SRhia wrote:
You can also charge full market rate for your apartment, and split 50%-50% the realtor's fee. Just another way to play with the numbers.

OR - you can do what the high rises do in tough times: sign a 12-month lease, and get an extra month for free (so 12 months' rent for 13 month of living).

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
bodhipooh and others,

I admit that I do tend to over think things. It's because I care. I have a vested interest in this. I suppose a rent being too high or too low depends on one's income. So I'm open to going higher than my initial number ($2150).

I'm also going to meet the qualified applicants in person (I may even buy them a lunch to get to know them as you had suggested; a very good advice; thanks).

If you really want to get control of the process, don't use a realtor, show it yourself. Between the phone call, the walkthrough and the chitchat while they fill out an application, you can almost always get a good grasp on who they are. If someone asks me on the phone 10 questions I answered in the ad, what are the odds they'll be a low maintenance tenant? Nothing wrong with going with your gut, as long as you get a credit report, W-2 and can see all the factors.

SRhia wrote:
You can always ask for market rate (or market rate - $100 for this round). And if the tenant is really good, you can show them your appreciation by not raising rent when they renew their lease. That way, you're not starting off too low, and you have room for a nice gesture.

Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
bodhipooh and others,

I admit that I do tend to over think things. It's because I care. I have a vested interest in this. I suppose a rent being too high or too low depends on one's income. So I'm open to going higher than my initial number ($2150).

I'm also going to meet the qualified applicants in person (I may even buy them a lunch to get to know them as you had suggested; a very good advice; thanks).

I'm curious - since you're renting out your unit, I assuming you're moving? Were you able to find a nice place to upgrade to? I've been watching the market, but the prices are rising so fast, my mind can't keep up to grasp the super-inflated prices!!!

Atsushi wrote:
bodhipooh and others,

I admit that I do tend to over think things. It's because I care. I have a vested interest in this. I suppose a rent being too high or too low depends on one's income. So I'm open to going higher than my initial number ($2150).

I'm also going to meet the qualified applicants in person (I may even buy them a lunch to get to know them as you had suggested; a very good advice; thanks).

Atsushi wrote:
bodhipooh and others,

I admit that I do tend to over think things. It's because I care. I have a vested interest in this. I suppose a rent being too high or too low depends on one's income. So I'm open to going higher than my initial number ($2150).

I'm also going to meet the qualified applicants in person (I may even buy them a lunch to get to know them as you had suggested; a very good advice; thanks).

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Thanks for comments.

I understand that no one should undersell DTJC, but $2500 for one bed room, one bathroom unit? Boy, that sounds crazy! (I mean that in a positive way)

Our is on the first floor of a brownstone (not garden level, and it's practically second floor). High ceiling. W/D in unit. Renovated kitchen (2012). Corner unit, so a lot of windows. Hall way is big and nice (not dingy as I have seen in some brownstone condos). Facing the park (I see this as the biggest selling point). No doorman or management on site though, but a great building with lots of character in my opinion (again, I'm biased).

I did see fairly recently a comp (similar size) in Dixon Mills and another in just across the street (this one had a balcony) in the New York Times real estate section, and like these, my observation has been that 1b1b is priced higher than $2200, it seems to take longer to find a tenant and sometimes the rent gets reduced because of that. So that's why I thought staying under $2200 was a good idea to minimize vacancy.

Now I'm not so sure.

After finding a realtor who I really like personally, I'm going to have him do the advertising and background check, etc. But it means, assuming $2150 monthly rent, the tenant will pay $2150 (first month rent) + $2150 x 1.5 (security deposit) + $2150 (realtor fee) =$7525 up front (If I rent it for $2500, that would be $8750).

I think to myself if someone can pay that out of pocket, why don't they just buy? Why rent? Then I think that that someone probably gets relocation assistance from his/her employer and they don't plan to live here forever.

But I think to myself again, do I want to rent to someone who is spending their hard-earned money and is determined to get the security deposit back, or someone who is subsidized by their employer and doesn't care whether or not they get the security deposit back. This choice is easy for me.

So my thinking is that perhaps, I will pay for the realtor fee so that people who may not have relocation assistance can also have a chance.

But even so, not everyone is qualified ($2150 x 3 = $6450 is the minimum monthly gross income). I am assuming that it would be a young couple with no kids. Perhaps if I sweeten the deal further with relaxed pet policy (yes, of course, there is a risk to that as well), maybe I can find someone who has two small dogs and is desperate to find a place to live and feels so lucky to live there. Such person/people will unlikely to cause troubles, and to me, that's worth getting a few hundred dollars less per month.

But that's my thinking today. Tomorrow, I may change my mind.

You are probably thinking too much, cut the amounts in half.. most people who rent dtjc have a roommate or two. So they wont be that house poor after paying you.

