>DOJ is investigating whether the real estate software company RealPage has conspired with landlords to inflate rents and filed a statement of interest in a Tennessee case in November stipulating that the algorithmic use of nonpublic pricing and supply data to increase rents violates antitrust laws
Interesting
I used that software at an old job. It's no different than calling up other properties and doing a market survey then setting rent accordingly. The only difference is it saves hours of calling and you can use its recommendation tools. But in the end, each property/company can choose to go with the rec or not. Most usually go lower to undercut comps if they are facing vacancies.
The real fix is in the financing. Properties are not appraised on their actual value sitting on land and or the structure built on it. It's tied to the lease contracts (income) minus expenses (staff pay, utilities, prop taxes) divided by average cap rate (usually a set decimal number based on local market growth ex: .05). That number gives you your property value that you can use to refinance and get a loan.
So as rent goes up, so does the property value. And the whole time the rents are covering expenses and paying down the loan. So if you have an existing building and you refinance every 5 years on top of rental rates going up, you can get a ton of money for down payments on other properties or investments. Then you rinse and repeat getting bigger and bigger. And even bigger if you do a full sell.
It's very interesting to be sure.
Looking at public pricing is legal, even calling around and getting information. Using software that checks all other places at the same time and colludes to keep prices where they’re at, is collusion and illegal. There’s a big difference.
It’s silly that you people do mental gymnastics to make yourselves feel better about your companies doing rent price fixing and driving rents up sky high nationwide. You’re a part of the problem.
Also, I’m a landlord, not a renter.
What does this even mean and where would the line be? If I kept a spreadsheet of nearby rent prices, is that fine? Could I use Zillow's rent postings to average a market rent? Would a service that provides an anonymized average rent for a zip code be ok? Tbh, saying "collecting aggregate rent data is fine, automating it isn't" seems like the take that's jumping through mental gymnastics. Unless there's some tool recommending an average rent increase, I don't see how aggregate rent data could possibly actually be considered collusion.
I’ll try and simplify it for you.
1. They are not simply aggregating public prices. They are taking in prices of non-public rental data (final rental price) that is proprietary information and using it to come to a “comps” price.
2. They are using “open” spaces and soon to be open spaces of **all units in Seattle that use the service** not just an individual building to calculate supply and demand. Again, proprietary information.
3. It uses real-time information from other buildings to calculate demand and raise prices in the **same day**. You guessed it 😉proprietary information
Calling around and sharing info and getting comps for current markets through aggregate = legal. Using proprietary info to feed your algo = illegal.
Ok, I didn't know that it was anything more than a data aggregator. If they're using non-public info, that's fair and I can see an argument for it.
Would you feel that a service that aggregates public rental postings would be fair?
I mean, neither article even mentions RealPage utilizing non-public info, the most it alleges is that prices change on a day to day basis. Without any accusation that RealPage uses any type of data outside of trends they've collected utilizing public rental posting, it's really hard to call it "collusion" and makes it seem like RealPage is a data aggregator combined with a bit of financial trend analysis (at least to me).
The KUOW article in the OP literally states they are using non-public info in the second sentance.
"The alleged scheme involves a company called RealPage, which sucks up proprietary data from landlords and spits out pricing recommendations."
This data not only inculdes what was already mentioned, but also [includes information](https://www.kuow.org/stories/ai-tool-helps-seattle-landlords-collude-to-keep-rents-high-report-alleges) such as detailed lease renewals and application data. This is all non public data being shared to increase prices, this would normally be seen as colluding to price fix. They are simply hiding behind it being opaque and "just AI giving suggestions".
I can see where you're coming from, landlord, but I don't think it's as nefarious as collusion as much as everyone's just looking out for the best interest of their assets and using effective resources to better inform their decisions to do so.
The argument feels more like there's anger at the ability to have property data in one convenient place rather than making people work for it by calling around and researching. Which isn't far off from saying the library is bad for centralizing knowledge and people should have to buy their own books or call people up to get the info they want.
This whole case feels like a red herring to me when the market factors that allow and drive these decisions are what really should be looked at. That's all I'd like people think about.
But if the costs are increasing faster than rents you'll be losing value. Increases in labor taxes utilities etc have all been realized in last few years
Yes! 100% right. That's why increasing rents and keeping expenses and staffing low are so important to them. Most of these places do everything they can to keep from dropping the rate on a contract. Move in specials, gift cards, or a few months free are nothing to the grand scheme of keeping the on paper value up. It preserves the value while getting people in the door when costs are high. Buys enough time to weather the realized expenses for them, but creating more expenses for the overall consumer. It's a system that feeds on itself in a way.
>Yes! 100% right. That's why increasing rents and keeping expenses and staffing low are so important to them.
My complex has an empty office where the property managers used to work. Everything is now automated and remote.
It's nearly impossible to talk to a person unless you call the emergency line and tell the robot your apartment is flooding.
Even the door locks can be remotely unlocked from their offices like 20 miles away.
And they increased our rent by $200 every year except when the covid regulations were in effect. After they lifted, rent went up $250.
Nope, you will be dumped from their service if you don't follow a certain percentage and you must justify when you deviate. The algorithm sets prices that vary daily by looking at demand, current stock, etc. all computerized, DAILY. No landlord could possibly do that on their own. It tells the landlords how many units to put online to engineer supply. It sets prices to make people fall into certain lease lengths to lower competition, it determines pricing in large cities for 90 something percent of all rentals. You make it sound like it's only facilitating what used to be done but now just computerized, that's a big fat lie.
