Whether you’re looking at apartments in Dallas or searching for an apartment in Charlotte, renting can be a convenient and flexible housing solution, especially in today’s ever-changing real estate market.
However, renting isn’t for everyone, and it’s essential to weigh the advantages and drawbacks before signing a lease. In this ApartmentGuide article, we’ll explore some of the key pros and cons of renting an apartment and offer a few valuable tips to help you decide which option is more suitable for you.
Renting an apartment comes with many positives and can either be a short-term option for those seeking to eventually purchase a home or a long-term solution for those who have no desire to own a home.
1. Flexibility and mobility
One of the primary benefits of renting is the freedom it provides. Most leases are for a year or less, allowing tenants to relocate without the commitment of a long-term mortgage. This flexibility is ideal for individuals who might need to move for work or who simply want to experience different areas.
2. Lower maintenance costs
Renters generally aren’t responsible for strenuous maintenance issues and repairs, which are typically covered by the landlord or property management. While renters are still responsible for day-to-day apartment maintenance, renters will encounter fewer unexpected expenses, making it easier to budget and save for other financial goals, like buying a home in the future.
3. Access to amenities
Mallory Padgett with Element Fence Company shares how renting a unit at an apartment complex can come with various amenities such as “pools and gyms” in addition to shared community spaces. These attractive amenities come included in the rent and can provide added convenience and social opportunities that may not be as accessible or affordable in a privately owned home.
4. Fewer upfront costs
Renting usually requires a security deposit and the first month’s rent, which is significantly less than a down payment on a house. This lower initial financial commitment makes renting an accessible option for people at various stages in life, whether they’re saving up for a house or not yet ready for homeownership.
Owner of Austin-based design and remodeling service, Hoeft Design and Build, Luke Hoeft shares that with lower rental costs, “This frees up more cash flow to focus on other savings goals.” However, Luke adds, “If you see yourself staying in the city you live in for more than five years, buying a home instead can make more financial sense as you will benefit from the appreciation of your home.”
Tenant rights
Additionally, as a renter, certain legal protections may apply and you’ll want to do your research when searching for a place to rent. Raham Popal with Law Firm For Tenant Rights shares a couple protections and rights that may be applicable to renters (although may vary by state, city, and county) that you otherwise wouldn’t have as a homeowner:
Rent control protections that “limit future rent increases.”
Eviction protections that “can prevent the landlord from recovering possession at the end of the lease term.”
While renting an apartment offers various amenities and easy maintenance, there are cons to consider that may make renting only a temporary strategy.
1. Lack of equity and investment
Rent payments don’t build equity. While you’re paying for a place to live, you’re not investing in a property that will appreciate over time. For some, this is seen as “throwing money away,” as there is no long-term financial benefit.
2. Limited control over the property
Renters may have restrictions on what they can change or update in the apartment. Decorating limitations, pet restrictions, or a no-renovation policy can make it challenging for renters to personalize their space to suit their needs and preferences.
3. Potential for rent increases
Unlike a fixed-rate mortgage, rental rates can increase, sometimes significantly, with each lease renewal. This lack of cost stability can be a financial strain, particularly in high-demand areas where rents are rising quickly.
4. Less privacy and space
Apartments are typically smaller than houses, which can mean less space for storage and privacy. Additionally, apartment living often involves close proximity to neighbors, which may not provide the quiet or solitude that some people prefer and may ultimately result in filing a noise complaint.
Deciding whether to rent or buy is a personal choice influenced by financial readiness, lifestyle preferences, and long-term goals. Renting offers flexibility and fewer responsibilities, making it an appealing option for those not ready for the commitment of homeownership. On the other hand, the lack of equity-building opportunities and limited control may make homeownership a more attractive option for others.
Ultimately, understanding the pros and cons of renting an apartment can help you make an informed decision about your housing future. Whether you choose to rent or buy, being aware of both options’ benefits and challenges will set you on the path toward a comfortable, enjoyable living experience.
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money podcast, where we answer your real-world money questions. In this episode:
Learn how presidential policies on tariffs, immigration, and prices can impact your everyday expenses like groceries and gas.
What can a president actually do to lower prices and fight inflation? Can campaign promises really impact your wallet, or are they just political hot air? Hosts Sean Pyles and Anna Helhoski discuss presidential policies and how they affect everything from the cost of gas to your grocery bill to help you understand the real impact of political decisions on your finances. They begin with a discussion of inflation, with tips and tricks on understanding how inflation is measured, what drives price hikes, and what role the president plays in influencing it.
Then, Anna talks to Derek Stimel, an associate professor of teaching economics at UC Davis, about the economic implications of tariffs and immigration policies. They discuss how tariffs raise the price of imported goods, how immigration impacts labor costs and wages, and what these political policies mean for your everyday purchases.
Check out this episode on your favorite podcast platform, including:
NerdWallet stories related to this episode:
Auto loans from our partners
Episode transcript
This transcript was generated from podcast audio by an AI tool.
Sean Pyles:
What’s the first thing you do when you go to the grocery store? Do you run to the produce aisle and look for the freshest broccoli, maybe? Or conversely, are you heading for the candy section? I don’t judge. But pretty soon after that, you’re probably starting to look at prices, right? The price of, well, everything is a daily question in our lives. So it’s not surprising that prices are playing a part in this year’s presidential election.
Derek Stimel:
I just find it interesting that both presidential candidates have focused on these highly volatile markets, which we often think they really can’t do that much about, and that are often driven by these global forces basically. But both of them have focused on those as their avenues to bringing inflation down.
Sean Pyles:
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money Podcast. I’m Sean Pyles.
Anna Helhoski:
And I’m Anna Helhoski.
Sean Pyles:
And this is episode two of our Nerdy deep dive into presidential policy and personal finances. Hey Anna, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’ve got a presidential campaign underway.
Anna Helhoski:
Hard to miss it. Talk about drama. And every great drama has a storyline. One big part of this year’s storyline in the campaign has been prices, specifically inflation and what it’s done to our bottom lines.
Sean Pyles:
Yeah. Inflation hit a high of 9.1% back in 2022, and we’ve been paying a whole lot more for a lot of things over the last few years. And it’s not subtle, it’s very noticeable. Anna, is there anything specific that has popped up on your radar as more expensive than just a couple of years ago? Something where you said whoa, that is way more than I used to pay.
Anna Helhoski:
Yeah. So I have a bread place near me and a few years ago the prices were pretty reasonable for a big loaf of fresh bread, like $6 a loaf.
Sean Pyles:
Yeah, that’s like New York reasonable, I’ll say.
Anna Helhoski:
Yeah, exactly. No, that’s how I gauge everything. But then flour prices spiked and suddenly the price went up to nearly $10, which is way more than I’m willing to pay. What about you, Sean? Did gecko food get more expensive along with anything else?
Sean Pyles:
Since you mentioned it, crickets for my gecko Ozzy did go up about 12%. I now spend a whopping $2.25 a week for those creepy bugs for the old guy. Of course, it’s not just these one-off items, these are just the things that the two of us noticed in spades. Houses are more expensive, cars are more expensive, credit cards are more expensive. It just takes more out of your budget to buy stuff.
Anna Helhoski:
So what can a president do about it? As we heard in last week’s episode, the answer is not a lot by themselves. They often need Congress or the Fed or both, and sometimes a lot of luck to have an impact on the economy and specifically on prices. But that doesn’t stop them from making all kinds of promises about the changes they’d make if we sent them to or back to the White House. Let’s talk about what they can do in reality.
Sean Pyles:
And as we noted in the last episode, we’re not here to take sides or fan the flames of an already contentious political season. Our goal here is the same one we always have at NerdWallet, to help you, our listeners, make smart informed decisions about the stuff that impacts your finances. Sometimes that means choosing a new high-yield savings account. Other times that means voting for the candidate who you believe will help you achieve your life and financial goals.
All right, well, we want to hear what you think too, listeners. To share your thoughts around the election and your personal finances, leave us a voicemail or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373. That’s 901-730-N-E-R-D. Or email a voice memo to [email protected]. So Anna, who are we hearing from today?
Anna Helhoski:
We’re talking with Derek Stimel. He’s an associate professor of teaching economics at the University of California, Davis. So not only is he an expert in macroeconomics, but he’s an expert in teaching it. He’ll help us parse what presidents can and can’t do to affect the price of all sorts of goods that we all buy. Derek Stimel, welcome to the show.
