Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
There are three times when the market value of real estate are relevant to the owner:
-When they are looking to sell -If they are looking to borrow against the property -If they are undergoing a revaluation. What happens to real estate between initial purchase and subsequent sale isn't really relevant to its value, unless one of the other events above is taking place. A property owner isn't "richer" when the market booms unless he chooses to sell, just as they are not "poorer" when the value drops during a period of time in which they are not looking to or needing to sell. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for people like "wibbit" to understand.
Posted on: 2009/1/29 2:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Yeah, all those financially savvy wall street types that invested in mortgage backed securities and subprime assets and ponzi schemes are brilliant. One of the few positives-- and this is more in New York than Jersey City-- is the coop boards with hard core financial reviews have help insulate many homeowners. The stringent requirements coop boards imposed have kept down the number of foreclosures. However, that does not hold here where one of Jersey City's big coops has gone bankrupt before-- Metropolis Towers, and in addition to that, most new development has all been condominium units, not coops. Many of the new developments were sold with some of those creative new lending tactics like 5% down, adjustable rate mortgages and jumbo loans.
Posted on: 2009/1/28 23:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Another reason is most people who bought the luxury condos etc..in jersey city (and manhattan) are more financially sound/savvy to begin with. Unlike say in detroit, when an average blue collar worker loses his job he's forced to foreclose on his property. Most people around jc/nyc do have a much higher level of capital reserve and are able to withstand losing their job/bonus cuts etc..and still not go into foreclosure. Of course for how long this will last is anyone's guess, but so far people are doing ok.
If you think about it, the nyc financial sector were hit just as hard as the auto/manufacturing industries around detroit. Yet most the real estate in jc/nyc are in a pretty controlled decline as people just holdon to their real estate when they could not sell, while in detroit it's a complete crash in the value. This is also the reason i am still fearful of the properties around jc, how long can the "finanacial analysts" and bankers last before forced into foreclosure? Everyone is hoping the crisis will be over before they ran out of money.... Quote:
Posted on: 2009/1/28 22:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Real estate prices in Jersey City exploded mostly for two things. First, access to Manhattan and second, the perception of safety.
The key here is access to Manhattan, not proximity to Manhattan; proximity alone would not have created the same renaissance in the downtown without 24/7 subway access. Because of the PATH, Hoboken and downtown Jersey City real estate is on par with neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queen. Elsewhere along the gold coast where access to Manhattan is limited-- ferries and buses don't run all night long-- the real estate prices are much lower, proportionally. Second, the perception of safety is far more important than actual crime statistics. In the downtown and in Hoboken, the neighborhoods appear safer; boutique shops, new construction, national chains, restaurants, and familiar demographics all contribute to a sense of security for the gentrification generation. This perception issue is something Journal Square is yet to overcome, despite having direct access to the PATH. While politicians and developers alike have high hopes for non-downtown neighborhoods becoming the new it place, the trendy about to be gentrified 'hood, unless subway access is extended or light rail service is offered all night long, the "Jersey City miracle" will not move much farther inland. Also if the city fails to reverse the more recent trend of crime in the downtown, the gentrification there will also begin to reverse course.
Posted on: 2009/1/28 21:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/6/27 22:27 Last Login : 2012/4/20 14:33 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
235
 |
Quote:
Average prices for apartments in Manhattan south of 96th St. are between $1,000 - $1,100 /sq ft. In Jersey City, they're $400 - $500. We're cheaper than Brooklyn (by far) and Hoboken. The value conscious home buyers in the Tri-state area would find JC attractive. And no, I'm not a broker.
Posted on: 2009/1/28 20:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Proximity to city is the reason, but the reason people flock to manhattan is because of all the high paying jobs there. If that reason goes away (and i'm not saying it necessarily will) there goes a main selling point for Jersey City. The high paying jobs were skewed by the financial sector. Real estate is heavily dependant on job creation. Why do you think you can buy a $15,000 *house* in Detroit or Buffalo, NY? Because there aren't very many quality, high paying jobs there. Low rates will certainly help, but at the end of the day, who in their right mind would take on a mountain of debt if they are worried about losing their job?