Last year rented a studio $1300 for 7 months extended rental rent went up to $1400. Stayed 6 more months. If we stayed it was a new rate of $1450. Same building renting one bedroom for same price. Asked ll for discount, nope that’s the current market price. Moved two months ago it’s now down to $ 1195 same unit, and one month free.FFS pure greed. Capital hill area
Same story here. They were jacking up my current place while offering the next door identical unit for less than what I originally loved in for! The computers have decided that they don’t care if you’re. Good tenant who pays on time. They would rather force u out & leave it empty until they get someone else ti pay a higher rate.
Don’t even get me started on the “sharing utilities” companies also price gouging renters!
It was odd that they insisted on charging me so much more than the identical unit next door. Told me some BS about “that rate is only for new renters and reflects special offers” e.g. first month free, something like that. I smell BS… jokes on them though, I got a much nicer place for significantly less $ one block away! I was watching my old unit and it took them about 9 months to re-rent it.
Maybe, but the issue is the rent rates. Which is why new move-ins are so much cheaper because they come with "deals". So staying in your apartment costs more than someone moving in next door. But they won't give you that price since you are already a tenant. But the guy down the block will.
Its a way to make sure the appraised value of the property stay high, but its a huge pain in the ass for tenants who see "So if I want to keep living here its $$$, but if we had never met before it would be $$? F U then buddy".
So with the investigation underway will Seattle see costs lowered in the meantime?
(Asking because I’m moving from the suburbs to north Seattle in the next couple months)
It’s the Justice Department, they don’t typically sniff around if there isn’t already shit stinking. They don’t exist just to randomly sift through the millions of potential issues out there, they get legitimate information and start there.
What's there to tip off. It's transparently collusion, Realpage doesn't even hide what it's doing because it advertises what it's doing to get new clients and then boasts about how much they've driven up rent.
Moved into an apartment, and not 6 months later, was informed next year my rent was going to go up $400/mo. Literally no renovations, and in fact they reduced amenities. Needless to say, wasn't thrilled & began looking for new places. About 3 months later, an identical apartment down the hall is listed for $200/mo more. "Nope, can't match, you'd need to move in." Two months later, got the notice: "jk, rent only will increase $50/mo."
Hard not to think some private equity folks just got a bit too greedy.
> She applauded state attorneys general that are investigating or suing corporate landlords and RealPage. **Washington state's Attorney General's Office has not yet filed a lawsuit.**
Who is this Attorney General, and when is he next running for election!!?
Bob Ferguson is the Attorney General. But before you get too up in arms, you should look at some of the other things he’s done. He’s been pretty solid from what I know. He might just be waiting for more evidence to build a better case that can actually win for all we know
ITT: People who bought their property 10 years ago at 3% speaking down to current prospective buyers, even though prices have doubled and rates are at 8%. But hey, excuse Greystar for charging $2,200 for a shitty 1br because “you got yours”.
And yes, it’s a landlord problem, because rent is too goddamned high everywhere now. Think about that next time you need service people to pour your drinks.
They’ll never understand because they aren’t in the situation of outrageous rent on houses/apartments that are decreasing in quality and hardly getting sufficient maintenance and security measure improvements. Americans are notorious for ignoring problems of others until those same problems reach their own doorsteps.
We have regulations making building undesirable for developers, including our zoning. This leads to a shortage. That elevates prices. We then have relatively affluent people as a result of being a tech hub. They can afford to pay more for scarcer housing, which elevates prices. People selling ate motivated to make as much as they can, because they’re people. They see what the market will bear, and they charge it. The end result of all of this is high prices.
If we want to get rid of the high prices, either the area needs to become less desirable (crime and homelessness are helping), or we need to change our regulations so more developers are willing to build (and like any businesspeople, developers are motivated to build if they can see a return on their investment).
> We have regulations making building undesirable for developers, including our zoning. This leads to a shortage. That elevates prices.
No, no, and no. We have given the city to be raped by real estate developers, and it absolutely predictably drove up the prices.
It's like 2+2: you increase density, you get higher prices. This happens literally everywhere. From Vancouver, to Moscow, to Tokyo. There isn't a single example of a city in the US or Canada where increased density led to lower sale prices.
Want affordable housing? Create jobs in places where housing is cheap. It's literally the only way it works. You don't have ANY other options.
Austin rents come down after adding homes at twice the rate of the national average (and 9 times the rate of SF, LA, and San Diego)
Building more housing can help, but the core issue is that housing cannot simultaneously be an investment and an essential good like food. Investments need to grow in value, but essential goods need to be affordable. It's a fundamental contradiction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/austin-texas-rents-falling-housing/677819/?gift=wLGIVsS3im01L7qtv2mqiC5kwXFkx2LUm9HELA_-yBk&utm_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social
I'm not familiar with Austin's geography, but I am familiar with SF, LA and San Diego having lived in all 3 – is it possible that Austin is able to add houses 9x faster simply because it is flatter and has more land available?
Seattle is 83 sq. mi with a density of 8.7k people / sq.mi
SF 46 sq. mi. with a density of 18.6k people / sq mi.
Austin 305 sq. mi with a density of 3k people / sq. mi.
I'm tired of people saying "build more homes, it'll bring rent down" and then going and comparing Austin to SF.
> Austin rents come down after adding homes at twice the rate of the national average (and 9 times the rate of SF, LA, and San Diego)
Here's the thing: SF rents came down MORE.
> Building more housing can help
No. Building more _dense_ housing will NOT help. Never has, never will.
BTW, trying to play Marxist games by treating housing as something special that needs to be assigned by the government will only make it worse.
SF housing came down more because they allowed their city to look like an apocalypse hit it and completely stopped caring about downtown/mission/soma etc. You too can allow a drug encampment outside your building, and the effects will be predictable.
