must be difficult. If the majority of an area is renters that's who the voice of the people are, that's how voting works. Maybe the homeowners in your area should stop being landlords and instead be owner-occupied homes again. It doesn't sound like they have high investment in their area if not enough of them are living there in the very homes they own in great enough numbers. You can't help investment companies but the companies aren't the actual people voting.

I'd be directing the angst over at the people who can control it, go out and tell people to vote more, tell them you want re-investment in your community by having more owner-occupied homes. If transience is your beef then be an activist on that point.

 

[tvguy]

Except your entire comment was about how renters "who probably won't even be living here anymore when the bond they voted for goes into effect." It doesn't matter that someone rents if they have the legal right to vote they should be able to do so without someone saying basically saying eww you're a renter, you must not care.

It sounds very much like your area is changing, that must be difficult. If the majority of an area is renters that's who the voice of the people are, that's how voting works. Maybe the homeowners in your area should stop being landlords and instead be owner-occupied homes again. It doesn't sound like they have high investment in their area if not enough of them are living there in the very homes they own in great enough numbers. You can't help investment companies but the companies aren't the actual people voting.

I'd be directing the angst over at the people who can control it, go out and tell people to vote more, tell them you want re-investment in your community by having more owner-occupied homes. If transience is your beef then be an activist on that point.

Well, there is a problem when the voters make changes that they won't be around to live with, even you have to see where that may be slightly unfair, even if completely legal. So yes, that is how voting works.
Area isn't changing. Our zip code has had more rental units that any other zip code in our county since before I bought my house 40 years ago. We had two Air Force bases and especially during the 1960's there was a huge need for apartments for those transient residents. Voting on local issues wasn't an issue then as more military personnel vote in their home city's and states.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well, there is a problem when the voters make changes that they won't be around to live with, even you have to see where that may be slightly unfair, even if completely legal. So yes, that is how voting works.
Area isn't changing. Our zip code has had more rental units that any other zip code in our county since before I bought my house 40 years ago. We had two Air Force bases and especially during the 1960's there was a huge need for apartments for those transient residents. Voting on local issues wasn't an issue then as more military personnel vote in their home city's and states.

You can't place the blame on renters if your area doesn't care enough to be more owner-occupied. And it is prejudicial and stereotypical to assume that the renters are never around when the effects of a bond are in place.

I'm still stuck on how you know the exact make up of the registered voters who voted in any one particular election. In my area they will say the voter turn out in percentage but the demographics aren't known about renter or not. You can say that 60% of voters in the county are renters but that doesn't translate to who is voting. For all you know the people voting for parks are homeowners

That school bond we had voted on spring 2022 it was a mail-in ballot (as is legally allowed due to it being a question only ballot) with a 23% estimated voter turn out with just under 16,000 voting to pass the school bond and just under 7,600 voting not to pass the school bond. But it's based on registered voters and their addresses not the status of their homeownership.

I'm not even touching your not at all subtle last comment but sheesh.

 

[tvguy]

You can't place the blame on renters if your area doesn't care enough to be more owner-occupied. And it is prejudicial and stereotypical to assume that the renters are never around when the effects of a bond are in place.

I'm still stuck on how you know the exact make up of the registered voters who voted in any one particular election. In my area they will say the voter turn out in percentage but the demographics aren't known about renter or not. You can say that 60% of voters in the county are renters but that doesn't translate to who is voting. For all you know the people voting for parks are homeowners

That school bond we had voted on spring 2022 it was a mail-in ballot (as is legally allowed due to it being a question only ballot) with a 23% estimated voter turn out with just under 16,000 voting to pass the school bond and just under 7,600 voting not to pass the school bond. But it's based on registered voters and their addresses not the status of their homeownership.

I'm not even touching your not at all subtle last comment but sheesh.

Kind of hard to be an owner occupied apartment. I have no idea how it could possibly be prejudicial and stereotypical to state a fact. Renters here tend to move on quickly. It WOULD be is there were any restrictions on their voting because of that, and no such restrictions exist.
Pretty easy to compare precinct results with public records on how many renters and owner occupants live there.
I think you are overlooking how much data is available these days. Everything from your smart phone, cable tv box, internet providers is gathering that data.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have no idea how it could possibly be prejudicial and stereotypical to state a fact. Renters here tend to move on quickly. It WOULD be is there were any restrictions on their voting because of that, and no such restrictions exist.

Because you're assigning attributes to those renters. That's why. I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morally.

Pretty easy to compare precinct results with public records on how many renters and owner occupants live there.