Derek Stimel:
Thanks for having me.
Anna Helhoski:
Presidential administrations tend to take the credit or get the blame for things that happen, at least when it comes to public perception. That means that the Biden-Harris administration has taken a lot of flak from the Republican Party and from many Americans for elevated prices that we’re seeing in the wake of the pandemic. And since we are just a few months away from a new administration, can you talk a little bit about how much influence presidents actually have on inflation and prices?
Derek Stimel:
Normally we don’t think of them as the major driver of inflation in the economy. Usually, it’s things like monetary policy, so interest rates, and the supply of money. Sometimes it can also be things outside of the economy, shocks as we sometimes say in economics. So things that happen globally, for example. Having said that, it’s not to say that there can’t be some causes that are driven by policy of the government. For example, in the current situation, some people do point to some government spending that took place in the aftermath of COVID and the policies surrounding that. That might’ve been some fuel for inflation. But it’s not usually the first thing we think of. In this particular situation of our recent inflation, I suspect it’s not the first number one thing causing the inflation.
Anna Helhoski:
Let’s get into some of the campaign promises that each candidate has made. Some of the promises might just be politicking, but some of it could become a reality. Start off with former President Donald Trump’s proposals. Thus far, there have been multiple reports and assessments from economists who say that his proposals, if enacted, would be inflationary. And one of the main drivers of that projected inflation is Trump’s promise to levy 10% across-the-board tariffs on all foreign goods. Can you explain how tariffs and prices interact?
Derek Stimel:
Tariffs are basically a tax on imported goods. For any tax, it’s going to have the following effects on the market, which is, the tax gets levied, let’s just say it’s the 10% just to have a number. And then the businesses basically have to, in a sense, make a decision about do we absorb this tax ourselves, do we pass it on to the customers, and if so, in what proportion? They may not pass on the full 10%, it’s unlikely they’re going to absorb the full 10% themselves. So there’s going to be a split. So in some loose setting, maybe they raise prices by 5% and they absorb 5% of it to get up to the 10, or maybe it’s 8 and 2, or 3 and 7, or what may be. But the point is that basically, it’s going to lead to higher prices on those products.
So in this particular situation, we’re talking about higher prices for imported goods. And I think as we’re all generally aware from our day-to-day shopping and if we ever look at the label of anything, we buy a lot of imported goods in the United States. So it’s not unreasonable to think that raising taxes essentially on imported goods would ultimately boost the prices of those imported goods and then on average raise our cost of living at least somewhat.
Anna Helhoski:
Now, Trump claims that his tariffs would spur American manufacturing and domestic competition for production. Is that something that does happen or would likely happen as a result of tariffs?
Derek Stimel:
So it definitely can happen that there could be some… you know, businesses have to make the best decisions based on the rules of the game as they are. Raising tariffs would definitely change the rules and businesses would likely respond to that. And so to the extent that they could and that the U.S. was a major market to them, at least some businesses would try to reallocate or relocate back into the U.S. in order to avoid this tariff, basically. But I think the question is: Would that be enough to counterbalance the effect of this higher tax across the board? I don’t have hard data on it, but the likely answer is it wouldn’t be enough. So we would still see higher prices as a result, and so we would have to deal with the consequences. But there could be some reallocation or relocation of businesses for sure.
Anna Helhoski:
Another promise Trump has made is to lower gas prices. Under his first administration, he increased oil production and then Biden went further still. So how much can a president impact gas prices?
Derek Stimel:
The gas market or the market for energy more broadly defined is very much a global market, but the U.S. is in a way in a unique position of being the center of that global market. You hear a lot about that the U.S. dollar is this global reserve currency. Oil for example is usually traded in dollars and that sort of thing. So we do have a little bit more power than some other countries. The answer would be maybe a bit different if it was us talking about Canada doing something or whatever. It is also probably true that gas prices or prices of energy in general are really often driven by these global shocks. So in this particular case, the disruptions that took place due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are really the prime mover probably of energy prices in the recent years. And it’s not clear that any president would be able to have done something about that directly. Obviously, it’s more of a geopolitical thing than an economic policy thing.
Anna Helhoski:
Switching gears again, I’m hoping you can talk a little about the connection between immigration and the prices that consumers pay for certain everyday goods and services. And note for listeners, as you may know, Trump has promised to use law enforcement and the National Guard to deport many millions of undocumented immigrants. Beyond the humanitarian implications and the logistical questions raised by this proposal, what are some of the economic implications?
Derek Stimel:
Kind of a classic way of thinking about it economically, especially when we’re talking about things like inflation, is that we think that business costs basically would drive a lot of inflation, or at least it could be a prime driver of inflation. And inside those business costs, labor costs are often a large portion of those costs. And of course, that has to do a lot with the supply of labor that’s available relative to the demand for that labor. And so we live in an aging society, the baby boomers are basically retiring. And of course, this is reducing our labor supply or at least likely to reduce our labor supply in the coming years. So what that would mean economically is that would tend to push up wages all else the same, which of course then could also push up prices. Businesses, when they face these increased labor costs, have to make a choice about how much to pass on to customers in terms of higher prices.
So with that all in mind, if you also cut off the amount of immigration into the economy, you would think that that’s likely to put further pressure on wages in the economy. It’s going to further, in a sense, reduce or at least not provide any extra slack for the supply of labor, and so that’s going to further push up wages and further push up prices overall. That’s not to say we shouldn’t think about reforming immigration in some way, shape, or form, but that’s just to say economically that if you reduce the supply of labor, the price of that labor, the wages, and all the other forms of compensation that come with it is going to go up and businesses are going to pass at least some of that on to customers in the form of higher prices.
Anna Helhoski:
And are there any specific areas of the economy that could be altered if you deport millions of people who were already in the workforce?
Derek Stimel:
There’s the initial disruption, uncertainty that would surround it, which could shake out in all sorts of ways, many of which are probably not positive. Imagine the local restaurant down the street suddenly loses half its staff. And what are they going to do? So we would expect a lot of service sector jobs to maybe be impacted by these sorts of things, a lot of things that we interact with daily. And then there’s also this issue about if you create shortages in one area, let’s say you create a shortage in one service sector, it could spill over to other unrelated service sectors as well. Maybe now the one sector has to basically go poach employees from the other one. And so maybe it starts to spill over into other areas where you wouldn’t think of, say, quote, unquote, “illegal immigrants” basically playing a role, but it actually could have this cascade to other markets.
Anna Helhoski:
More of our interview in a moment. Stay with us. I want to talk about Donald Trump’s proposal to weaken the power of the Federal Reserve by bringing the central bank under more direct control of the president. And listeners, we’ve said it before, but the Federal Reserve is nonpartisan and operates independently. That means that the president doesn’t tell the Fed what to do and the Fed doesn’t make its decisions based on politics. Derek, it seems like the separation is pretty crucial to ensuring public trust in the central bank’s ability to make decisions. But if Trump was successful in his plans to more directly influence the Fed’s activities, what are some of those economic implications?
Derek Stimel:
Stepping back for a second, we generally think that the Fed’s main role is to keep inflation, especially over the longer term, relatively low and stable. And one element that tends to be critical to that is their basically credibility to commit to that policy of keeping inflation low and doing what it takes. None of us liked in the recent years the interest rates going up, but it’s seen as this necessary thing to do to bring inflation back down to that longer-term goal. And so the concern basically is that a lot of that comes from the fact that the Fed is independent to some degree from the rest of the government. It’s important to understand that they’re not completely independent. The president plays a role in nominating people to serve in the Fed. Congress obviously has to approve these things. But this general separation of like, oh, you can’t tell us when to change interest rates or you can’t tell us we can’t do this policy and we have to do some other policy or whatever, that tends to be important as this inflation fighter credibility that the Fed has.
If that gets eroded, I think the concern would be basically that people in the economy start to not believe in the Fed as much as an inflation fighter. That lack of credibility starts to make people think, “Well, they say they want 2% inflation, but given that they’re tied to the rest of the government, I think it’s maybe going to be more like two and a half, 3%.” So expectations start to tick up on inflation. And one thing about inflation is that expectations really play an important role and they tend to be self-fulfilling. We all expect five, we’ll get five. And so basically the Fed’s independence is one of… There’s some others of course, but it’s one of the main things that’s tying down those expectations because it’s helping the Fed maintain its credibility to be there when we need them to fight inflation.