Atsushi wrote:
Thanks for comments.

I understand that no one should undersell DTJC, but $2500 for one bed room, one bathroom unit? Boy, that sounds crazy! (I mean that in a positive way)

Our is on the first floor of a brownstone (not garden level, and it's practically second floor). High ceiling. W/D in unit. Renovated kitchen (2012). Corner unit, so a lot of windows. Hall way is big and nice (not dingy as I have seen in some brownstone condos). Facing the park (I see this as the biggest selling point). No doorman or management on site though, but a great building with lots of character in my opinion (again, I'm biased).

I did see fairly recently a comp (similar size) in Dixon Mills and another in just across the street (this one had a balcony) in the New York Times real estate section, and like these, my observation has been that 1b1b is priced higher than $2200, it seems to take longer to find a tenant and sometimes the rent gets reduced because of that. So that's why I thought staying under $2200 was a good idea to minimize vacancy.

Now I'm not so sure.

After finding a realtor who I really like personally, I'm going to have him do the advertising and background check, etc. But it means, assuming $2150 monthly rent, the tenant will pay $2150 (first month rent) + $2150 x 1.5 (security deposit) + $2150 (realtor fee) =$7525 up front (If I rent it for $2500, that would be $8750).

I think to myself if someone can pay that out of pocket, why don't they just buy? Why rent? Then I think that that someone probably gets relocation assistance from his/her employer and they don't plan to live here forever.

But I think to myself again, do I want to rent to someone who is spending their hard-earned money and is determined to get the security deposit back, or someone who is subsidized by their employer and doesn't care whether or not they get the security deposit back. This choice is easy for me.

So my thinking is that perhaps, I will pay for the realtor fee so that people who may not have relocation assistance can also have a chance.

But even so, not everyone is qualified ($2150 x 3 = $6450 is the minimum monthly gross income). I am assuming that it would be a young couple with no kids. Perhaps if I sweeten the deal further with relaxed pet policy (yes, of course, there is a risk to that as well), maybe I can find someone who has two small dogs and is desperate to find a place to live and feels so lucky to live there. Such person/people will unlikely to cause troubles, and to me, that's worth getting a few hundred dollars less per month.

But that's my thinking today. Tomorrow, I may change my mind.

Atsushi wrote:
We are thinking of leasing our condo. Ours is 700sqft one bedroom, one bathroom. Looking around other comps in the neighborhood (although there aren't that many comparable rentals in our immediate neighborhood), I've been thinking $2150/month. But realtors who have seen it tell us that we can go higher (I'm skeptical).

It is a very nice unit though. Obviously, I'm biased, but it's right on Van Vorst Park and 5 minute walk to Grove Street PATH.

I have two schools of thought. One is to at least try to lease it at a high as the realtors had suggested ($2400). But I do worry if a tenant is paying as much as $2400, he or she may complain about even smallest things that could possibly go wrong (like changing a light bulb).

I would personally like to lease it for a little bit lower than it can be to someone who feels lucky to live there for that rent.

Anyway, a difficult decision is ahead of me.

Atsushi wrote:
We are thinking of leasing our condo. Ours is 700sqft one bedroom, one bathroom. Looking around other comps in the neighborhood (although there aren't that many comparable rentals in our immediate neighborhood), I've been thinking $2150/month. But realtors who have seen it tell us that we can go higher (I'm skeptical).

It is a very nice unit though. Obviously, I'm biased, but it's right on Van Vorst Park and 5 minute walk to Grove Street PATH.

I have two schools of thought. One is to at least try to lease it at a high as the realtors had suggested ($2400). But I do worry if a tenant is paying as much as $2400, he or she may complain about even smallest things that could possibly go wrong (like changing a light bulb).

I would personally like to lease it for a little bit lower than it can be to someone who feels lucky to live there for that rent.

Anyway, a difficult decision is ahead of me.

Atsushi wrote:
We are thinking of leasing our condo. Ours is 700sqft one bedroom, one bathroom. Looking around other comps in the neighborhood (although there aren't that many comparable rentals in our immediate neighborhood), I've been thinking $2150/month. But realtors who have seen it tell us that we can go higher (I'm skeptical).

It is a very nice unit though. Obviously, I'm biased, but it's right on Van Vorst Park and 5 minute walk to Grove Street PATH.

I have two schools of thought. One is to at least try to lease it at a high as the realtors had suggested ($2400). But I do worry if a tenant is paying as much as $2400, he or she may complain about even smallest things that could possibly go wrong (like changing a light bulb).

I would personally like to lease it for a little bit lower than it can be to someone who feels lucky to live there for that rent.

Anyway, a difficult decision is ahead of me.