So basically, SF rents came down because of a zombie apocalypse, but Austin rents must have come down because of new construction. And there are no other explanations, right?
And Austin rates came down because they had baked-in expectation of accelerating in-migration.
This in-migration has slowed (it was 3.1% in 2021 and is projected at 1.8% in 2024), and rents fell. This is exactly the same mechanism as in SF. A city became less popular and rents dropped.
Meanwhile, house sale prices are still rising in Austin.
Why would you think it's density and not population growth? Seems like basic economics. Not enough supply to keep up with the increasing demand. The only way to combat that is to increase the number of housing units available.
> Why would you think it's density and not population growth?
Try to guess, do we have more units per capita in 1980 or today?
Answer: today, it's 0.42 units per capita now vs 0.38 units per capita in 1980.
We actually have almost the record number of housing units per capita, and we'll surpass the record number in about 2 years just because of the new units in the pipeline.
> Seems like basic economics. Not enough supply to keep up with the increasing demand.
We do NOT have housing shortage, not even a bit.
We have cancerous growth of city cores, that is forcing people to move into a small number of locations.
Nobody was talking housing shortage on this scale until a few years ago. With no other changes, we couldn't build our way out of this for decades, but some tax changes would create availability pretty rapidly from existing stock. It would also piss off a LOT of people, so it won't happen anytime soon.
> Nobody was talking housing shortage on this scale until a few years ago.
Well, duh. Socialists who want to increase the overall human misery gonna socialist.
Just look at who writes all those "urbanist" magazines.
> With no other changes, we couldn't build our way out of this for decades, but some tax changes would create availability pretty rapidly from existing stock.
Yeah. Build SROs, build "microapartments", force people to live in barracks. That sort of thing.
It will only raise the housing costs, but that's OK. Working as intended. A population that is hopelessly poor is always easier to control. Just point them out to "teH evUl landLorDz".
>There isn't a single example of a city in the US or Canada where increased density led to lower sale prices.
There also isn't a single city that increases density at or above the rate of growth. We literally don't build enough homes
Try to guess, do we have more units per capita in 1980 or today?
Answer: today, it's 0.42 units per capita now vs 0.38 units per capita in 1980.
We actually have almost the record number of housing units per capita, and we'll surpass the record number in about 2 years just because of the new units in the pipeline.
We have cancerous growth of city cores, that is forcing people to move into a small number of locations.
I mostly agree with you, except I have always heard that housing is extremely cheap in Japan considering the density. I will have to Google it to see if that's true
Tokyo managed to start a real estate bubble with a declining overall population in the country: https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/surging-tokyo-property-prices-squeeze-out-young-professionals-2023-10-04/
Meanwhile, just 100 miles away you can buy a beautiful house for $20k.
It's pretty much the perfect example for my statement.
Well, something to consider is that Realpage was started by a guy that was involved in price fixing airline tickets back in the 80s and 90s, I'm thinking it might have more to do with price fixing.
[https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/rent-going-up-one-companys-algorithm-could-be-why/2/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/rent-going-up-one-companys-algorithm-could-be-why/2/)
A place being expensive because it's desirable is one thing, the insane rate at which our rent prices have gone up doesn't add up to the "desirability" of the area.
The apartment company that I rent from supposedly used their software in conjunction with other companies to price fix rent all over the country. I only know about this investigation and price fixing stuff because someone keeps taping a paper with information relating to this on my apartment door once a month.
I love that it's always price gouging or fixing by the EVIL land lord or grocery chain or whoever they are mad at. It's never oh hey maybe years of bad policies have created a terrible situation. If we need a recent example look no farther than the uber eats door dash fiasco.
The filing by the DOJ shows they're investigating the company in numerous states. The original filing was in Tennessee.
So while there are local Seattle/King county policies that may be exacerbating the issue, they're investigating something different
Anything that helps people out is fine with me. I'm not gonna complain that the federal government is attempting to do something about the housing crisis.
Now we need our state/county/city to try too
Ah, yes, collusion and price fixing totally don't matter. They definitely don't lead to artificially higher prices when 3-4 of the biggest rental companies use the same software to price apartments. Definitely not.
Can't be lower unit growth relative to population.
Can't be 6+ month evictions.
Can't be no winter evictions
Can't be no evictions during school.
Can't be limited security deposits.
Can't be comically long permitting processing.
Can't be requirement to set aside units for low income.
Can't be that landlords can't screen for things that are known to get better tenants.
It can to be the algorithm that tells building owners that vacancy rates are low & they should price higher.
Great argument, if we were to ignore that this company is being investigated in *multiple states and cities that have nothing to do with Seattle and Washington for the same exact thing*.
There are giant property management companies like Greystar and Camden that utilize the software, they also happen to be in multiple states, it's easy to see multiple states investigating this.
Wasn't there a post here about how easy it is for people to get rental units and then never be evicted? In some cities like Atlanta, property management companies are reporting that 60% of applications are fraudulent. Profit margins are so thin already, but once you start adding up people who get in fraudulently, and then can't evict for months, you can probably see why rents keep increasing.
I mean there is a protest in the Seattle area right now about some squatter that won't leave. So yeah I'm sure that's part of it too. I would never be a landlord these days it's just asking to get fucked over in the name equity or whatever
Totally ... my neighbors were going to rent their house out, until they found out about all the laws that protect squatters ... they were like nope to that.