Anna Helhoski:
Well, those are the main things I want to talk about in terms of Donald Trump, but I want to switch gears and talk about Vice President Kamala Harris’s plans to battle inflation. She recently unveiled a plan to ban price gouging. So first off, what is price gouging and how have we seen it happen?
Derek Stimel:
So in economics, price gouging doesn’t really have a specific definition, to be honest with you, but the loose idea is that it’s taking, quote, unquote, for lack of a better term, “unfair advantage of a situation in order to raise prices.” Sometimes these situations are obvious, which are… There’s an earthquake that happens, let’s say, so suddenly the price of gas and water in the surrounding area is going to skyrocket. That kind of idea of taking advantage of other people’s misery and something that was really out of their control, a natural disaster, that’s really what we see as price gouging. So in this particular context, what we’re talking about with Vice President Harris is this view where, say, for example, grocery stores taking advantage of the circumstances to basically raise prices on their products in an unfair way. But it’s a bit nebulous once you start to get away from things that I think we all would agree are clearly things out of our control, like natural disasters.
Anna Helhoski:
And is there anything already in place to prevent price gouging?
Derek Stimel:
So states generally have laws that prevent price gouging in the situations we’re talking about like natural disasters, so hurricanes and floods and earthquakes, and so forth. What Vice President Harris is really talking about is basically a federal ban across the board on all forms of price gouging. At least that’s what I understand it to be. And we don’t have that. It’s not really clear what the criteria would be for that as well. So for example, if a company raises prices on its products by 5%, how do we decide if that’s just normal market forces or is it price gouging in some ways? In other words, how do we decide the fairness of it all? Generally speaking, in our economy, we let the markets work that out, and then everybody individually makes a decision about, nope, that’s too expensive, I’m not going to buy it, or I guess I’m willing to pay that price, that kind of thing.
Anna Helhoski:
So some critics of Harris’s proposal, including Donald Trump have said that this is a price control. So what is a price control? Why don’t economists like price controls and would Harris’s proposal to ban price gouging actually be a price control?
Derek Stimel:
Basically, a price control is essentially the government setting a maximum price in a marketplace. So sort of saying, “Hey, you can charge no more than X for this product.” And of course, we have price controls in the economy. The ones that people typically talk about classically are certain cities that have rent control. What people are basically saying is that this price gouging idea would in a way limit how much businesses can raise prices. And that would in a way be similar to what happens in a price control situation where the government often does cap how much a business can raise prices.
The good and bad of economics a lot of times is that there’s tradeoffs for everything. Concern would be basically that maybe grocery stores, because that’s the one that’s been central to all this argument, has really been the price of food, is that basically, maybe you wouldn’t see as many new grocery stores opening up, or at least in a lower frequency. Maybe you would start to see the quality of what’s on the shelves in the grocery stores start to decline a little bit. So on the one hand, you get the prices of the things you buy don’t go up as much maybe, but on the other hand, there’s less of them available and at least for some of them, maybe the quality of those products might go down a little bit.
Anna Helhoski:
So beyond preventing price gouging, Harris has also vowed to lower prescription drug prices and she wants to do this with price caps by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, speeding up delivery of generic drugs, and cracking down on big pharma. So how impactful could some of these efforts be in terms of making prescription drug prices more affordable?
Derek Stimel:
Oh, it could. Not surprisingly, the federal government via Medicare is a huge consumer in this marketplace, which basically means they have a lot of power, market power we would call. In this particular case, the technical term is monopsony power. But basically, yeah, they would have a lot of power potentially to negotiate and there would be spillover effects for people who don’t have Medicare. In terms of being able to lower, say, prescription drug prices by allowing Medicare to do this giant negotiation basically with the big pharma companies, that honestly could have a big impact on those prices for sure, because Medicare is so huge.
Anna Helhoski:
Right. And you touched on housing earlier, but let’s talk a little bit about Harris’s big proposals with her plans to make housing more affordable. One that really stuck out to me is a plan to prevent corporate landlords from using price-fixing algorithms.
Derek Stimel:
This is a brave new world that we’re in, and there’s a lot of times where regulation is behind the technology, where basically a lot of these businesses… And it’s of course not just in real estate, it’s in a lot of other areas as well, in finance in particular, where they basically use these computerized algorithms to essentially search for the deals that they want to transact. Is it price-fixing or is it the fact that all of these algorithms basically tend to point in the same direction because they often use the same data in order to churn through all their calculations? It’s not clear to me, I guess, how that might be enacted and then also what the implications would be.
Anna Helhoski:
And Harris said she would support construction of 3 million new housing units in the next four years, among other plans. And fundamentally, in order to lower housing prices or rent or the supply of homes for purchase, we just need more housing. So could Harris’s proposals spur more construction? And also what can a president do to facilitate housing growth?
Derek Stimel:
So much of this is local. I mean, so much of this is red tape based on local housing boards and all these other types of things, the “not in my backyard” kind of stuff. And so it’s not really clear what anybody at a national level could really do about that kind of stuff because so much of it is all of the local political machines and so forth that basically drive all these policies. As a general idea, I think the basic point that, yes, the way you have to basically lower housing prices or at least keep them from going up as much is to supply more housing, is definitely the answer. Because the housing market in a sense is unique compared to other markets, in that the supply is basically fixed by the number of units and very, what we would say in economics, inelastic. You’re not going to really get around that unless you just simply build more.
Anna Helhoski:
Derek, are there any other proposals from either of the candidates that we’re overlooking that could contribute to lowering prices or to increasing inflation?
Derek Stimel:
I think the last thing I would mention, I guess. I know President Trump wants to increase the domestic production of natural gas and coal and all that sort of thing. And I do find it interesting that both Vice President Harris and President Trump have focused on these areas of inflation. In the case of former President Trump, it’s energy costs, and in the case of Vice President Harris, it’s basically food costs. And these are the things that are specifically excluded by the Fed when they’re looking at the longer-term measures of inflation. So I just find it interesting that both presidential candidates have focused on these highly volatile markets, which we often think they really can’t do that much about, and that are often driven by these global forces, basically. But both of them have focused on those as their avenues to bringing inflation down.
I think the very last thing I might add in, which is probably too big to really get into, is the extent that the deficit and the national debt might play in terms of inflation in other parts of the economy, especially going forward as it’s ballooned a lot. There are some theories out there, for example, that it does play a role in inflation and to the extent that the policies of the two candidates might add to the deficit, and of course, then by extension add to the debt. That could be in a way a hidden inflation factor that we tend to not focus so much on.
Anna Helhoski:
And one we’ll probably pay for in the future.
Derek Stimel:
Yeah, somebody will eventually.
Anna Helhoski:
Derek Stimel, thank you so much for joining us today.
Derek Stimel:
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.
Anna Helhoski:
Sean, there’s something else I want to point out that I didn’t get to in my conversation with Derek, but came from researching an article on this topic, and that’s price tolerance. Right now, people are still pretty price intolerant because so much is elevated from where we remember it being. But if prices actually did drop across the board, it would be a big problem. Economy-wide price drops really only happen when there’s a big recession. And I think Trump and Harris’s campaigns both know this. They can’t bring back pre-pandemic prices, so what they can do strategically is make promises that are most relevant to people.
Sean Pyles:
Right. And last week we talked about how one individual president can’t really transform the economy on their own. But your conversation with Derek Stimel illustrates how a president’s priorities can make a bigger impact on an issue-by-issue basis. Former President Trump is focused on lowering the price of gas. Vice President Harris wants to make housing more affordable. And we saw how President Biden was able to push for lower prices on certain drugs like insulin. Although we should note, of course, that Biden wasn’t able to do that without the help of Congress.
Anna Helhoski:
So Sean, one other thing. Maybe it’s obvious but it’s worth saying, is that while we have pointed to a lot of ways in which a president cannot really control things like pricing, the president is also the leader of his or her respective political party, and that often means that the party and its political leaders will coalesce around these policies, making them more viable.
Sean Pyles:
Yep. We’ve mentioned that the president often has to work with Congress to get bills passed that can fulfill their promises. And members of their party, while they don’t necessarily march in lockstep, they will frequently work with that president to pursue his or her economic agenda. So no, the president can’t wave a magic wand, but if their party also has control in Congress, that makes a world of difference in the ability to make those goals happen.