Posted on: 2009/1/28 20:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Seems everyone is trying to sell the downtown brownstones for over $1mm. I dunno, crime seems to be back in the direction of the old days and brownstones weren't going for a million back then.
Wall Street as a financial growth machine is over for the forseeable future. So what keeps prices around here high? Good Schools - no, Proximity to city - maybe, Low Crime - definite no, Low Rates - if you can get a loan and have a down payment, Low Property Taxes - definite no. So why are they still high? Maybe people just aren't selling, but it seems to me a markdown is coming. There's a place on the east side of VVP up for $1.5mm or so that is a two family. Taxes are high as always, I just don't see someone paying that price. Thoughts?
Posted on: 2009/1/28 19:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My understanding was that if you lived in a building in JC with 5 or more units your rent was stabilized at a "cost of living increase." My understanding was that if you lived in a building in JC with 5 or more units your rent was stabilized at a "cost of living increase." That is correct except for new construction on the waterfront since 1987 which got an "absolution" from rent control. I wonder how many area of the country regularly have headline is the real estate section that go something like: HOUSING PRICES FALL IN ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY EXCEPT HERE! You gotta love real-estate-speak whose sole purpose is to keep real-estate prices (and thus commissions) as high as possible.
Posted on: 2009/1/28 16:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The bubble has not popped in the downtown yet, and until people start thinking of buying real estate as a way to improve your life instead of a quick way to make money we will still have this problem.
Posted on: 2009/1/28 4:42
|
|||
|
ಠ_ಠ
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
My understanding was that if you lived in a building in JC with 5 or more units your rent was stabilized at a "cost of living increase."
The maximum cost of living increase is 4% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) whichever is less. In recent times the Cost of Living Increase has been less than 4%. Quote:
Please someone correct me if I'm off-track.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 23:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
The simple answer to this question is - GEORGE BUSH POLICIES
Posted on: 2009/1/27 20:52
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This would be my guess also, however likely, it IS still a guess?and for how long?... when is the bottom? Nobody knows, not you, not Dianne Warwick, not Nostradamus. So the answer to your question is, people who are ?investing? in RE have different guesses, some guess now, and nobody knows who is right. My other guess/opinion is that since this economic occurrence is very different than anything in history?historical analysis seems to me to be largely useless. Comparing to trends since the 60?s, 70?s up to today seems pointless to me, the global economy works differently now, the global governments are acting differently now, etc, etc. ?In the past 5 recessions???back in the 80?s when?...?when the great depression??I think all that is hot air people are grasping onto because they feel more secure ?knowing? something. I just hope that with any change we take advantage of the opportunities.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 18:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Here's the part from that Goldman report that you'd be interested in, if you think we're heading back to the income relationships that existed pre-wall street years: "In fact, it is instructive to consider the potential implications of a return of relative Manhattan incomes toward the national norm prevailing before the Wall Street boom of the past two decades, either because of pay cuts in the financial industry or because of a possible out-migration of affluent individuals. From 1969 to 1986, Manhattan per-capita income averaged 2 times the national average, with no clear trend. Over the next two decades, however, it grew to 3 times the national average. If incomes fell back to the pre-1986 level of 2 times the national average?and if national per capita income remained unchanged?prices would need to fall as much as 58% to return to the 1995-1999 price/income ratio." Here's a graphic representation of the home price appreciation that the NYC Area has experienced over the last 20 years... (This is the Case-Shiller NYC index from 1988-2008) Note how it goes practically parabolic from 1999 - mid 2006:  Click on this to make the chart bigger - i can't remember how to make the image bigger in the message itself...
Posted on: 2009/1/27 17:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Wibbit
although I do agree if I sold at the peak and took my cash in theory I'd be ahead of the game if I were to start buying again now or in a year but the problem now is getting loans. I did some deals 3% or 10% down and was able to get 30 yr fixed rates. Banks today aren't giving the same types of loans and they have really tightened up on who they give loans to. There are two things I always hear old timers say "I wish I bought it" and "I wish I never sold it". Thats why I am buying as much as I can and not selling any of it. !
