FIrst, nobody builds an apartment complex for renting counting on 100% occupancy. If you think that, where were you brainwashed? Did you pass WASL?

Second, the housing market is creating HYPER-INFLATION. So much so that businesses will not see Washington as a “friendly” market. Imagine a minimum wage of $15 per hour to sling hamburgers at McDonald’s so workers can afford a roof over their head.

Look at the President’s comments during the State of the Union address. Finally the government is addressing the issue of affordable Health Insurance since 46 million Americans can’t afford it. Why? More and more low paying manufacturing jobs are being created in the U.S. every day. Our labor costs are substantially cheaper than China and India! NOT !!!!!!

All local companies are hiring recent college grads because they can work cheaper and are more “portable.” If they need to relocate due to lay-offs, etc., then they are the least impacted.

Look what’s happening to California. It’s become so expensive that more people are leaving the state than moving in!!

If anything, the land use laws need to be changed, if that’s causing the “market imbalance.” Economics is about the efficient use of resources, so there has to be something driving up the prices. Yes, there’s the supply and demand mechanism, so something has to be restricting supply. We have never lived in a purely capitalistic society, so comments about capitalism are really null and void.

Also, look at Seattle (and the North Gate area). Townhomes are popping out everywhere and it’s more cluttered than cities on the East Coast (NYC, Boston, Philly). It still doesn’t address the issue affordable housing if you can’t afford to own.

I think this legislation comes far too late and doesn’t address this issue of creating “affordable housing.”

http://www.seattlecondoreview.com/2006/10/empress_buildin.html

Our market is very slow too – not much growth so imagine what will happen if everyone started moving out of the city into the rural areas.

As for the legislation, I am into this political stuff, so keep me updated.

You can always bribe the tenents with a few grand if you want them out earlier, but tenants should have every right to expect the owner, new or not, to honor a lease. I was once tossed out of my apt. 2 months before I was scheduled to move out of town, and it cost me thousands, and untold headache moving twice.

The sort of attitude displayed in this post is what gives developers a bad name.

I don’t believe that we’ll ever see a bill that allows tenants to live out the lease period in such as way as to financially devastate the owner. I wouldn’t base my judgment on the newspaper article. I do, however, believe that some kind of protection is appropriate for tenants. I can put myself in the shoes of both the renter and the owner. I think at least 60 days notice with something closer to $1000 in move out assistance would not be unreasonable. I’ve talked to a couple of people who have been kicked out of apartments they’ve been living in for many years. Especially for older adults on a tight budget, it’s very tough on them.

Converting to condos is only market balance. As one who’s suffered with low rents over the last few years, I’m glad to see the market adjust. I’ve got 4 conversions coming up. Better turn them in before any legislation!

My comments are based upon the newspaper article (ohh..that’s always a risky option), most specifically the objective of requiring the property owner to delay construction until everyone has moved out. Time is money as the man says, and requiring an owner and/or developer to tie up all their funds in a property and wait until the final day of the final lease is very costly. Most projects all based upon a rolling schedule — as leases expire they start in renovating units and going to market.

So let’s be conservative and say your project is on a 10-unit building at an amazing 6.5% rate with 20% down purchased at the tri-county average of $115K per-unit — your looking at $4900+/mo interest while the building sits there. That’s counting the opportunity cost of your 20% down. I suppose you could argue you are still recieving rents — but that’s going down as tenants move out.