Anna Helhoski:
And that’s a case for making sure you’re paying attention to what candidates are saying up and down the ballot. The presidential candidates aren’t the only ones to make a difference. Do some research on your congressional candidates, and for that matter, city council and school district, because they all touch public money and that’s your money. It always helps to educate yourself on how they plan to spend it. You can find the latest money news updates in NerdWallet’s financial news hub, which we’ll link to in the show notes, or just search online for NerdWallet financial news.
Sean Pyles:
So Anna, tell us what’s coming up in episode three of the series.
Anna Helhoski:
Well, Sean, next time we’re using a word nobody likes but matters a lot to your finances: taxes. We’ll hear what the current candidates for the highest office in the land want to do with the money that comes out of your paycheck.
Amy Hanauer:
Two-thirds of the cost of making those individual tax cuts permanent would go to the richest fifth of Americans. So to the richest 20% of Americans. So just for a sense of what that will cost, in 2026 alone, that will cost more than $280 billion.
Anna Helhoski:
For now, that’s all we have for this episode. Do you have a money question of your own? Turn to the Nerds and call or text us your questions at 901-730-6373. That’s 901-730-N-E-R-D. You can also email us at [email protected]. And remember, you can follow the show on your favorite podcast app, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and iHeartRadio to automatically download new episodes.
Sean Pyles:
This episode was produced by Tess Vigeland and Anna. I helped with editing. Rick VanderKnyff and Amanda Derengowski helped with fact-checking. Megan Maurer mixed our audio. And a big thank you to NerdWallet’s editors for all their help.
Anna Helhoski:
And here’s our brief disclaimer. We are not financial or investment advisors. This nerdy info is provided for general educational and entertainment purposes and may not apply to your specific circumstances.
Sean Pyles:
And with that said, until next time, turn to the Nerds.
This post will dive into a topic that’s been on a lot of minds recently—rising rent prices. It’s easy to point fingers and blame landlords for being greedy, but the reality is far more complex. Rents have been increasing for several reasons, many of which are beyond the control of landlords. In this article, we’ll explore the key factors driving up rent costs, from higher housing expenses to government regulations, and how these factors impact both the rental market and the overall housing market.
Table of Contents
Video: Why Are Rents So High?
The Root Causes of Rising Rent
One of the primary reasons rent prices are increasing is the rising cost of housing. This isn’t just about the sticker price of homes; it’s about everything that goes into owning and maintaining a property.
Since COVID-19, we’ve seen significant increases in various costs, including:
Construction Costs: Labor and materials have become much more expensive. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction wages have steadily increased, with a sharp uptick since 2020. This impacts the cost of building new properties and maintaining existing ones.
Insurance Costs: Property and casualty insurance premiums have skyrocketed, particularly in the last two years. The Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) shows that premiums for homeowners’ insurance have more than doubled in the past 20 years, with the most significant increases occurring recently. This is partly due to stricter building codes and higher risk factors, such as hurricanes in states like Florida.
Property Taxes: In many areas, property taxes have risen dramatically. In Colorado, for example, we’ve seen the largest increase in property taxes in decades. The state has adjusted property valuations closer to or even above market value, leading to significant tax hikes. For instance, one of my commercial properties saw its value jump from $125,000 in 2018 to $352,000 in 2024, causing property taxes to increase from $3,220 to $7,717 annually.
Rental Property Cash Flow Calculator
How These Costs Affect Rent Prices
As these costs increase, so do the expenses for landlords. When insurance premiums, property taxes, and maintenance costs rise, landlords have two options: raise rents to cover these costs or sell the property. If they choose to sell, it reduces the supply of rental properties, which in turn drives up rents further.
One common misconception is that landlords are just raising rents out of greed. The truth is, many of us would prefer not to raise rents, as it can reduce our pool of potential tenants.
However, if the costs of owning and maintaining a property increase, raising rents becomes a necessity to ensure that the investment remains viable.
The Impact of Tenant Behavior and Laws
Another factor contributing to rising rents is tenant behavior. Over the years, we’ve noticed an increase in tenants not respecting properties. When tenants leave properties in poor condition, it adds to the maintenance costs. This isn’t the only factor, but it’s a significant one.
Additionally, changes in tenant laws have made it more challenging for landlords to manage their properties. In states like California, Washington, and New York—where tenant laws are particularly strict—rents are among the highest in the country. These laws often make it harder to evict problematic tenants or require landlords to pay relocation costs if they need a tenant to move out. All of these regulations add to the cost of being a landlord, which ultimately gets passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents.
Tenant Screening Best Practices for Rental Properties
The Role of Government Regulations
Government regulations play a significant role in the rising cost of housing. Stricter building codes, such as those related to climate change, have added thousands of dollars to the cost of constructing new homes. The National Association of Home Builders estimated that new climate change building codes could add $31,000 to the price of a new home. These increased costs make new housing more expensive, which in turn drives up rent prices.
Moreover, rent control laws, intended to protect tenants, often have the opposite effect.
Studies, including one from Harvard University on rent control in San Francisco, have shown that these laws can reduce the supply of rental properties as landlords are disincentivized from renting out properties or from investing in new ones. This reduced supply leads to higher rents for the properties that are available.
Does Rent Control Lower or Raise Rents?
The Bigger Picture: Supply and Demand
The supply and demand dynamics in the housing market also play a crucial role in rent prices. Contrary to popular belief, investors are not buying up all the available homes and driving up prices.
In fact, data from the American Community Survey shows that since 2016, the number of renter-occupied single-family homes has decreased by over a million, while owner-occupied homes have increased significantly. This shift has reduced the supply of rental properties, contributing to higher rents.
Conclusion: It’s Not Just About Greed
The rise in rent prices is not simply a result of landlord greed. It’s a complex issue driven by increasing costs in housing, stricter government regulations, and shifts in the housing market. As landlords, we must adapt to these changes, which sometimes means raising rents to keep up with rising expenses. While it’s easy to blame landlords for higher rents, the reality is that these increases are often a reflection of broader economic and regulatory trends.
If we want to address the issue of rising rents, we need to look at the bigger picture and consider how policies, regulations, and economic factors contribute to the costs of housing. Only by addressing these underlying issues can we hope to create a more affordable and sustainable rental market.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
“The LIHTC program is the federal government’s most successful tool to construct and rehabilitate housing for low- and moderate-income households,” MBA president and CEO Bob Broeksmit said in a statement. “If the administration imposes unworkable rent caps on LIHTC programs, it will severely suppress – if not kill – the program. Such a move is … [Read more…]
Landlords or property managers are essential people in the apartment or home rental process. They help you sign and understand the lease, fix and address issues within your apartment, ensure the apartment and complex remain safe and clean and are your go-to person for any problems.
But, it’s important to know the boundaries of what a property manager can and cannot do. Read on for more information about landlord-tenant law and your rights as a renter. Knowing these 10 things a landlord cannot do will help you feel safe in your home.
1. Enter without proper notice
Your landlord is not allowed to enter your apartment without giving proper notice.
In many states, the landlord may not enter without first giving 24-hours notice. The format of notice may vary from place to place. Some apartment contracts state that notice must come in written or electronic form. Double-check your lease before moving in so you can know what to expect.
Once the landlord has permission, the tenant must let them into the apartment. Property managers usually enter to make repairs, to show the apartment to future tenants or to perform a routine check.
The only time the landlord may enter without notice is if there is a true emergency.
2. Force a tenant to leave
While evicting a tenant is legal, doing it without going through proper legal channels is not. This means that the landlord must give the tenant notice before evicting them.
The amount of notice does vary from place to place — ranging anywhere from days to months. If the landlord evicts a tenant without doing it properly, they can face serious consequences.
They also cannot turn off the tenant’s utilities without notice, especially if the apartment is in an area with extreme weather.
3. Raise your rent randomly
Once you sign a lease, it is a legally binding contract. This means that the landlord can not randomly raise the rent without cause.
There are a few instances where the rent can go up —some of these include the addition of a pet or significant remodeling.
The other time rent can go up is if the apartment is within the city’s rent control area. These usually state that landlords can raise the rent only by a certain percentage as specified. This is something you’ll want to check before signing a lease. However, outside of these situations, the rental rate negotiated in your initial lease holds strong.
4. Discriminate against a tenant
Landlords can not discriminate against current or future tenants. According to the Fair Housing Act, landlords cannot discriminate based on nationality, gender, race, disability or family status.
The Fair Housing Act also states that the landlord cannot say that an apartment is not available when it is, can’t harass you and can’t end a lease due to race, gender or family status.