Posted on: 2009/1/27 17:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
ExUWSguy, take the GS study with a grain of salt. A lot of the data they use from the 1986 to the mid 90's is less applicable to current trends. The city is much more dependent on the financial sector than it was in the mid 80's, leading to higher average incomes (median, not mean). I'm not saying the study in invalid, I just think we're in a much more unpredictable situation than "returning to historic means" would allow for.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 17:18
|
|||
|
I'd go over 12 percent for that
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There are 4 or 5 units at 1 greene st on Trulia - check again (1 3br/2ba, 2 2br/2ba units, and a 1br, i think). There are also multiple listings in 149 Essex -- Not all are on Trulia, but I think most of them are... The best way to find them is to do your search for JC and the use the map to zoom in on the area you want and it'll update your list for only places that fall into the particular area of the map you're looking at...Also Trulia's numbers may not be as up-to-date as what you'd find if you dropped by the open house or whatever. Trulia has added some pretty cool features like previous sales date & prices, taxes, etc to their site. It's good to see they are constantly improving. Other interesting ones i've seen lately (not in Paulus Hook, but other luxury places with high taxes & maintenance): -1175 sq feet in portofino for $530k (2br/2ba with a deck) - didn't that place used to go for over $600sqft? -1175 at Grove Point for $530k (2br/2ba) Taxes & maint on these two are about $10k/yr & $700/mo respectively.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 17:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
SamS wrote:
"If they had rented over the years they wouldn't have the capital to move into a smaller house at no expense to them; nor an estate to leave behind." the rest of your post makes perfectly valid points, but this in particular i may have to disagree with. if they were renting over the years and not paying: -property tax -higher heating/electricity/cooling costs -property maintanance, landscaping, etc. -replacing siding, septic, heating maintanance/replacements, painting, recarpeting, driveway repair, new roof, etc. etc. etc. -new windows ....along with any other thing that needs to be fixed in the house, you can most certainly believe that it would total more than enough money for them to buy themselves a new small home, for cash, today. not to mention, with all that extra cash, they could have been investing it through the years. also, let's consider something else.....what if someone didn't put the $100,000 nut they saved for a downpayment on a house, and invested it? what would they have in 30 years? consider a simple CD deposit: a 10 year CD of $100,000 at 5% interest would yield $62,000. reinvesting that value for another ten years gives you $258,000. reinvest that value again, and at the end of 30 years, you are sitting on $420,000, plenty of money to buy a small house for cash, live mortgage free and still have something to leave for your children.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 17:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
hitmanb-
Can you double check these listings? Definitely curious since the prices on these seem alot lower than what I've seen. Acc to Trulia, 1 Greene St. is a 1 bdrm, 853 sf and $475K. (http://www.trulia.com/property/104469 ... e-St-Jersey-City-NJ-07302) And 149 Essex St is a 2 br/2 ba, 1485 sf and $695K. The original post mentioned a 2br/2ba, 1250 sf, for $450K. I just did a search on Trulia and am seeing nothing that comes close. Some listings that appear are: 61 Sussex St., 2br/2 ba, 1114 sf, $615K 99 Montgomery, 2br/2 ba, 1337 sf, $649K 83 Montgomery, 2br, 900 sf, $575K 105 Greene, 2br, 1235 sf, $879K 64-66 Morris, 2br/2ba, 1055sf, $589K 110 Grand, 2 br, 1480sf, $689K What am I missing???? Thanks! --JB (Paranoid Condo Owner :))
Posted on: 2009/1/27 16:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
yes i am only talking about real estate investment here, which is what new heights was saying. If you are just looking to buy a house to settle down with the family for many years and be able to call a place of your own home, then none of this is relevant as it is no longer investment. It becomes fullfilling a basic human need - shelter. Same reason there is no point arguing about why buying a car is a bad investment, because it fullfills a basic need in our lives, and is not an investment.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 15:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I am not an RE expert either, but am adding my thoughts in response to SLyng's original question - starting with another question: are you looking mainly to buy a HOME, or mainly an investment? It seems most of the posts are from people looking at property primarily as an investment.