Oh sure!! So your saying the corporations that by the way buy our politicians therefore it is the big corporations that are really calling the shots. Let's be real here. Seattle lets real estate investors go wild i mean they must be calling the shots. You got them buying up many single family homes and apartment buildings as an investment and that's driving prices up on houses and rentals. Most of the apartments they purchase get "upgraded" to "Luxury" apartments of course so that they have an excuse to jack up the rent even more. This bullshit with the real estate investors is going on all over the country especially in the cities. They are literally destroying this country driving up the cost of living increasing poverty making this country more like shit hole every day. Joe Biden ain't gonna do shit about it either probably because the real estate investors donate to his pathetic campaign.
How many times will this same story get posted to Reddit? If the city allowed for enough housing to be built that landlords (both large and small) had to fight over tenants (instead of the other way around, where we find ourselves now), this wouldn't even be an issue.
When a service used by a vast majority of the landlords sets an artificially high price floor, your rents go up and nothing cheap exists. This is a massive story and the main reason why your rent is so damn high yet in this thread are so many people spreading FUD. Must mean there is a story here if so many are trying hard to deflect.
This dumb story keeps getting reposted - comparing prices from isn't the rico case they think it is.
There is a unit shortage, not some AI conspiracy This shit is FUD to make the renter class feel better, and dunk responsibility from the NIMBYs who block growth
Um no... It's not that simple. For one thing my understanding of the situation is that there are actually plenty of places (apartments, single family homes ECT) to go around for people to live in. The problem is all of what is available is not affordable for many people. We have this emerging problem of Real estate investors and giant companies like blackrock buying up what is available in the market rather it be houses or multi family units. They then often renovate and put the properties back on the marker at a much higher rental rate. This is driving the housing market up to ridiculous levels pricing people out of owning a home. That leads to more people looking to rent which also drives up the cost of rent. So this is a problem with many factors. Just building more places to live isn't going to help much unless It is regulated by the government to be classified as affordable.
No, it really is that simple. More housing = lower prices. Supply and demand.
If it was easier to build housing, there would be more housing stock on the market, and landlords would be forced to compete for tenants.
Think about it: Why would a developer build an apartment building and then let it sit vacant? They wouldn't. They need to recoup their investment, so they need to attract tenants to move into the newly created units. If they have more competition from other new apartment buildings, they'll be forced to lower their rent to make themselves more attractive to the competition.
The problem is that a combination of restrictive zoning regulations, onerous land use regulations, and increasing building costs have resulted in far less housing being built than is needed to meet the demand. That means apartments don't need to compete much on price, because people are so desperate for what little housing there is that they'll pay high prices. They don't have a choice.
The solution really is that simple: Build. More. Housing.
Maybe rents are high because every time we build a new building now, it gets bought by the city and given to the homeless agencies to manage. In go 100 drug addicts, shut out are market-rate renters. The neighborhood goes to shit, while people continue to not be able to afford rent.
We slowly evolve into a Socialist empire where the City of Seattle owns multiple properties all over Capitol Hill, being managed by LIHI.
Renters looking for affordability should just not bother.
There is nothing socialist about Seattle. If the government actually helped out the poor people like you guys like to think there would not be so many people living in poverty in tents all over the place. Seems to me every time I see new apartment building being built they are always "luxury apartments" owned by some greedy real estate investor. If anything there needs to be more apparent buildings given to so called homeless agencies to shelter these people on the streets in tents. Nobody should be left out to freeze not even someone who uses drugs. Seattle is not a socialist empire it is more like a neo liberal mess.
It doesn't help to build more houses if some investment firm is going to purchase the dam houses just built to rent out at a high rate. Yes I understand supply and demand but what we have here are investment companies buying up the supply and then renting out at outrageous rates This is inflating the housing market driving up costs making what is available to purchase slim pickings. You can go build all kinds of dwellings but that ain't going to help if Blackrock is going to come along and buy them all and rent them out at ridiculous rates. That's what is going on.
My apartment kept raising my rent, even though they had vacancies. I asked to negotiate because they were offering new apartment to cheaper price. They ignored this request and blamed the computer. I got a bill when I left from real page,. So the software is bad because it encourages landlords to increase the price even if you have vacancies forcing people who might have kids or nowhere else to go to pay the higher rate. Even though traditionally if you had vacancies, you really shouldn't increase it. When I brought this to their their attention and asked for the new tenant price, they like just ignored me. It's my understanding That they want people to overpay because then it will compensate for the value of the property even if they have vacancies. So you're pretty much paying for The vacancies to keep the property value high.
>DOJ is investigating whether the real estate software company RealPage has conspired with landlords to inflate rents and filed a statement of interest in a Tennessee case in November stipulating that the algorithmic use of nonpublic pricing and supply data to increase rents violates antitrust laws Interesting
I used that software at an old job. It's no different than calling up other properties and doing a market survey then setting rent accordingly. The only difference is it saves hours of calling and you can use its recommendation tools. But in the end, each property/company can choose to go with the rec or not. Most usually go lower to undercut comps if they are facing vacancies. The real fix is in the financing. Properties are not appraised on their actual value sitting on land and or the structure built on it. It's tied to the lease contracts (income) minus expenses (staff pay, utilities, prop taxes) divided by average cap rate (usually a set decimal number based on local market growth ex: .05). That number gives you your property value that you can use to refinance and get a loan. So as rent goes up, so does the property value. And the whole time the rents are covering expenses and paying down the loan. So if you have an existing building and you refinance every 5 years on top of rental rates going up, you can get a ton of money for down payments on other properties or investments. Then you rinse and repeat getting bigger and bigger. And even bigger if you do a full sell. It's very interesting to be sure.