5. Prohibit service animals
If you have a trained service animal according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landlord must rent to you even if there is a “no pet” rule.
Service animals, such as seeing-eye dogs, are exempt. You’ll likely have to show paperwork about your service animal, but, you will be able to rent an apartment with one under the law.
6. Allow lead content
Landlords are not allowed to rent apartments that contain lead-based paint or any lead content. This is more common in older homes or apartments but it is still something to consider.
They are responsible for checking the lead content, making repairs and ensuring they do not rent dangerous apartments with lead exposure to people.
7. Use a security deposit for wear and tear
Security deposits are part of almost every leasing contract. They are typically held for the duration of the lease and given back when the lease is over.
The landlord is not allowed to keep the security deposit to recover things such as normal wear-and-tear.
The only time they can keep it is if there are unusual repairs that aren’t normal wear-and-tear or if you break a lease early. They also aren’t allowed to charge a security deposit that is over the state’s limit. This changes from state to state so make sure to double-check what your state limits it at.
8. Refuse to make reasonable repairs
A landlord’s job is to make sure that your apartment is safe and livable. Refusing to make reasonable repairs could end in legal action against them.
Things such as removing mold or lead paint or fixing the utilities are something the landlord must help with. These are repairs that could endanger the tenant.
It is also illegal for landlords to ask tenants to make major repairs such as fixing the balconies or stairs.
9. Use your space
As per your leasing agreement, it is the renter’s right to the space you’re leasing. This means that the landlord cannot withhold space that is legally yours.
Spaces such as parking garages or storage units cannot be used for the landlord’s personal use.
10. Change the locks
Your landlord is not allowed to change your locks without letting you know. If they want to remove you from the apartment, they must go through legal channels to do so. Changing your locks without notice could end in serious legal troubles for the landlord.
What to do if your landlord breaks these rules
If you find yourself with a landlord that breaks any of these laws, you have some options. First, file a claim with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Make requests in writing and photograph any damage if your landlord refuses to make repairs. Should your landlord continue to neglect the problems, then you can call your local department of health and report the problems. If your landlord changes the locks without telling you, you can call the police. The landlord does not have the right to refuse you access to your apartment, even if they want to evict you. If you ever file a legal claim against your landlord they are not legally allowed to retaliate against you.
Know your rights
It is so important to know your renters’ rights. There are landlord-tenant laws in place for this very reason. Your landlord can not take advantage of you when renting an apartment. Make sure to do your research on landlord-tenant law and know exactly what a landlord cannot do so you’re not taken advantage of. With this knowledge, you’ll be better served and ready to rent an apartment.
Ashley Singleton is a writer who loves following and writing about current lifestyle, DIY and home improvement trends. You can read some of her other work on the Lady Spike Media website. In her spare time, she performs stand-up comedy in Los Angeles.
I bought my first rental property in 2010 and I admit it was much easier to buy rentals that cash flowed back. At least it was easier in my area in Northern Colorado. A lot of people wish they could go back in time to buy investment properties (me included) but no one has invented a time machine yet. Wishing for the impossible will do you no good. Since we have to live in reality can you still make money in today’s market with rental properties?
Why is it harder to buy rental properties in 2024?
It is harder to invest in real estate in 2024 due to multiple factors.
Interest rates are much higher than they have been for decades. High-interest rates are making it tougher on everyone in real estate. The high rates make it harder to cash flow no matter what prices are. They also make it harder to refinance properties which can be a big part of investing in rentals.
Housing prices are higher than they have ever been. Now, in most markets housing prices will always be higher than they ever have been, that is how the economy and inflation works. However, prices are still high and that makes it tough to buy rentals that make money.
There is record low inventory in most areas of the country. When there are fewer homes for sale it makes it harder to find deals which is what most real estate investors are looking for.
Many areas of the country are enacting tenant-friendly laws that make it harder on landlords. Rent control, free attorneys for tenants, no-cause evictions are all making it harder on landlords.
There is a growing ideology claiming landlords are evil and hurting society because they raise prices and take housing away from owner-occupants.
It is important to know that even though these things make it harder for real estate investors trying to buy now, rising prices have made many existing real estate investors very rich. Landlords also help the housing market, they do not hurt it.
How do you make money with rentals in today’s market?
I hope I did not scare everyone off with the doom and gloom of the last section of this article. However, there are still ways to make money with real estate in today’s market. How do you make money with rentals?
High interst rates make it tougher to make money but they are coming down and they should continue to decrease over the next couple of years. Real estate investors have made money with higher rates for decades even if it is harder to do so.
Housing prices are higher but there are still good deals out there. There will always be good deals no matter how high prices are. The key to investing in real estate is getting a good deal whether you or flipping or buying rentals. Good deals can make up for all of the other issues.
While there are few houses for sale right now there are still houses and multifamilyl and commercial real estate for sale. Real estate investors also do not need to buy only properties that are for sale. There are also off-market deals that can be just as good or better than on-market deals.
There are a lot of areas that are enacting more laws against landlords. However, there are still many areas that are landlord-friendly and I made list of the best states for landlords here.
It may be tougher to invest in real estate now than ten years ago but it is still definitely possible to make money with rental properties.
What strategies can you use today to make money in real estate?
It might not work to buy a single-family house in Denver or Seattle or Miami as a rental anymore if you want it to cash flow. While it might not work in every city there are still many areas where you can make money with single-family homes. There are also different strategies you can use to make money with real estate.
Invest in different markets. Not every market will work for every real estate strategy. It is really hard to start out as an investor in an expensive market. There are many markets with affordable real estate and while it is not easy investing in a different market could be the route to take.
Being a landlord may not be the right move for you right now. It is possible to flip houses and make money in some markets when you can’t make money with rentals in those markets.
Switching to a different type of rental may help as well. I switched from single-family rentals to commerical real estate in 2016. I also added in some multifamily properties as well. They often cash flow better than single-family rentals in expensive markets.
If you cannot afford to invest in your market, finding a partner may be another way to make real estate work in your area. Many people love to have their money in real estate but do not have the time to find the right investments.
While it is not easy to invest in real estate right now, it is rarely easy. Even when I bought my first rental properties many people (including those in the industry and in my family) told me I was an idiot. They told me the market would keep crashing and real estate would never come back. It was also tougher to get loans back then and there were not nearly as many educational sources about real estate either. I learned most of my strategies from reading books, some that were decades old that I hoped would still hold true when I was investing.
Conclusion
There is no perfect time to invest. The only way to know when the timing is perfect is years or decades after that time occurred. Waiting rarely works out but luckily there are many ways to invest in real estate even if rentals won’t work for you in your market right now. If you want to learn more about investing in other markets I put together a very detailed webinar on the subject you can watch below.
You can sense it in the ubiquitous “Help Wanted” posters in artsy shops and restaurants, in the ranks of university students living out of their cars and in the outsize percentage of locals camping on the streets.
This seaside county known for its windswept beauty and easy living is in the midst of one of the most serious housing crises anywhere in home-starved California. Santa Cruz County, home to a beloved surf break and a bohemian University of California campus, also claims the state’s highest rate of homelessness and, by one measure based on local incomes, its least affordable housing.
Leaders in the city of Santa Cruz have responded to this hardship in a land of plenty — and to new state laws demanding construction of more affordable housing — with a plan to build up rather than out.
A downtown long centered on quaint sycamore-lined Pacific Avenue has boomed with new construction in recent years. Shining glass and metal apartment complexes sprout in multiple locations, across a streetscape once dominated by 20th century classics like the Art Deco-inspired Palomar Inn apartments.
And the City Council and planning department envision building even bigger and higher, with high-rise apartments of up to 12 stories in the southern section of downtown that comes closest to the city’s boardwalk and the landmark wooden roller coaster known as the Giant Dipper.
“It’s on everybody’s lips now, this talk about our housing challenge,” said Don Lane, a former mayor and an activist for homeless people. “The old resistance to development is breaking down, at least among a lot of people.”
Advertisement
Said current Mayor Fred Keeley, a former state assemblyman: “It’s not a question of ‘no growth’ anymore. It’s a question of where are you going to do this. You can spread it all over the city, or you can make the urban core more dense.”
But not everyone in famously tolerant Santa Cruz is going along. The high-rise push has spawned a backlash, exposing sharp divisions over growth and underscoring the complexities, even in a city known for its progressive politics, of trying to keep desirable communities affordable for the teachers, waiters, firefighters and store clerks who provide the bulk of services.
