What does seem to happen often is that an owner who wants to move but doesn't want to lose their nice rate will move and then rent our their old place, or at least try to, it can be difficult to qualify for a new mortgage while carrying the old mortgage and not having a history of rent payments.
ARM, 5/1 may be assumable depending on terms.
There's some exceptions, USDA, VA, and FHA loans. All government programs. But it's tied to the property so only transferable to the purchaser. Very rare here even now with rates changing so much.
Typically people refix after the term. My 5 year recently ended and my monthly cost increased as I’m now fixed at a higher rate for another 5 years - at 4.5%, although it’s still less %age of my wage than it was 5 years ago.
During the fixed term you can’t repay it without a penalty, but if you move house you can port the mortgage so it’s secured against the new house instead.
We got blown away by the pandemic that locked up the housing stock. So I cheated and built my own house for like 1/4 the cost it is on the market as it's almost all markup from the opportunity cost of losing the 0% loan.
For those that have lost hope seriously consider a prefab for like 60k dropped on some vacant land. Where I live you don't even need inspections or license to do it yourself. But you need to develop the land yourself, and not hire out a GC, because developers will always be chasing high margin luxury builds rather than the low margin methods I've discovered for economical housing.
Basically the poor have worse access to credit than other groups so when interest goes negative in real terms the poor pay for it.
For those of us here, that’s probably well within reason in most of the country where you can buy a house for <$600k
Sure the price of the houses has gone down, but higher interest rates mean my monthlies are higher than they were, which means I can't afford a house!
Right -- that's not a trap; it's a choice.
Harder than it used to be though.
https://www.wired.com/story/airbnb-ban-new-york-illegal-list...
“It has long been the most affluent neighborhood in New York City.”
“The Upper East Side maintains the highest pricing per square foot in the United States.”
“Four of the top five ZIP Codes in the nation for political contributions are in Manhattan. The top ZIP Code, 10021, is on the Upper East Side and generated the most money for the 2004 presidential campaigns of both George W. Bush and John Kerry.”
It's what most people would consider so, yes. It's an upper-middle-class area, clean and safe, if more than a little stuffy and uptight.
That's an understatement. It's consistently one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest (depending on the year) locations in the entire country.
It is, depending on the year, how you measure it, and what you consider "Upper East Side". That last part is important: the UES has three main subneighborhoods with very different demographics and characteristics. It's also adjacent to East Harlem, which is historically not wealthy and brings the mean/median down for any measure that includes part of it.
For example, here the Upper East Side is listed as the wealthiest neighborhood in the entire city, all five boroughs: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/6/27/15881706/nyc-richest-neighbo.... This is using household income, which is one measure. Alternate measures include median rent (skewed due to rent regulations), net worth, property values, etc.
Point is: calling the upper east side an "upper middle class" area is an understatement. If it's not a wealthy neighborhood, then nowhere is.
Yes. That's basically east of Central Park at the southern end of museum mile. So, generally, a very good (if somewhat sleepy) neighborhood.
Also it's a miserable part of the city to live in.
The building was an old one in the center of Manhattan, but newly renovated. I moved in in 2021, and I think everybody had moved in within the last 5 years. There were a bunch of young professionals that had graduated from NYU and such.
But this guy was the only one without the iPhone electronic lock on his door -- and good for him, the iPhone locks are a reason why I moved out of the building! (Unsurprisingly, the locks once malfunctioned and we were locked out of the building. Computers make everything work very poorly these days.)
Anyway, I chatted with him in the elevator, and once asked when he moved in. I believe he said 1989 -- anyway, it was like 3 decades.
He didn't look to be more than 40, so I guess he must have lived there as a child, and inherited the apartment.
Also, whenever I talked to him, he would say something super political without prompting, like "Adams is fucking slob, under Giuliani we had law and order" or something.
(Also, he was black, which may break your mental image a bit.)
A bit of an aside because it sounds like he really did live there full-time, but another reason why people in RS units wouldn't want an phone-enabled lock on their door is it possibly gives the landlord information on how often they come and go.
Some people who have units like that live somewhere else but just can't bring themselves to let the things go, so they use them as storage and go by once a week to check the mail.
On the bright side, it was a well-maintained building in a good neighborhood, so they had reasons to enjoy it being just the price.
About 1% of NYC apartments are rent controlled, about 50% are rent stabilized.
In controlled units you might see a minor increase over time, but generally you're paying what the unit was priced at 50 years ago. Leaving typically means an increase in rent of 500-700%, and these are practically impossible for new tenants to get.
In stablized units the rent can only be increased by a percentage determined by a board, typically 2-3% a year.
That's not true.
Stabilized units can increase something like 4% a year, up until they hit the threshold that takes them out of stabilization.
Controlled units can increase 2% every two years and historically did not do so from the 90s until a few years ago where increases have been happening and the housing board has advocated on behalf of landlords for additional/emergency increases.
Rent increases can happen completely separate from this process through building improvements and from the late 80s through to the early 2000s, my landlord managed to add $700 onto our controlled rent through really shady/shoddy/fake building improvements.
Growing up about 80% of the units in the building were rent-controlled and when I left there was was only 1 controlled unit left after mine. Nobody in my family, even though they all still live in NYC, wanted to take over the apartment.