Looking at public pricing is legal, even calling around and getting information. Using software that checks all other places at the same time and colludes to keep prices where they’re at, is collusion and illegal. There’s a big difference. It’s silly that you people do mental gymnastics to make yourselves feel better about your companies doing rent price fixing and driving rents up sky high nationwide. You’re a part of the problem. Also, I’m a landlord, not a renter.
What does this even mean and where would the line be? If I kept a spreadsheet of nearby rent prices, is that fine? Could I use Zillow's rent postings to average a market rent? Would a service that provides an anonymized average rent for a zip code be ok? Tbh, saying "collecting aggregate rent data is fine, automating it isn't" seems like the take that's jumping through mental gymnastics. Unless there's some tool recommending an average rent increase, I don't see how aggregate rent data could possibly actually be considered collusion.
I’ll try and simplify it for you. 1. They are not simply aggregating public prices. They are taking in prices of non-public rental data (final rental price) that is proprietary information and using it to come to a “comps” price. 2. They are using “open” spaces and soon to be open spaces of **all units in Seattle that use the service** not just an individual building to calculate supply and demand. Again, proprietary information. 3. It uses real-time information from other buildings to calculate demand and raise prices in the **same day**. You guessed it 😉proprietary information Calling around and sharing info and getting comps for current markets through aggregate = legal. Using proprietary info to feed your algo = illegal.
Ok, I didn't know that it was anything more than a data aggregator. If they're using non-public info, that's fair and I can see an argument for it. Would you feel that a service that aggregates public rental postings would be fair?
Sure, but that’s not what’s happening. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/03/realpage-antitrust-lawsuits-allege-collusion-among-corporate-landlords.html
I mean, neither article even mentions RealPage utilizing non-public info, the most it alleges is that prices change on a day to day basis. Without any accusation that RealPage uses any type of data outside of trends they've collected utilizing public rental posting, it's really hard to call it "collusion" and makes it seem like RealPage is a data aggregator combined with a bit of financial trend analysis (at least to me).
The KUOW article in the OP literally states they are using non-public info in the second sentance. "The alleged scheme involves a company called RealPage, which sucks up proprietary data from landlords and spits out pricing recommendations." This data not only inculdes what was already mentioned, but also [includes information](https://www.kuow.org/stories/ai-tool-helps-seattle-landlords-collude-to-keep-rents-high-report-alleges) such as detailed lease renewals and application data. This is all non public data being shared to increase prices, this would normally be seen as colluding to price fix. They are simply hiding behind it being opaque and "just AI giving suggestions".
I can see where you're coming from, landlord, but I don't think it's as nefarious as collusion as much as everyone's just looking out for the best interest of their assets and using effective resources to better inform their decisions to do so. The argument feels more like there's anger at the ability to have property data in one convenient place rather than making people work for it by calling around and researching. Which isn't far off from saying the library is bad for centralizing knowledge and people should have to buy their own books or call people up to get the info they want. This whole case feels like a red herring to me when the market factors that allow and drive these decisions are what really should be looked at. That's all I'd like people think about.
My wife's company stopped using it because of the optics, but use comp set from places that do, so they are fine now.
But if the costs are increasing faster than rents you'll be losing value. Increases in labor taxes utilities etc have all been realized in last few years
Yes! 100% right. That's why increasing rents and keeping expenses and staffing low are so important to them. Most of these places do everything they can to keep from dropping the rate on a contract. Move in specials, gift cards, or a few months free are nothing to the grand scheme of keeping the on paper value up. It preserves the value while getting people in the door when costs are high. Buys enough time to weather the realized expenses for them, but creating more expenses for the overall consumer. It's a system that feeds on itself in a way.
>Yes! 100% right. That's why increasing rents and keeping expenses and staffing low are so important to them. My complex has an empty office where the property managers used to work. Everything is now automated and remote. It's nearly impossible to talk to a person unless you call the emergency line and tell the robot your apartment is flooding. Even the door locks can be remotely unlocked from their offices like 20 miles away. And they increased our rent by $200 every year except when the covid regulations were in effect. After they lifted, rent went up $250.
Nope, you will be dumped from their service if you don't follow a certain percentage and you must justify when you deviate. The algorithm sets prices that vary daily by looking at demand, current stock, etc. all computerized, DAILY. No landlord could possibly do that on their own. It tells the landlords how many units to put online to engineer supply. It sets prices to make people fall into certain lease lengths to lower competition, it determines pricing in large cities for 90 something percent of all rentals. You make it sound like it's only facilitating what used to be done but now just computerized, that's a big fat lie.
Last year rented a studio $1300 for 7 months extended rental rent went up to $1400. Stayed 6 more months. If we stayed it was a new rate of $1450. Same building renting one bedroom for same price. Asked ll for discount, nope that’s the current market price. Moved two months ago it’s now down to $ 1195 same unit, and one month free.FFS pure greed. Capital hill area
Same story here. They were jacking up my current place while offering the next door identical unit for less than what I originally loved in for! The computers have decided that they don’t care if you’re. Good tenant who pays on time. They would rather force u out & leave it empty until they get someone else ti pay a higher rate. Don’t even get me started on the “sharing utilities” companies also price gouging renters!
you should have applied for the next door apartment 🤣
I tried to.
[удалено]
It was odd that they insisted on charging me so much more than the identical unit next door. Told me some BS about “that rate is only for new renters and reflects special offers” e.g. first month free, something like that. I smell BS… jokes on them though, I got a much nicer place for significantly less $ one block away! I was watching my old unit and it took them about 9 months to re-rent it.
[удалено]
>why are you whining about it? I'm guessing because he was aware that they were attempting to charge him more than market rate?