A group originally called Stop the Skyscrapers — now Housing for People — protests that a proposed city “housing element” needlessly clears the way for more apartments than state housing officials demand, while providing too few truly affordable units.
City officials say the plan they hope to finalize in the coming weeks, with its greater height limits, only creates a path for new construction. The intentions of individual property owners and the vicissitudes of the market will continue to make it challenging to build the 3,736 additional units the state has mandated for the city.
“We’ve talked to a lot of people, going door to door, and the feeling is it’s just too much, too fast,” said Frank Barron, a retired county planner and Housing for People co-founder. “The six- and seven-story buildings that they’re building now are already freaking people out. When they hear what [the city is] proposing now could go twice as high, they’re completely aghast.”
Susan Monheit, a former state water official and another Housing for People co-founder, calls 12-story buildings “completely out of the human scale,” adding: “It’s out of scale with Santa Cruz’s branding.”
Housing for People has gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the March 2024 ballot that, if approved, would require a vote of the people for development anywhere in the city that would exceed the zoning restrictions codified in the current general plan, which include a cap of roughly seven or eight stories downtown.
The activists say that they are trying to restore the voices of everyday Santa Cruzans and that city leaders are giving in to out-of-town builders and “developer overreach laws.”
The nascent campaign has generated spirited debate. Opponents contend the slow-growth measure would slam on the brakes, just as the city is overcoming decades of construction inertia. They say Santa Cruz should be a proud outlier in a long string of wealthy coastal cities that have defied the state’s push to add housing and bring down exorbitant home prices and rental costs.
Diana Alfaro, who works for a Santa Cruz development company, said many of the complaints about high-rise construction sound like veiled NIMBYism.
“We always hear, ‘I support affordable housing, but just not next to me. Not here. Not there. Not really anywhere,’ ” said Alfaro, an activist with the national political group YIMBY [Yes In My Back Yard] Action. “Is that really being inclusive?”
The dispute has divided Santa Cruz’s progressive political universe. What does it mean to be a “good liberal” on land-use issues in an era when UC Santa Cruz students commonly triple up in small rooms and Zillow reports a median rent of $3,425 that is higher than San Francisco’s?
Beginning in the 1970s, left-leaning students at the new UC campus helped power a slow-growth movement that limited construction across broad swaths of Santa Cruz County. Over the decades, the need for affordable housing was a recurring discussion. The county was a leader in requiring that builders who put up five units of housing or more set aside 15% of the units at below-market rates.
But Mayor Keeley said local officials gave only a “head nod” to the issue when it came to approving specific projects. “Well, here we are, 30 or 40 years later,” Keeley said, “and these communities are not affordable.”
Today, with 265,000 residents, the county is substantially wealthy and white.
An annual survey this year found Santa Cruz County pushed past San Francisco to be the least affordable rental market in the country, given income levels in both places. And many observers say UC Santa Cruz students contend with the toughest housing market of any college town in the state.
Advertisement
State legislators have crafted dozens of laws in recent years to encourage construction of more homes, particularly apartments. While California has long required local governments to draft “housing elements” to demonstrate their commitment to affordable housing, state officials only recently passed other measures to actually push cities to put the plans into practice.
Regional government associations draw up a Regional Housing Needs Assessment, designating how many housing units — including affordable ones — should be built during an eight-year cycle. The state Department of Housing and Community Development can reject plans it deems inadequate.
For years 2024 to 2031, Santa Cruz was told it should build at least 3,736 units, on top of its existing 24,036.
Santa Cruz and other cities have been motivated, at least in part, by a heavy “stick”: In cases when cities fail to produce adequate housing plans, the state’s so-called “builder’s remedy” essentially allows developers to propose building whatever they want, provided some of the housing is set aside for low- or middle-income families. In cities like Santa Monica and La Cañada-Flintridge, builders have invoked the builder’s remedy to push ahead with large housing projects, over the objections of city leaders.
The Santa Cruz City Council resolved to avoid losing control of planning decisions. A key part of their plan envisions putting up to 1,800 units in a sleepy downtown neighborhood of auto shops, stores and low-rise apartments south of Laurel Street. Initial concepts suggested one block could go as high as 175 feet (roughly 16 stories), but council members later proposed a 12-story height limit, substantially taller than the stately eight-story Palomar, which remains the city’s tallest building.
City planners say focusing growth in the downtown neighborhood makes sense, because bus lines converge there at a transit center and residents can walk to shops and services.
“The demand for housing is not going away,” said Lee Butler, the city’s director of planning and community development, “and this means we will have less development pressure in other areas of the city and county, where it is less sustainable to grow.”
A public survey found support for a variety of other proposed improvements to make the downtown more attractive to walkers, bikers and tourists. Among other features, the plan would concentrate new restaurants and shops around the San Lorenzo River Walk; replace the fabric-topped 2,400-seat Kaiser Permanente Arena, which hosts the Santa Cruz Warriors (the G-league affiliate of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors), with a bigger entertainment and sports venue; and better connect downtown with the beach and boardwalk.
Business owners say they favor the housing plan for a couple of reasons: They hope new residents will bring new commerce, and they want some of the affordable apartments to go to their workers, who frequently commute well over an hour from places such as Gilroy and Salinas.
Restaurateur Zach Davis called the high cost of housing “the No. 1 factor” that led to the 2018 closure of Assembly, a popular farm-to-table restaurant he co-owned.
“How do we keep our community intact, if the people who make it all happen, the workers who make Santa Cruz what it is, can’t afford to live here anymore?” Davis asked.
The city’s plan indicates that 859 of the units built over the next eight years will be for “very low income” families. But the term is relative, tied to a community’s median income, which in Santa Cruz is $132,800 for a family of four. Families bringing home between $58,000 and $82,000 would qualify as very low income. Tenants in that bracket would pay $1,800 a month for a three-bedroom apartment in one recently completed complex, built under the city’s requirement that 20% of units be rented for below-market rents.
The people pushing for high-rise development say expanding the housing supply will stem ever-rising rents. Opponents counter that the continued growth of UC Santa Cruz, which hopes to add 8,500 students by 2040, and a new surge of highly paid Silicon Valley “tech bros” looking to put down roots in beachy Santa Cruz would quickly gobble up whatever number of new units are built.
Advertisement
“They say that if you just build more housing, the prices will come down. Which is, of course, not true,” said Gary Patton, a former county supervisor and an original leader in the slow-growth movement. “So we’ll have lots more housing, with lots more traffic, less parking, more neighborhood impacts and more rich people moving into Santa Cruz.”
Leaders on Santa Cruz’s political left say new construction only touches one aspect of the housing crisis. Some of the leaders of Tenant Sanctuary, a renters’ rights group, would like to see Santa Cruz tamp down rents by creating complexes owned by the state or cooperatives and enacting a rent control law capping annual increases.
“No matter what they build, we need housing where the price is not tied to market swings and how much money can be squeezed out of a given area of land,” said Zav Hershfield, a board member for the group.
The up-zoning of downtown parcels has won the support of much of the city’s establishment, including the county Chamber of Commerce, whose chief executive said exorbitant housing prices are excluding blue-collar workers and even some well-paid professionals. “The question is, do you want a lively, vital, economically thriving community?” said Casey Beyer, CEO of the business group. “Or do you want to be a sleepy retirement community?”
Just days after the anti-high-rise measure qualified for the March ballot, the two sides began bickering over what impact it would have.
Advertisement
Lane, the former mayor, and two affordable housing developers wrote an op-ed for the Lookout Santa Cruz news site that said the ballot measure is crafted so broadly it would apply to all “development projects.” They contend that could trigger the need for citywide votes for projects as modest as raising a fence from 6 feet to 7 feet, adding an ADU to a residential property or building a shelter for the homeless, if the projects exceed current practices in a given neighborhood.
The authors accused ballot measure proponents of faux environmentalism. “If we don’t go up,” they wrote, “we have less housing near jobs — and more people driving longer distances to get to work.”
The ballot measure proponents countered that their critics were misrepresenting facts. They said the measure would not necessitate voter approval for mundane improvements and would come into play in relatively few circumstances, for projects that require amendments to the city’s General Plan.
While not staking out a formal position on the ballot measure, the city’s planning staff has concluded the measure could force citizen votes for relatively modest construction projects.
The two sides also can’t agree on the impact of a second provision of the ballot measure. It would increase from 20% to 25% the percentage of “inclusionary” (below-market-rate) units that developers would have to include in complexes of 30 units or more.