Most controlled apartment renters die and have nobody eligible to take them over (an immediate family member has to cohabitate for like 2 years with the renter). The number remaining across all of NYC is exceedingly small, like under 15000. There are ~4 million housing units in NYC. Rent-controlled apartments are true unicorns. But close to 75% are stabilized.
They would do shit like slap a coat of primer on the hallways and add $50/mo in permanent rent to everyone's bill (90 unit building).
> my landlord managed to add $700 onto our controlled rent through really shady/shoddy/fake building improvements
Ugh, your story is not uncommon sadly.
Rent Guidelines change every year. They've typically been 2% or lower. Due to high inflation, the latest increase is 3.0%. [1]
There is no longer High-rent or High-income rent decontrol since 2019. Individual Apartment Improvements and Major Capital Improvement now provide a much smaller basis for rent increases and/or are temporary. [2]
[1] https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uplo...
[2] https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/08/rent-laws-...
To have rent control you have to have been in your apartment since before 1970. Capital improvements are how rent-controlled apartments had their rents jacked up between then and now. The majority of decontrol happened before any changes made in 2019.
The suggestion made before was that rent-controlled apartments were locked into the prices people paid 50 years ago and that's not remotely true. Also the number of rent-controlled apartments remaining in NYC is practically insignificant.
It's at the very least remotely true, if exaggerated
> [The median monthly rent for unregulated units is] $1,845
> The median monthly rent is about $1,400 for rent-stabilized units
> [The median monthly rent for rent-controlled units is] around $858
The OP was unclear, controlled units are certainly not "locked into" any price. To your point:
> rent control operates under the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) system. A maximum base rent is established for each apartment and adjusted every two years to reflect changes in operating costs. Owners [...] are entitled to raise rents the [..] the average of the five most recent Rent Guidelines Board annual rent increases for one year renewal leases [...] until they reach the MBR
https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/09/fact-sheet...
Owners are so anxious to get tenants out (so they can start the gouging) that they offer tenants in controlled units buyouts to leave.
> In general, a buyout could range from $20,000 to $60,000
https://www.singhranilaw.com/post/understanding-and-negotiat...
The landlord put giant holes in my floor to get access to some pipes and wouldn't fix them for over a year.
After leaving the landlord tried to bill tens of thousands of dollars to bring the apartment up to their current standards -- even though we'd been in there since 1970 and the landlord never spent a cent on modernizing the apartment along the way. 100% of the renovations and upgrades we did ourselves. The apartment was left in great condition.
I completely agree with you that it's a trap. The place made me completely miserable and even though at the end I finally earned decent money to leave, I chose to leave the city entirely.
Best decision of my life.
> landlord tried to bill tens of thousands of dollars to bring the apartment up to their current standards
> landlord never spent a cent on modernizing the apartment along the way
Surely you see that these are directly connected. With an increasing cost of living and a legally fixed profitability per month that isn't going up over time nor keeping up with inflation, from the landlord's perspective, there's little to no incentive for them to fork over cash they never got from the apartment to put back into it. At that point the only incentive is to hold onto the property itself and wait for its value to increase while deducting depreciation, and perversely, they are incentivized to make you as uncomfortable as possible since they cannot raise the rent on the unit until you move.
It's my opinion that if we want rent control, there should be a cap on the amount of time that ends sooner than "on death", especially if you're not old. (For old people who are basically living in the last unit of their lives, it makes sense to me to rent-control those).
Sure and we also stayed and maintained the building and the landlord's property through the 70s and 80s when New York was a cess pit. My neighborhood was famous for petty crime and was full of pimps, street hookers, bums and scammers -- New York was half empty compared to now.
My landlord still had their property because of tenants like us who stayed when life in NY was grim. I was just around the corner from a building famous for the landlord trying to burn the tenants out (The Windermere).
Also what the landlord was doing by not completing the repair was illegal. Fineable. Slumlordish.
I'm saying the landlord shouldn't be expected to lose money on a unit. That's really not a drastic thing to expect, unless you are an entitled child who simply expects things to be given to them.
You were living in a rent-controlled apartment and your non-rent-controlled neighbors were likely paying double, triple or more what you were paying. Your expectation of even more beyond the privilege of living in an area that you should have been paying many times more for, is astonishing to me. You have CLEARLY never owned any kind of property, either to live in or rent out. That means there's this entire segment of reality that you have zero exposure to which is tainting your worldview with falsities about what owning property is like.
This reminds me of a story a lawyer friend told me about one of her coworkers. They all work for a nonprofit but this one coworker demanded to be paid more, based on nothing. Complete unrealism. shrug.gif
One day you should try buying any property at all, and try renting it out at cost while also still doing all the paperwork and having to eat the bills that continue to flow (such as mortgage) even when it's vacant. Then, also spend tons of time going to court to attend to frivolous lawsuits made by slightly-crazy tenants.
I know people who have been living in rent stabilized apartments in NYC for decades who will never let them go, even though they no longer like the neighborhood or the unit.
Of course, it is hard to feel sorry for someone living in a $1,200/mo 1-bedroom in a nice area in Manhattan.