That doesn't tell you how many of those comprise of the votes. Like I gave with the stats. Of those 23% of people who returned their mail-in ballot there's no indication of what percentage much less majority comprises of what. Just because you know the number of renters doesn't mean they are the ones voting in the majority all the time.

I think you are overlooking how much data is available these days. Everything from your smart phone, cable tv box, internet providers is gathering that data.

IDK you're the one who speaks about things decades ago as if it's today's era. If you're so confident then please do go provide me picture proof of your area for the elections you're speaking about. Show me the breakdown of what the voter turn out is. Like that 10,000 people voted and of those 10,000 people 7,000 were renters. And then prove to me those renters will move on out of the area and are voting not because they want something but because they are not having to pay for it. All that and more is what you've been saying.

Kind of hard to be an owner occupied apartment.

Of course which is why it sounds like your area is changing. If you've lived in that area since the 1960s or whatever long ago date you're going to provide it sounds like the needs and wants are changing in your area.

Apologies but I'm moving on in topics at this point.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

It isn't good, good grief they are merciless. We are downsizing into a smaller apartment in the same complex and some of the new fees, deposits and general grift are just shocking to me. We are a married couple but you can't apply as a couple and have one set of fees for the unit. We have to apply separately like we are roommates and we have to pay 2 sets of fees, double the pet fees, moved their liability insurance to the renter even though we also have our own renters insurance. And that is on top of raising rents significantly when they purchased the complex. They sure have covered all the bases.

It begs the question, why stay?

 

[Beezle2]

It begs the question, why stay?

 

[Beezle2]

It begs the question, why stay?

Well, we looked everywhere here in town and given what is available and our needs it was a bullet we just had to bite. For the crazy price of $1500 or so including pets and a garage we are getting a small 760 sq ft 1 bedroom in a nice safe complex that does take good care of the grounds. We have a pool here, walking trails, and a decent gym where I have donated a lot of my equipment and I use it regularly. For comparison many studios in town are the same $$ but smaller and don't offer amenities. Many of the 1 bedrooms are larger but even more expensive at the nice places, around $1800 and they also don't have amenities like the gym. We have lived here for 5 years and like the location. I can walk to work if I want, walk to the library or downtown. My husband is a trucker and is gone all week so I appreciate being able to call maintenance if something goes wrong. This place was built in the 70's and it is nice..but to come along and slap a few "upgrades" on and call it "a premium residential destination" is just funny. When we moved here 5 years ago we paid $1300 for 1330 sq ft 2/2B for comparison. Lastly, so I don't sound too whiny we are hoping for savings in gas/elec because of the smaller size and I think I have the office talked into letting me clean the gym weekly for a rent credit that will help with the price.

 

[Beezle2]

The situation is different when it's an entire company purchasing and an entire apartment complex. Furthermore when it happens to multiple complexes around.

In the OP's situation they aren't talking about a person who is taking on the task of an apartment complex so your struggles and realities of being one person are different than a corporations.

It's ridiculous to charge a leaving tenant for painting when you're a company who just bought an apartment complex and plans to remodel it. That is pure greediness so you can reopen units as brand new but built off the money of prior tenants.

YES! That is it exactly.

 

[Beezle2]

This sounds like all of the other businesses that Private Equity is scooping up....immediately raising prices and in a lot of cases, inventing fees. I have seen it in two areas in my town....both veterinarian and medical practices. Fees for both shot up after the owners of the practices took buy-outs from PE funds. Management in both facilities has been terrible, with lots of turnover and outrageous fees.

omg, yes! I was listening to a pod on the subject awhile back. It specifically was talking about vet clinics!

 

[Beezle2]

I bought a rental house with an existing tenant. He was paying $1750/mo. He was a month to month tenant at that point and I gave him notice and ended the tenancy. I raised the rent to $2400/mo with new tenants. Greedy landlord? Evil?

It does just make me sad. Nobody cares where that guy goes or how he gets along. We had retirees here who were not able to stay. The new people raised rents for our 2/B 2/B from $1300 ish to $2100 after the upgrades. We are now going to pay the same amount of money for 760 sq ft as we originally did for 1330 sq ft when we move. The more $$ for less thing we have going in this country seems like it might hit a wall someday.

 

[JLTraveling]

And, of course, there are also people in every type of business who are just greedy. I think that even if OP had damaged the carpet (which I am not saying they did) if the plan is to replace it when remodeling anyway, it totally sucks to make the OP pay.