The ballot measure writers say such an increase signals their intent to assure that as much new housing as possible goes to the less affluent. But their opponents say that when cities try to force developers to include too many sub-market apartments, the builders end up walking away.
Advertisement
Santa Cruz’s housing inventory shows that the city has the potential to add as many as 8,364 units in the next eight years, when factoring in proposals such as the downtown high-rises and UC Santa Cruz’s plan to add about 1,200 units of student housing. That’s more than double the number required by the state. But the Department of Housing and Community Development requires this sort of “buffer,” because the reality is that many properties zoned for denser housing won’t get developed during the eight-year cycle.
As with many aspects of the downtown up-zoning, the two sides are at odds over whether incorporating the potential for extra development amounts to judicious planning or developer-friendly overkill.
The city’s voters have rejected housing-related measures three times in recent years. In 2018, they decisively turned down a rent control proposal. Last year, they said no to taxing owners who leave homes in the community sitting empty. But they also rejected a measure that would have blocked a plan to relocate the city’s central library while also building 124 below-market-rate apartment units.
The last time locals got this worked up about their downtown may have been at the start of the new millennium, when the City Council considered cracking down on street performers. That prompted the owner of Bookshop Santa Cruz, another local landmark, to print T-shirts and bumper stickers entreating fellow residents to “Keep Santa Cruz Weird.”
Santa Cruzans once again are being asked to consider the look and feel of their downtown and whether its future should be left to the City Council, or voters themselves. The measure provokes myriad questions, including these: Can funky, earnest, compassionate Santa Cruz remain that way, even with high-rise apartments? And, with so little housing for students and working folks, has it already lost its charm?
You’ve likely heard the terms rent control, rent-controlled apartment or even rent-stabilized apartment on television, in books or at the movies. But, what do these terms mean?
Does rent stay the same every year? Do rent stabilization, rent regulation and rent control mean the same thing? How does a renter find a rent-stabilized unit?
We’ll answer common questions about rent-controlled apartments and share how rent-stabilized units influence renters and property owners, family members and even the neighborhood around rent-regulated apartments. And, we’ll show you how to find one of your own.
What is rent control?
Rent control is a legal term for when a government agency (like a city or state) imposes restrictions on how much landlords can increase rent. Regulations vary by city and state. But, they generally limit the maximum amount a landlord can charge each month and restrict the annual rent increase.
What’s the purpose of rent control?
Rent stabilization and rent control aim to maintain affordable housing options for low and moderate-income tenants. These measures prevent sharp increases in rent, prevent some evictions and help keep people in their homes.
It’s useful when the supply of affordable apartments, condos and rental homes is low. It’s common in urban areas where the occupancy rate is high and the demand for housing sends prices soaring.
States and cities often enact price controls after a war or economic downturn. New York City was one of the first communities to impose rent regulations during World War II. The state of New York took over from the federal government in 1950. New York City now has over a million rent-stabilized apartments overseen by the NYC Rent Guidelines Board.
How does rent control work?
There are two types of rent control. Vacancy control protects current and future tenants. The city or state determines where to cap rent increases. The terms apply to future leases.
Vacancy decontrol means rents stay stable while the current tenant is in the apartment. Once that lease is up, the property owner can increase the rent. In some places, it can’t go higher than a particular dollar amount. In others, landlords can increase rents to whatever the market can bear.
Apartments tend to stay regulated. They may become deregulated if an owner claims it as a primary residence or if a tenant’s income exceeds a particular limit for two consecutive years.
What’s the difference between rent control and rent stabilization?
Rent control and rent stabilization are different. They’re both versions of rent regulation, a term that refers to limits on monthly and yearly rent increases.
Rent control is strict. It usually limits rents to a specific dollar amount. It includes older leases from when rent freezes were more common.
Rent stabilization limits price increases to a particular percentage. It’s much more common. For example, only a small percentage of New York City’s one million rent-stabilized apartments are under a true rent control agreement. The majority of these affordable homes are rent stabilized.
How can I find rent-stabilized apartments?
It depends on where you live. And, it’s not easy.
That’s because only a few states allow rent stabilization. In fact, rent control is illegal in many places. Consult this rent control map from the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMFC) to see what your state offers.
Protections vary within a state’s borders. In California and Oregon, rent stabilization laws apply to the entire state. In other places, rent stabilization measures are only available in particular cities.
Cities that allow rent control and rent stabilization often register rent-stabilized apartments with the city’s housing division. A renter in New York can consult a list maintained by the New York Division of Housing and Urban Renewal. Similar organizations (often called a rent board or rent guidelines board) may list available properties and provide valuable guidance. City offices and the city council may also offer apartment rental resources.
Can you inherit a rent-controlled apartment?
Even if your city or state offers rent regulations, actually finding a rent-regulated unit is a challenge. Rent-stabilized tenants are very aware of what a great deal they’re getting, so they move less often. Stumbling upon a stabilized apartment is rare. Renters in some very competitive cities have been known to read the obituaries to try to score a rent-stabilized apartment before it goes on the market.
But, even then, there’s no guarantee that the landlord will list the apartment. In New York City, a new tenant can inherit an apartment in a rent-controlled building if they occupy it for two consecutive years. So, if a long-term resident has planned ahead and invited a family member to move in with them for at least two years (and if the building is older than 1947 and the family lived in it since at least 1971), the general public will probably never see that apartment listing.
What kind of buildings contain a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled unit?
A rent-stabilized apartment is often found in an older building. Price controls typically apply to a building that contains six or more units. Language stating it’s a continuously occupied primary residence is common.
For example, in New York City, most true rent control tenants reside in buildings built before Feb. 1, 1947. Renters must have lived in their apartment since July 1, 1971, to qualify.
Focus your search on older buildings and buildings that contain rent-stabilized units. Eliminate an apartment building if it doesn’t have at least a half dozen units inside. Cross-reference these buildings with available units to increase your chances of a match.
How can you secure a lease for a rent-stabilized apartment?
If you’re lucky enough to find a rent-stabilized unit, act quickly. Competition is fierce.
Schedule a tour immediately. Document your rent history, bring the paperwork the landlord requires for the application and prepare for a background check. You may need to accept certain expenses without negotiation (like a pet fee or parking fee) in exchange for saving more money on rent every month.
If the apartment, the building and the neighborhood are a fit, sign the lease right away. Make sure any roommate or family member on the lease is available to sign it, too.
If you’re one of the fortunate ones who inherit a rent-controlled lease (after living there for two years, of course), protect it. Promptly pay rent (and every fee) and renew your lease.
Then, plan for the future. Your descendants will have to live there for two years if you want to pass it on.
How do rent-controlled apartments affect renters?
Your monthly rent payment is a major expense. Finding a rent-stabilized apartment is an effective way to keep housing costs down.
Rent-controlled apartments help keep low and moderate-income residents in their homes. This is especially important for people on fixed incomes, like the elderly and the disabled. Rent control can prevent some evictions and increase housing stability.
If residents can afford their rent, it’s easier to build their credit and rent history. Saving money on rent means people can pay down debt, increase their savings and provide a more financially secure life for themselves and their family members.
How do rent-stabilized apartment buildings help communities?
People who can easily afford their current apartment renew their leases more and move less often. They deepen their ties to their neighbors and patronize local businesses. Rent stabilization can lead to community renewal and stability.
How does a rent-controlled apartment affect a landlord?
The ability to renew a lease for less than the market rate is a great deal for a tenant. It’s not such a great deal for a landlord.
If a landlord can’t count on rent increases to keep up with inflation or taxes, they have to find new ways to pay their bills. They might charge a parking fee or increase the pet fee and deposit. Your landlord may delay maintenance or repairs or invest less money in their building.
They might raise the rents on other apartments to make up for the cost of maintaining rent-controlled homes. A landlord may also convert rent-stabilized apartments into condos to earn more revenue and protect their investment. This reduces rental inventory.
Apartment owners may build condos or vacation homes instead of apartments if local laws prioritize rent-controlled apartments. That makes it harder to find an affordable primary residence.
Rent control is a great way to go
Rent control and rent stabilization affect landlords, tenants and entire cities. It’s a challenge to obtain a rent-controlled apartment, so if you find one, hold onto it.
The information in this article is for educational purposes only and does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal or financial advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal or financial advice as they may deem it necessary.