Quote: Am i crazy or are things still not very cheap? Maybe on a relative basis (relative to 2yrs ago) they are cheap, but are they cheap on a stand-alone basis? SLyng, no you are not crazy! Manhattan - and it's satellite neighborhoods, such as Williamsburg, downtown JC - are overpriced by most historic valuation models, as this Goldman Sachs real estate report summarizes: "New York apartment prices are very high relative to the observable fundamentals. Using three alternative yardsticks?price/rent, price/income, and affordability?we find that prices would need to decline by 35%-44% to return to the valuation levels seen in the 1995-1999 period, before the start of the recent boom.? ?Under the (admittedly unrealistic) assumption that prices decline by the same percentage in each market segment, this type of drop would imply that a 1-bedroom condo whose price currently averages roughly $800,000 would decline to $480,000; a 2-bedroom condo would decline from $1.7 million to $1 million; and a 3-bedroom condo would decline from $3 million to $1.8 million.? "It is instructive to consider the potential implications of a return of relative Manhattan incomes toward the national norm prevailing before the Wall Street boom of the past two decades, either because of pay cuts in the financial industry or because of a possible out-migration of affluent individuals. From 1969 to 1986, Manhattan per-capita income averaged 2 times the national average, with no clear trend. Over the next two decades, however, it grew to 3 times the national average. If incomes fell back to the pre-1986 level of 2 times the national average?and if national per capita income remained unchanged?prices would need to fall as much as 58% to return to the 1995-1999 price/income ratio.? If you do take the plunge, look in the Heights - there are several, established condo conversions of historic factories and schools, with really nice spaces. I bought a condo in a former bakery in the Heights in August, at what seemed a fair price ($270/SF) for the space, and an established, nicely managed building. No pool, garage, gym, etc., but taxes are lower than new conversions. While doubtless I am looking at a "loss" on paper over the next few years, I am confident my efforts will pay off in the long run (I am 47, and have been living in and around NYC for 20 years - I love my new place and easily see myself being here until I retire).
Posted on: 2009/1/27 15:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What\'s wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This is an extremely astute analysis. It amazes me how long it takes the residential real estate market to adjust compared to, for instance, the stock market. The current recession is driven by a financial crisis, which will impact the NYC metro more than the rest of the country. The all-in cost of renting is still much cheaper than owning (even with the government subsidy of ownership) so it's hard to see a rise in residential real estate any time soon, especially with the current uncertain job environment.
Most in financial services are in survival mode and not likely to be buying any time soon and of course this will impact their "pilot fishes" like waiters in expensive restaurants, artists, interior designers, etc. The new thing about this recession is that few have to stay in the NYC metro area to do their work. With the prospect of higher taxes and no job; they have every incentive to make money elsewhere and/or start up on their own. Quote:
Posted on: 2009/1/27 5:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
wibbit, I'm guessing that you are not married and/or do not have any children. Everything that you have said is right, but when you add the variable of dependents to your equation, your decisions on long term real estate tend to change.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 1:30
|
|||
|
Come on and rock me Amadeus
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am not against buying real estate long term. And in general timing the market is difficult. But again you are missing my point, which is why buy it NOW? When it is so obvious the real estate will not jump for the next few years given all the economic happenings. There is absoutely no reward to buy now, vs wait a few years and mitigate any risk of further drop(especially in nyc/jc). Worst case you miss a flat market. Do you really think the market will go UP/doubling like it did right after this mess? We are talking about real estate here, not stock market... Quote:
You are so fixated on buying real estate, hold it for 30+ years or until you die, and live off the rent income, as the only play. That's fine if it's your method, but please realize there are others equally/better methods. 1) Yes the rate is low and it's great if you hold it for 30+ years, but a price drop in your property negates those rate instantly. 2) Pull your head out of the blanket, and honestly ask yourself how much money you would made by selling those properties at 06/07 when we first had this discussion. If you did that, you will be sitting on a big pile of cash ready to scoop up a lot more properties as the market hit a bottom, instead you watched your property value drop for 2 years while comforting yourself about the positive cashflow and ignoring the fact of how much money you lost (would have made) otherwise. 3) Saying in 30 years your property value will go up as a reason for buying now, just does not fly. If your property was worth 500k at 06, it is now worth 400k at 09, yes it probably will be worth 700k at 2015. But right now, you are sitting on an unrealized LOSS of 100k. It means you made a bad play, and the correct play should have been selling the property. This is how the world works, for any investment, it is judged by your unrealized loss as of now. Not how much it will, woulda, shoulda, be worth in 10 years.