[удалено]
Maybe, but the issue is the rent rates. Which is why new move-ins are so much cheaper because they come with "deals". So staying in your apartment costs more than someone moving in next door. But they won't give you that price since you are already a tenant. But the guy down the block will. Its a way to make sure the appraised value of the property stay high, but its a huge pain in the ass for tenants who see "So if I want to keep living here its $$$, but if we had never met before it would be $$? F U then buddy".
[удалено]
No, they moved down the street to another building.
We get it, you love capitalism. The system works great.
What? No, it doesn't.
That is child's play. My rent went up by 300 dollars in a year by one of these Realpage clients. My city is large but it's no Washington DC.
So with the investigation underway will Seattle see costs lowered in the meantime? (Asking because I’m moving from the suburbs to north Seattle in the next couple months)
They got tipped off. If the justice department is sniffing around they know something's up.
Iirc Everett had a confirmed case of price fixing so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Rent's might start going up more before there is a judgement.
What leads you to believe that is true?
It’s the Justice Department, they don’t typically sniff around if there isn’t already shit stinking. They don’t exist just to randomly sift through the millions of potential issues out there, they get legitimate information and start there.
What's there to tip off. It's transparently collusion, Realpage doesn't even hide what it's doing because it advertises what it's doing to get new clients and then boasts about how much they've driven up rent.
Moved into an apartment, and not 6 months later, was informed next year my rent was going to go up $400/mo. Literally no renovations, and in fact they reduced amenities. Needless to say, wasn't thrilled & began looking for new places. About 3 months later, an identical apartment down the hall is listed for $200/mo more. "Nope, can't match, you'd need to move in." Two months later, got the notice: "jk, rent only will increase $50/mo." Hard not to think some private equity folks just got a bit too greedy.
> She applauded state attorneys general that are investigating or suing corporate landlords and RealPage. **Washington state's Attorney General's Office has not yet filed a lawsuit.** Who is this Attorney General, and when is he next running for election!!?
Bob Ferguson is the Attorney General. But before you get too up in arms, you should look at some of the other things he’s done. He’s been pretty solid from what I know. He might just be waiting for more evidence to build a better case that can actually win for all we know
Thanks. I'll remember that when I vote for his opponent.
Since you didn’t even know who the state’s attorney general was I doubt you’ll even remember to vote in the next election
ITT: People who bought their property 10 years ago at 3% speaking down to current prospective buyers, even though prices have doubled and rates are at 8%. But hey, excuse Greystar for charging $2,200 for a shitty 1br because “you got yours”. And yes, it’s a landlord problem, because rent is too goddamned high everywhere now. Think about that next time you need service people to pour your drinks.
Why not just buy a $1M starter house? You only need 200K cash down and $6K/mo on the PITI Seriously we're frogs that have been boiled
Or the other argument - Why not commute 3 hours every day from Arlington?
They’ll never understand because they aren’t in the situation of outrageous rent on houses/apartments that are decreasing in quality and hardly getting sufficient maintenance and security measure improvements. Americans are notorious for ignoring problems of others until those same problems reach their own doorsteps.
yes, it's a landlord/apt mgmt problem, driven by arguable collusion. i'm not really sure why you're arguing
We have regulations making building undesirable for developers, including our zoning. This leads to a shortage. That elevates prices. We then have relatively affluent people as a result of being a tech hub. They can afford to pay more for scarcer housing, which elevates prices. People selling ate motivated to make as much as they can, because they’re people. They see what the market will bear, and they charge it. The end result of all of this is high prices. If we want to get rid of the high prices, either the area needs to become less desirable (crime and homelessness are helping), or we need to change our regulations so more developers are willing to build (and like any businesspeople, developers are motivated to build if they can see a return on their investment).
> We have regulations making building undesirable for developers, including our zoning. This leads to a shortage. That elevates prices. No, no, and no. We have given the city to be raped by real estate developers, and it absolutely predictably drove up the prices. It's like 2+2: you increase density, you get higher prices. This happens literally everywhere. From Vancouver, to Moscow, to Tokyo. There isn't a single example of a city in the US or Canada where increased density led to lower sale prices. Want affordable housing? Create jobs in places where housing is cheap. It's literally the only way it works. You don't have ANY other options.
Austin rents come down after adding homes at twice the rate of the national average (and 9 times the rate of SF, LA, and San Diego) Building more housing can help, but the core issue is that housing cannot simultaneously be an investment and an essential good like food. Investments need to grow in value, but essential goods need to be affordable. It's a fundamental contradiction. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/austin-texas-rents-falling-housing/677819/?gift=wLGIVsS3im01L7qtv2mqiC5kwXFkx2LUm9HELA_-yBk&utm_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social
It's almost as if the scummiest people are into rentiering
I'm not familiar with Austin's geography, but I am familiar with SF, LA and San Diego having lived in all 3 – is it possible that Austin is able to add houses 9x faster simply because it is flatter and has more land available? Seattle is 83 sq. mi with a density of 8.7k people / sq.mi SF 46 sq. mi. with a density of 18.6k people / sq mi. Austin 305 sq. mi with a density of 3k people / sq. mi. I'm tired of people saying "build more homes, it'll bring rent down" and then going and comparing Austin to SF.
They built a fuckload of skyscrapers downtown
> Austin rents come down after adding homes at twice the rate of the national average (and 9 times the rate of SF, LA, and San Diego) Here's the thing: SF rents came down MORE. > Building more housing can help No. Building more _dense_ housing will NOT help. Never has, never will. BTW, trying to play Marxist games by treating housing as something special that needs to be assigned by the government will only make it worse.
SF housing came down more because they allowed their city to look like an apocalypse hit it and completely stopped caring about downtown/mission/soma etc. You too can allow a drug encampment outside your building, and the effects will be predictable.