JCMan8 wrote:
Count me as another who doesn't believe this article for a second. There is absolutely no way the average apartment in all of Hudson County rents for $3,000 a month.

New buildings sure. New and old buildings on the "Gold Coast," maybe. But zero chance all buildings in Hudson County average out to $3,000 a month.

In case the article writer didn't realize, Hudson County is a big place. A lot of it is dumpy and crappy. When you have huge swaths of land where the average rent is $1,500 or less (and those are the fine areas, not the dumps where rents are lower), the other areas would need to average $4,500+ to balance out to $3,000 for the whole county. Not a chance.

Dolomiti wrote:
The Western half of the Roman Empire (or, much later, the Eastern half) didn't collapse because its citizens spent too much on rent. ;)

Voyeur wrote:
Rentals in DTJC are going nuts as we have discussed many times on these threads, but can the area truly be said to be "booming" if all the new construction, and consequently demand, is for rentals?

The article does not mention condo/coop/single family development at all, and while Fulop touts the 8,000 new units that will open up in JC in the next couple of years, I understand that almost all of them - if not all of them - will be rental buildings.

I'm interested as to why none of these developers are going for condo construction versus rentals - why is that? I would think operating a high rise rental building is far more lucrative in the long run than condos, but are there other factors at play here?

It's not about one individual establishing an arbitrary figure for everyone else. You're free to do whatever you want, but where do you think unsustainable spending habits will lead our nations and their cities?

Rome used to be an empire, but what is it today? A museum.

equ wrote:
I understand 'average', 'median' and other statistical concepts quite well, thank you. In my modest opinion, it still sounds excessive to unbelievable even with a skewed tail towards the high prices.

Hot downtown JC buildings =/= Hudson Co.

If the article had said >$3000 for *new* rental units in downtown JC or Hoboken, sure. If it had said average >$4000 for such buildings, perhaps... But average asking rent over all of Hudson Co. Nope.

I can ask $100k/month for my property, it will go unfilled and that will distort average "asking" rents. Garbage data.

No doubt real estate is super hot right now, but this is highly biased.

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

equ wrote:
You mean that $3000 is the average asking rent? I still don't believe it, there are large swaths of Hudson that are not Hoboken or Downtown JC.

What's so hard to understand about *average*? The article plainly lays out its data and claims: despite areas that are definitely BELOW that threshold, the areas that command prices above that level do so at a very high level.

The two examples they used (The Art House JC and Warren at York) are very much on point, both asking (and getting) rents in the $4/sf range. Just because you can find a rental somewhere in JC for $2 per sq. ft., it does not negate that, when taken as a whole, Hudson County real estate is super hot right now. I totally believe what the article is saying because what they claim is exactly what I experienced over the past year while shopping for a new place. Every new building that has come onto the market over the past year, and those coming online in the next year or two, will all command these rents.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

equ wrote:
You mean that $3000 is the average asking rent? I still don't believe it, there are large swaths of Hudson that are not Hoboken or Downtown JC.

What's so hard to understand about *average*? The article plainly lays out its data and claims: despite areas that are definitely BELOW that threshold, the areas that command prices above that level do so at a very high level.

The two examples they used (The Art House JC and Warren at York) are very much on point, both asking (and getting) rents in the $4/sf range. Just because you can find a rental somewhere in JC for $2 per sq. ft., it does not negate that, when taken as a whole, Hudson County real estate is super hot right now. I totally believe what the article is saying because what they claim is exactly what I experienced over the past year while shopping for a new place. Every new building that has come onto the market over the past year, and those coming online in the next year or two, will all command these rents.

vindication15 wrote:
The fact that the population yous peak of is here and paying their rent means that they are able to live here - even if that consists of 20% or 90% of their salary. They don't have to live up to a subjective standard you set..

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

citybooster wrote:
What we should want to be is an alternative to ridiculous rental prices in Manhattan and Brooklyn.. not hell bent on matching them.

instead of wishing for the same or even lower rents and wishing your community doesn't improve how about you find a better paying job...

Your [typically] nearsighted argument ignores the influence of a growing population of individuals who are willing to live beyond their own, reasonable means. For every wealthy person, there are thousands more who are also helping to drive up costs with irresponsible spending that isn?t tied to higher earnings.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

citybooster wrote:
What we should want to be is an alternative to ridiculous rental prices in Manhattan and Brooklyn.. not hell bent on matching them.

instead of wishing for the same or even lower rents and wishing your community doesn't improve how about you find a better paying job...

citybooster wrote:
What we should want to be is an alternative to ridiculous rental prices in Manhattan and Brooklyn.. not hell bent on matching them.

citybooster wrote:
What we should want to be is an alternative to ridiculous rental prices in Manhattan and Brooklyn.. not hell bent on matching them.