Posted on: 2009/1/27 0:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Interesting to read everyone's thoughts, plans, etc. I liked best the post about the memories created in your home - I agree. My partner and I purchased our new condo with the thoughts of owning it forever. I guess we are a wierd breed these days. We did not purchase it as an investment. We bought it as our home - and love it. Perhaps down the road we shall also buy a small vacation property - maybe a bit upstate NY or even Florida.
Posted on: 2009/1/26 23:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
The listings OP is referring to are 149 Essex and 1 Greene, you can just look them up on Trulia if you want. Not as close to the PATH as I would like it, but still Paulus Hook.
Great topic OP, I too have been looking in JC and 2% real estate tax on top of retarded maintenance fees hurts a lot. I am used to looking at LIC / Williamsburg / Downtown Brooklyn for listings. Sure you pay 50-100K more but your monthly fee is so much less because of DOUBLE DIGIT monthly taxes! However, you did forget to mention that if you work in NYC and live in NJ, you save 3.5% city taxes which on a 100K annual income (the minimum you need to seriously consider a 500K condo) is 3500 a year, which makes a big difference considering your real estate tax is tax deductible. So: 10000 real estate tax on a 500K condo. *0.65=6500 -3500 city tax savings =3000 a year Not as bad as it looked before right? Throw in a pair of unlimited PATH cards for $1300 a year and it is still respectable. As for maintenance fees, you can always go for older buildings with less bells and whistles. Avoid buildings with pools, valet parking, tennis court and you should be fine.
Posted on: 2009/1/26 22:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Wibbit
you ask why buy now? Have you seen rates lately. If you can borrow at 4.8 percent for homeowner or a 6 percent for invesment you'd be crazy not to. I'm actively buying as we speak. Its a feeding frenzy out there if you know what your doing. let's keep in mind i'm an experienced small/medium investor with a total of over 40 units (very positive cash flow and write offs galore) and 'm looking to triple my portfolio in next 5 years as I get into the bigger projects. I'm holding atleast 15yr and maybe until im dead. For the condo owner looking to buy downtown Jc or Hoboken areas it still might be unappealing for those on a tight budget.
Posted on: 2009/1/26 21:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Condo's were not ment to be rental investments. Buy multi families then talk about what kind of investment you made.
Posted on: 2009/1/26 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
At the end of the day like investing in anything, it is a gamble. Timing the bottom or top is very hard to do and should not be expected. If you are looking long term, and assume that historical trends are reliable to use as your guide, RE investment when done with intelligence is a winner. If you look at performance versus investing in the S&P the return is pretty comparable when factoring in the recent crash(S&P @ 820 right now), its also been much less volatile. (last statement loosely based off of this graph: http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/26/cx_s ... sSpeed=65000&boxes=custom). You also get benefits like living in your investment versus lining your clothes and burning stocks for warmth. I am sure financial experts can go all day on this, I am also sure nobody knows the outcome of our current economic situation. Good luck!
Posted on: 2009/1/26 21:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
From the Jan 22nd Business Week:
Rents Drop Nationwide as Vacancies Spike
Posted on: 2009/1/26 20:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A Case Study in What's wrong with JC Real Estate:
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
We'll see how next year goes. For now what I have is my own experience. After reading how hard some landlords were finding it to rent their places, I put maybe a 3-4 line ad on craigslist for a rental in mid-late december, no realtor, no luxury, no gimmicks. Two bedrooms, 900+ square feet, in the $1,500-$2,000 price range. I had two units, one a little larger than the other. They were gone in a week and that was after taking deposits from several people and choosing the tenants I wanted. Was I lucky? Maybe. Or maybe paying under $1,000 a month for 1/2 of a 900+ sf apartment in downtown jersey city is a good deal. For my sake, I hope I am right and you're wrong about how rentals like mine will be affected.
Posted on: 2009/1/26 20:31
|
|||
|
||||