Alicia Underlee Nelson is a freelance writer and photographer. Her work has appeared in Thomson Reuters, Food Network, USA Today, Delta Sky Magazine, AAA Living, Midwest Living, Beer Advocate, trivago Magazine, Matador Network, craftbeer.com and numerous other publications. She’s the author of North Dakota Beer: A Heady History, co-host of the Travel Tomorrow podcast and leads travel and creativity workshops across the Midwest.
Elizabeth Hirschhorn, the Brentwood tenant who did not pay rent for her luxury Airbnb rental for 570 days, moved out of the unit on Friday.
The move was exactly one month after The Times chronicled Hirschhorn’s contentious tenancy, which began with a cordial stay on Airbnb and ended with her and Sascha Jovanovic, the landlord and property owner, suing each other.
“I’m a little overwhelmed, but I finally have my home back,” Jovanovic said. “I had such a peaceful weekend once she left.”
Advertisement
During her stay, which began in September 2021, Hirschhorn said that the lease was extended off Airbnb and that the unit was subject to the Rent Control Ordinance, so Jovanovic would have to evict her if he wanted her to leave. She also argued that she didn’t have to pay rent since Jovanovic never obtained an occupancy license for the guesthouse.
Jovanovic, who lives on the property, was at the home on Friday being interviewed for a documentary detailing the battle between him and Hirschhorn when he saw three men, who turned out to be movers, walk into the guesthouse.
He said he asked why they were there, and they didn’t clearly say why. He suspected she could be moving out but feared it also could be a home invasion, so he called the police.
The police arrived, and once all of Hirschhorn’s belongings were packed, they escorted her off the property, Jovanovic said.
Jovanovic and his attorney, Sebastian Rucci, knocked on the door to confirm she was gone and then entered the guesthouse and found it empty. Within an hour, a locksmith arrived and changed the locks.
As of now, it’s unclear whether Hirschhorn moved out permanently, or if she’s planning to return to the property.
Jovanovic and Rucci said they hadn’t heard anything from either Hirschhorn or her legal team, so they assumed she had moved out for good. On Saturday, Rucci emailed Hirschhorn’s attorney, Amanda Seward, to figure out the next steps regarding Jovanovic’s eviction lawsuit against Hirschhorn.
Advertisement
“My review of the case law is that once a tenant abandons the unit, the unlawful detainer is dismissed. If you wish, I can file the dismissal, or we can file a joint dismissal,” Rucci wrote.
Seward replied that they “may have jumped the gun,” according to the email exchange reviewed by The Times.
“Ms. Hirschhorn had discussed with me concern over the constant harassment and surveillance, and also the desire to get the things repaired that needed to be repaired. Subject to my discussions with Ms. Hirschhorn, please be advised that you have no authority to change the locks or to assume abandonment of the unit,” Seward wrote. “Further, you have violated the law by entering without permission and changing the locks.”
Neither Hirschhorn nor Seward immediately responded to a request for comment.
Rucci said he’s planning to drop the unlawful detainer lawsuit, assuming Hirschhorn has moved out for good. But he’ll still pursue damages in a separate lawsuit, since he claims Hirschhorn owes roughly $58,000 in unpaid rent. Hirschhorn said she owes nothing since Jovanovic never had a license to rent the unit, and her lawsuit accuses him of multiple forms of harassment and intimidation in attempts to get her to leave the place, which Jovanovic has denied.
Hirchhorn’s tenancy became a viral story in the days and weeks after The Times chronicled the saga. News vans posted up outside the home, and paparazzi followed Hirschhorn whenever she left.
“Drones were flying above my house every day. It was crazy,” Jovanovic said.
Now, he plans to address the mold damage in the unit, which was an issue during Hirschhorn’s stay that eventually soured their relationship. He also plans to get the necessary permits from the city, which was another issue; Jovanovic never obtained a license to rent the unit, and Hirschhorn argued in court that he wasn’t allowed to charge rent on a unit he didn’t have a license for.
After that, he plans to turn the space into a recreation room for his two adolescent children.
“We need to get the bad energy out and turn it back into a happy, family space,” he said.
The housing market in Boise is always evolving. As of the latest data, the Boise housing market presents a somewhat competitive landscape for prospective homebuyers, with houses receiving an average of two offers and being sold in around 21 days. This pace underscores a brisk but not frenetic market, allowing buyers some breathing room to make the right decisions at the right time.
The Boise housing market at a glance
A key indicator of market health, the median sale price of a home in Boise stands at $515,000, marking a modest year-over-year increase of 1.0%. This gentle price ascent reflects a market that is growing steadily, avoiding the pitfalls of sudden spikes or declines that can lead to instability.
Even more telling is the median sale price per square foot, which has seen a slight decrease of 3.8% since last year, possibly pointing to larger homes entering the market or a shift in the types of properties being sold.
The volume of sales tells a more nuanced story. In 2023, Boise saw 227 homes sold, a decrease of 19.8% compared to the previous year. This drop could reflect a variety of factors, including a potential shortage of inventory or a change in buyer sentiment. Nevertheless, the median days on market — a metric indicating how long homes are listed before a sale is agreed upon — has dropped from 34 to 21 days year-over-year, revealing that while fewer homes are being sold, those that are listed are moving quickly.
Competition in Boise’s housing market
Boise’s real estate market competitiveness is further clarified by the Redfin Compete Score™, which rates areas on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the most competitive. Boise scores a 61, illustrating a market where homes often receive multiple offers but typically sell for about 1% below the listing price. Homes categorized as “hot” may sell for around the list price and go under contract in as few as 5 days, showcasing the desirability of certain listings.
Furthermore, the sale-to-list price ratio in Boise is 99.1%, up 1.2 points from the previous year, indicating that homes are selling close to their asking prices, a sign of a healthy market where there is a good balance between buyer demand and seller pricing.
Investing in Boise real estate
For those considering Boise as their next home or investment, these figures paint a picture of a market that is competitive but not overheated. The city’s real estate market is managing to keep pace with demand without succumbing to the volatility seen in other regions. This suggests a sustainable growth trajectory for Boise’s housing sector, making it an equally attractive proposition for buyers and investors.
Find a beautiful house in Boise
The Boise housing market is characterized by a stable yet competitive atmosphere, with homes selling relatively quickly and for near asking prices. While the number of homes sold has seen a downturn, the overall health of the market remains robust, reflected in the consistent sale prices and the competitive nature of listings. As Boise continues to attract attention for its quality of life and economic opportunities, its housing market is poised to maintain its steady course.
Renting in Boise
Turning our attention to the rental market in Boise, it also reflects the city’s broader economic trends and the influences affecting the housing market.
Rental markets in cities like Boise are typically influenced by several factors including the availability of housing, population growth and economic conditions. As home prices rise modestly, it can signal a corresponding shift in the rental market. Potential homebuyers who are priced out of purchasing may turn to renting, which can increase demand for rental properties and, subsequently, rental prices.
Average rent in Boise
In markets characterized by a competitive housing environment with rapid sales and close-to-list prices, rental properties often see high occupancy rates. Landlords and property managers may have the leverage to ask for higher rents, especially if the local economy is strong and the population is growing, which seems to be the case with Boise.
How the housing market affects the rental market
Additionally, when home sales decrease, as noted with the 19.8% year-over-year drop in Boise home sales, the rental market might absorb those who are waiting for the right time to buy or who prefer the flexibility that renting offers. This can lead to a decrease in rental vacancies, further pushing up rental prices.
However, it’s important to note that rental prices are also subject to regulatory changes, like rent control laws and the development of new rental properties, which can increase supply and potentially stabilize or lower rents.
Apartment rent ranges in Boise
$501 – $700: 1%
$701 – $1,000: 4%
$1,001 – $1,500: 29%
$1,501 – $2,100: 35%
$2,101+: 30%
Considering these factors, those looking to move to Boise should be aware of the potential for a competitive rental market. Prospective renters may face quick turnaround times on rental listings and should be prepared for a possibly dynamic pricing environment. Like the housing market, the rental market in Boise is likely to be resilient, reflecting the city’s economic stability and appeal as a growing urban center in Idaho.
Find the best spot for you in Boise
Those considering Boise as their home should weigh the pros and cons of renting versus buying in a market that is robust and thriving, with both sectors offering opportunities and challenges that reflect the city’s desirability as a place to live and work.
If you’re ready to settle down in Boise, find your home in just a few clicks with Rent.