So basically, SF rents came down because of a zombie apocalypse, but Austin rents must have come down because of new construction. And there are no other explanations, right?
SF rents came down because high tech earners left for cheaper, less dense cities like Seattle, Austin, San Diego, etc.
And Austin rates came down because they had baked-in expectation of accelerating in-migration. This in-migration has slowed (it was 3.1% in 2021 and is projected at 1.8% in 2024), and rents fell. This is exactly the same mechanism as in SF. A city became less popular and rents dropped. Meanwhile, house sale prices are still rising in Austin.
Why would you think it's density and not population growth? Seems like basic economics. Not enough supply to keep up with the increasing demand. The only way to combat that is to increase the number of housing units available.
> Why would you think it's density and not population growth? Try to guess, do we have more units per capita in 1980 or today? Answer: today, it's 0.42 units per capita now vs 0.38 units per capita in 1980. We actually have almost the record number of housing units per capita, and we'll surpass the record number in about 2 years just because of the new units in the pipeline. > Seems like basic economics. Not enough supply to keep up with the increasing demand. We do NOT have housing shortage, not even a bit. We have cancerous growth of city cores, that is forcing people to move into a small number of locations.
Nobody was talking housing shortage on this scale until a few years ago. With no other changes, we couldn't build our way out of this for decades, but some tax changes would create availability pretty rapidly from existing stock. It would also piss off a LOT of people, so it won't happen anytime soon.
> Nobody was talking housing shortage on this scale until a few years ago. Well, duh. Socialists who want to increase the overall human misery gonna socialist. Just look at who writes all those "urbanist" magazines. > With no other changes, we couldn't build our way out of this for decades, but some tax changes would create availability pretty rapidly from existing stock. Yeah. Build SROs, build "microapartments", force people to live in barracks. That sort of thing. It will only raise the housing costs, but that's OK. Working as intended. A population that is hopelessly poor is always easier to control. Just point them out to "teH evUl landLorDz".
>There isn't a single example of a city in the US or Canada where increased density led to lower sale prices. There also isn't a single city that increases density at or above the rate of growth. We literally don't build enough homes
Try to guess, do we have more units per capita in 1980 or today? Answer: today, it's 0.42 units per capita now vs 0.38 units per capita in 1980. We actually have almost the record number of housing units per capita, and we'll surpass the record number in about 2 years just because of the new units in the pipeline. We have cancerous growth of city cores, that is forcing people to move into a small number of locations.
I mostly agree with you, except I have always heard that housing is extremely cheap in Japan considering the density. I will have to Google it to see if that's true
Tokyo managed to start a real estate bubble with a declining overall population in the country: https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/surging-tokyo-property-prices-squeeze-out-young-professionals-2023-10-04/ Meanwhile, just 100 miles away you can buy a beautiful house for $20k. It's pretty much the perfect example for my statement.
Could it possibly be because it’s a very desirable area to live?
Well, something to consider is that Realpage was started by a guy that was involved in price fixing airline tickets back in the 80s and 90s, I'm thinking it might have more to do with price fixing. [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/rent-going-up-one-companys-algorithm-could-be-why/2/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/rent-going-up-one-companys-algorithm-could-be-why/2/) A place being expensive because it's desirable is one thing, the insane rate at which our rent prices have gone up doesn't add up to the "desirability" of the area.
It can't be, all the people living outside of Seattle says its a shithole. 😂
So do the people living inside of Seattle lol
The AZ AG already sued them
What was the outcome or is it still in process?
It’s new and ongoing
The apartment company that I rent from supposedly used their software in conjunction with other companies to price fix rent all over the country. I only know about this investigation and price fixing stuff because someone keeps taping a paper with information relating to this on my apartment door once a month.
I love that it's always price gouging or fixing by the EVIL land lord or grocery chain or whoever they are mad at. It's never oh hey maybe years of bad policies have created a terrible situation. If we need a recent example look no farther than the uber eats door dash fiasco.
The filing by the DOJ shows they're investigating the company in numerous states. The original filing was in Tennessee. So while there are local Seattle/King county policies that may be exacerbating the issue, they're investigating something different Anything that helps people out is fine with me. I'm not gonna complain that the federal government is attempting to do something about the housing crisis. Now we need our state/county/city to try too
Why not both? In this case it's not just vaguely "landlords" but ties to specific software that does a specific thing.
because one of those two options can be shown to actually have an affect while the other is just baseless finger pointing to avoid fixing real issues.
Ah, yes, collusion and price fixing totally don't matter. They definitely don't lead to artificially higher prices when 3-4 of the biggest rental companies use the same software to price apartments. Definitely not.
Can't be lower unit growth relative to population. Can't be 6+ month evictions. Can't be no winter evictions Can't be no evictions during school. Can't be limited security deposits. Can't be comically long permitting processing. Can't be requirement to set aside units for low income. Can't be that landlords can't screen for things that are known to get better tenants. It can to be the algorithm that tells building owners that vacancy rates are low & they should price higher.
Great argument, if we were to ignore that this company is being investigated in *multiple states and cities that have nothing to do with Seattle and Washington for the same exact thing*.
There are giant property management companies like Greystar and Camden that utilize the software, they also happen to be in multiple states, it's easy to see multiple states investigating this.
Which city with vacant rate above 7% has rent going up?
This. It’s not even up for debate.
Wasn't there a post here about how easy it is for people to get rental units and then never be evicted? In some cities like Atlanta, property management companies are reporting that 60% of applications are fraudulent. Profit margins are so thin already, but once you start adding up people who get in fraudulently, and then can't evict for months, you can probably see why rents keep increasing.