This reminds me of the landlord at my last house (private owner, had a few properties across the city, known for being cheap). We were in the process of moving out because the sewer lines exploded, there was literal raw sewage sitting in the downstairs shower, and she refused to fix them. Told us to open the sewer cleanout and just let it drain straight into the yard. We also found black mold in one of the bedrooms as we were leaving, neighbor said it had been there with the previous tenant and this landlord only ever painted over, she didn't remediate it.

She comes by while we're packing up and announces, "I should keep your security deposit because you left holes in my walls." Um, yes, about 5 tiny picture hanger holes, when the lease specifically said that picture hangers were fine. She knew we were on the verge of calling the health department though, so one pointed look got the security deposit back pretty fast.

 

[kymom99]

In my area there was a large complex of section 8 apartments. Recently a music venue was built across the road from it, and now someone is turning the whole thing into high end apartments. All the tenants have to leave. The funny thing is, they are using the existing buildings. Just rectangular brick buildings. They painted the brick and remodeled inside. No more section 8. The former tenants could never afford to live there and affordable places to live are virtually nonexistent. It’s sad there isn’t more affordable housing.


I’ve mentioned here that my son is working in dutchess county NY for the national park service. Right now it’s seasonal and he can pay to rent a room on park property. If he gets on permanent, which he would like to do, he has to find other housing. Rent is absolutely ridiculous in that area. I would hesitate to have him buy something because 1) he’s not handy and 2) he may relocate and who knows how difficult it may be to sell. I’d be more inclined to recommend a condo, but HOA fees can be nearly $500 a month.

It’s really disturbing that people who work full time can’t afford to find comfortable housing right now.

 

[dvcgirl67]

It does just make me sad. Nobody cares where that guy goes or how he gets along. We had retirees here who were not able to stay. The new people raised rents for our 2/B 2/B from $1300 ish to $2100 after the upgrades. We are now going to pay the same amount of money for 760 sq ft as we originally did for 1330 sq ft when we move. The more $$ for less thing we have going in this country seems like it might hit a wall someday.

It's sad, but not the owner's fault for wanting to charge market rate. That's a big jump from $1,300 to $2,100, but I will say that it's downright cheap when compared to where I live. In my town for the apartment buildings rents start in the $3,000 for a studio apartment, $3,500 range for one bedroom (older building), up to $4,000 for the newer fancy building with nicer amenities. 2 bedrooms start at $4,000 in older buildings...up to $5,500!!

Rents have definitely gone up since the last time Iooked, but it makes sense from a financial standpoint. Mortgage rates are approaching 8.0% if they're not already there. To buy my house for the 750-800K I could get for it, *if* you put down 20% (so need 150-160K for that)....you're still looking at a $5,500 a month payment with taxes and insurance. Insane. No wonder nobody is selling right now.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

It does just make me sad. Nobody cares where that guy goes or how he gets along. We had retirees here who were not able to stay. The new people raised rents for our 2/B 2/B from $1300 ish to $2100 after the upgrades. We are now going to pay the same amount of money for 760 sq ft as we originally did for 1330 sq ft when we move. The more $$ for less thing we have going in this country seems like it might hit a wall someday.

I think people care but things also get more expensive as time goes on. You cannot run yourself into the red taking care of someone that didn't take care of themself.

In my area there was a large complex of section 8 apartments. Recently a music venue was built across the road from it, and now someone is turning the whole thing into high end apartments. All the tenants have to leave. The funny thing is, they are using the existing buildings. Just rectangular brick buildings. They painted the brick and remodeled inside. No more section 8. The former tenants could never afford to live there and affordable places to live are virtually nonexistent. It’s sad there isn’t more affordable housing.

The lack of affordable housing is a super interesting rabbit hole to go down. The way we have built in the US is the root of the problem and no one wants to allow it to change because homeowners are invested in keeping the status quo. Everyone claims to support affordable housing/section 8 until it's being built close to them.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The lack of affordable housing is a super interesting rabbit hole to go down. The way we have built in the US is the root of the problem and no one wants to allow it to change because homeowners are invested in keeping the status quo. Everyone claims to support affordable housing/section 8 until it's being built close to them.

NIMBY is very strong where I live so I get it. I don't think it's about not supporting it but let's get real when you rely on it for any particular population just to get into housing of any sort you've got a larger issue than NIMBY and building more section 8 or public housing won't solve that problem in the least.