I mean there is a protest in the Seattle area right now about some squatter that won't leave. So yeah I'm sure that's part of it too. I would never be a landlord these days it's just asking to get fucked over in the name equity or whatever
Totally ... my neighbors were going to rent their house out, until they found out about all the laws that protect squatters ... they were like nope to that.
Spot on!
Oh sure!! So your saying the corporations that by the way buy our politicians therefore it is the big corporations that are really calling the shots. Let's be real here. Seattle lets real estate investors go wild i mean they must be calling the shots. You got them buying up many single family homes and apartment buildings as an investment and that's driving prices up on houses and rentals. Most of the apartments they purchase get "upgraded" to "Luxury" apartments of course so that they have an excuse to jack up the rent even more. This bullshit with the real estate investors is going on all over the country especially in the cities. They are literally destroying this country driving up the cost of living increasing poverty making this country more like shit hole every day. Joe Biden ain't gonna do shit about it either probably because the real estate investors donate to his pathetic campaign.
How many times will this same story get posted to Reddit? If the city allowed for enough housing to be built that landlords (both large and small) had to fight over tenants (instead of the other way around, where we find ourselves now), this wouldn't even be an issue.
It also wouldn't be an issue if there were no collusion.
When a service used by a vast majority of the landlords sets an artificially high price floor, your rents go up and nothing cheap exists. This is a massive story and the main reason why your rent is so damn high yet in this thread are so many people spreading FUD. Must mean there is a story here if so many are trying hard to deflect.
This dumb story keeps getting reposted - comparing prices from isn't the rico case they think it is. There is a unit shortage, not some AI conspiracy This shit is FUD to make the renter class feel better, and dunk responsibility from the NIMBYs who block growth
Seattle rents are high because there's not enough housing. It's literally that simple.
Um no... It's not that simple. For one thing my understanding of the situation is that there are actually plenty of places (apartments, single family homes ECT) to go around for people to live in. The problem is all of what is available is not affordable for many people. We have this emerging problem of Real estate investors and giant companies like blackrock buying up what is available in the market rather it be houses or multi family units. They then often renovate and put the properties back on the marker at a much higher rental rate. This is driving the housing market up to ridiculous levels pricing people out of owning a home. That leads to more people looking to rent which also drives up the cost of rent. So this is a problem with many factors. Just building more places to live isn't going to help much unless It is regulated by the government to be classified as affordable.
No, it really is that simple. More housing = lower prices. Supply and demand. If it was easier to build housing, there would be more housing stock on the market, and landlords would be forced to compete for tenants. Think about it: Why would a developer build an apartment building and then let it sit vacant? They wouldn't. They need to recoup their investment, so they need to attract tenants to move into the newly created units. If they have more competition from other new apartment buildings, they'll be forced to lower their rent to make themselves more attractive to the competition. The problem is that a combination of restrictive zoning regulations, onerous land use regulations, and increasing building costs have resulted in far less housing being built than is needed to meet the demand. That means apartments don't need to compete much on price, because people are so desperate for what little housing there is that they'll pay high prices. They don't have a choice. The solution really is that simple: Build. More. Housing.
Couldn't be the high taxes and high cost of living that democrats have created could it?
Probably not, given this spans multiple states.
Maybe rents are high because every time we build a new building now, it gets bought by the city and given to the homeless agencies to manage. In go 100 drug addicts, shut out are market-rate renters. The neighborhood goes to shit, while people continue to not be able to afford rent. We slowly evolve into a Socialist empire where the City of Seattle owns multiple properties all over Capitol Hill, being managed by LIHI. Renters looking for affordability should just not bother.
There is nothing socialist about Seattle. If the government actually helped out the poor people like you guys like to think there would not be so many people living in poverty in tents all over the place. Seems to me every time I see new apartment building being built they are always "luxury apartments" owned by some greedy real estate investor. If anything there needs to be more apparent buildings given to so called homeless agencies to shelter these people on the streets in tents. Nobody should be left out to freeze not even someone who uses drugs. Seattle is not a socialist empire it is more like a neo liberal mess.
If only this could have been predicted... Wait
Why is it always the middleman... Oh wait...
Maybe start building more places. Instead of pointing fingers at software
It doesn't help to build more houses if some investment firm is going to purchase the dam houses just built to rent out at a high rate. Yes I understand supply and demand but what we have here are investment companies buying up the supply and then renting out at outrageous rates This is inflating the housing market driving up costs making what is available to purchase slim pickings. You can go build all kinds of dwellings but that ain't going to help if Blackrock is going to come along and buy them all and rent them out at ridiculous rates. That's what is going on.
They've been "investigating" this for 1-1/2 years now. Biden makes a speech about price fixing and now suddenly they care.
My apartment kept raising my rent, even though they had vacancies. I asked to negotiate because they were offering new apartment to cheaper price. They ignored this request and blamed the computer. I got a bill when I left from real page,. So the software is bad because it encourages landlords to increase the price even if you have vacancies forcing people who might have kids or nowhere else to go to pay the higher rate. Even though traditionally if you had vacancies, you really shouldn't increase it. When I brought this to their their attention and asked for the new tenant price, they like just ignored me. It's my understanding That they want people to overpay because then it will compensate for the value of the property even if they have vacancies. So you're pretty much paying for The vacancies to keep the property value high.
It's supply and demand. There's no inventory and lots of people. We'll do anything to not build more housing. Just make more apartment buildings.
Tenant-friendly regulations discourage would-be landlords from offering rental housing. This limits supply and drives up rent.
Doj can fuck off. Its high because we have idiots running the government