And to point out the obvious affordable housing does not mean public housing or section 8 housing. It means the price points are where a wider variety of people can afford it. Some include housing where it's meant for either multi-generational or non-related persons to live together. We for the large part still consider that "nuclear" family when building housing.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It's sad, but not the owner's fault for wanting to charge market rate. That's a big jump from $1,300 to $2,100, but I will say that it's downright cheap when compared to where I live. In my town for the apartment buildings rents start in the $3,000 for a studio apartment, $3,500 range for one bedroom (older building), up to $4,000 for the newer fancy building with nicer amenities. 2 bedrooms start at $4,000 in older buildings...up to $5,500!!

Rents have definitely gone up since the last time Iooked, but it makes sense from a financial standpoint. Mortgage rates are approaching 8.0% if they're not already there. To buy my house for the 750-800K I could get for it, *if* you put down 20% (so need 150-160K for that)....you're still looking at a $5,500 a month payment with taxes and insurance. Insane. No wonder nobody is selling right now.

You should read the news story I linked.."it's not the owner's fault" is a distractor.

While it may be a bargain in your area it's because that's your area. When I was discussing the $2,400 earlier I tried to make sure to include that it would be for a particular type of person who could afford that as in general (based on all the articles you could find about average rents) that's going to be considered decently high. We know you live in NJ and in a high COL place so maybe $3,000K doesn't seem like a lot to you but you'd only be able to say that because of your area. I think $3,500 would be stupid high even for my neighborhood but it's also a neighborhood that is quickly being filled with homes more than $1Million when that used to be one here and there. A few streets away from me it's a completely different economic makeup. Pre-pandemic they did average income reviews and there's a shockingly high difference between my pocket and one just several streets away.

And TBH mortgage rates are a poor reason to give for increasing rents. This isn't an issue that just popped up when the Feds increased the rates. It's been decades upon decades of increasing rents and for many places increased pre-pandemic. I was paying $660 for my 1 bedroom apartment in 2012, that's laughable now to even get close to that. And when mortgage rates were low during the early part of the pandemic landlords were choosing to increase rates just because they could, a very pinched housing market became a lucrative one for them. That wasn't all landlords but certainly we can't give a pass by saying it's mortgage rates acting as if this is somehow new.

 

[Beezle2]

It's sad, but not the owner's fault for wanting to charge market rate. That's a big jump from $1,300 to $2,100, but I will say that it's downright cheap when compared to where I live. In my town for the apartment buildings rents start in the $3,000 for a studio apartment, $3,500 range for one bedroom (older building), up to $4,000 for the newer fancy building with nicer amenities. 2 bedrooms start at $4,000 in older buildings...up to $5,500!!

Rents have definitely gone up since the last time Iooked, but it makes sense from a financial standpoint. Mortgage rates are approaching 8.0% if they're not already there. To buy my house for the 750-800K I could get for it, *if* you put down 20% (so need 150-160K for that)....you're still looking at a $5,500 a month payment with taxes and insurance. Insane. No wonder nobody is selling right now.

Maybe I should just lie back and think of England. I guess I'm glad I don't live where you do because it sounds hellish. I want to find the "market rate" setters cause I think they are high on whatever they are pushing.

 

[tvguy]

The lack of affordable housing is a super interesting rabbit hole to go down. The way we have built in the US is the root of the problem and no one wants to allow it to change because homeowners are invested in keeping the status quo. Everyone claims to support affordable housing/section 8 until it's being built close to them.

Around here I am seeing two things.
First, with new multiple occupancy properties, somewhere between approval and construction the affordable units in the project are either reduced or eliminated. And there is currently a legal battle going on here between the City of Elk Grove and the State of California because Elk Grove keeps voting down affordable housing projects because they aren't where the City wants them.
Second, some landlords are getting squeezed because they overpaid for the properties. They have to raise rents to avoid going bankrupt, or they are forced to sell and new landlords are evicting tenants so they can raise rents even more.

 

[dvcgirl67]

Maybe I should just lie back and think of England. I guess I'm glad I don't live where you do because it sounds hellish. I want to find the "market rate" setters cause I think they are high on whatever they are pushing.

I was speaking about the PP who owns single family homes as rental properties. That's a different situation than private equity firms scooping up any and all properties raising prices as they did in your situation. The New York Times editorial board has an opinion piece on this topic today. It's titled, "Americans Pay a Price for Corporate Consolidation". Companies are getting bigger, consolidating power pushing out smaller players. It makes everything from airline tickets, to veterinary care....to rent, increasingly expensive.

As for where I live...it's a nice little town in NJ, but yes, it's expensive to live here and most of the northeast for that matter.