I'm moving to the DC area and working with an apartment complex on a lease. I was quite disappointed when I found out they use RealPage. But it also explains the weirdness with with their pricing....
I'm moving to the DC area and working with an apartment complex on a lease. I was quite disappointed when I found out they use RealPage. But it also explains the weirdness with with their pricing. It basically changes everyday, until an applicant puts down a deposit on a unit. Could go up a little or down a little each day. I'd never seen that before. Made making lists and comparison of units and prices a pain.
They basically set rent like a commodity. The complex we used to live in started using it several years ago. We wanted to move my MiL at one point, and found they were using something similar to...
They basically set rent like a commodity. The complex we used to live in started using it several years ago. We wanted to move my MiL at one point, and found they were using something similar to RealPage. They rates changed daily til you locked them in for new leases, signing mid week was better than busy weekends. Then our lease renewal went from 12 monrhs for $$, to: choose between an 8 mo to 13 mo lease with the rates all over the map.
It's definitely predatory. We were fortunate to be locked in somewhat but were fearful of a huge rent increase at any time. That was part of our reasoning for purchasing our small retirement place. Turns out they rented our unit for $310 per mo more than we were paying on our last lease. That would have not been affordable for us.
FYI DC has sued RealPage pretty recently: https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-sues-realpage-residential. Maybe you can bring that up when negotiating the rent and try to get some...
FYI DC has sued RealPage pretty recently: https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-sues-realpage-residential. Maybe you can bring that up when negotiating the rent and try to get some leverage. DC also has a pretty decent rent control program, so I'd look for a controlled building if possible. It doesn't really help you when moving in for the first time but it stops them from jacking up the rent too much once you're already in.
Thanks! And yeah, I'm living right next to Metro stop on the VA side. I have a car, but having driven in DC traffic as a tourist before...No thanks. I figure living next to a stop will also help...
Thanks! And yeah, I'm living right next to Metro stop on the VA side. I have a car, but having driven in DC traffic as a tourist before...No thanks. I figure living next to a stop will also help me just get my bearings. Driving in old east coast cities, as a Midwesterner, has always been "an adventure," to say the least. The whole no grid thing is no bueno. But yeah, I'm excited for a change of scenery!
Oftentimes the Metro is more convenient than hunting for parking, even when the traffic isn't terrible. It's been 20 years since I lived on the VA side, but I remember King ST station being a fun...
Oftentimes the Metro is more convenient than hunting for parking, even when the traffic isn't terrible. It's been 20 years since I lived on the VA side, but I remember King ST station being a fun stop on the yellow line with restaurants and a farmers market along the walk to the water front. I was completely carless back then. I moved back to the West Coast, and recently moved back to the Maryland side, albeit with a car now.
If you do any work for the federal government, look into public transportation benefits that can cover your commute costs.
I applaud this. But I wonder how this will be enforced? There’s no way the city can tell if a price has been set automatically or manually unless they’re spying on a property manager or landlord’s...
I applaud this. But I wonder how this will be enforced? There’s no way the city can tell if a price has been set automatically or manually unless they’re spying on a property manager or landlord’s computers.
Hmm, I guess. I think that places too much locus of responsibility on the tenant: suing is expensive and an extreme option, and the vast, vast majority of people aren't going to sue their...
Hmm, I guess. I think that places too much locus of responsibility on the tenant: suing is expensive and an extreme option, and the vast, vast majority of people aren't going to sue their landlords — so most landlords are going to get away with using the software.
It's likely that, since the technology itself is outlawed, the state government may directly prevent the companies offering this technology from offering it within the state. Since these services...
It's likely that, since the technology itself is outlawed, the state government may directly prevent the companies offering this technology from offering it within the state. Since these services set prices for landlords based on other rents within a given area, doing this would effectively curtail usage without requiring anyone to directly go after every individual landlord.
Banning software isn't going to solve the San Fransisco property crises. Removing regulations that prevent building more buildings and adding supply is the primary issue, as San Francisco has...
Banning software isn't going to solve the San Fransisco property crises. Removing regulations that prevent building more buildings and adding supply is the primary issue, as San Francisco has approved construction on 16 houses in the first half of the year.
The point of banning the software is that Real Page is designed to be a mechanism for landlords to violate Antitrust law There are new laws in California that are meant to prevent cities from...
The point of banning the software is that Real Page is designed to be a mechanism for landlords to violate Antitrust law
There are new laws in California that are meant to prevent cities from obstructing new building projects.
That's great, but again, it's not going to make a dent on real estate prices in San Francisco. If the goal is affordable housing, this change won't significantly help.
That's great, but again, it's not going to make a dent on real estate prices in San Francisco. If the goal is affordable housing, this change won't significantly help.
Yes exactly. Is it likely to make a profound difference in the short term? No, but it chips away at the problem and enhances the effectiveness of whatever other efforts are being put toward it. So...
Yes exactly. Is it likely to make a profound difference in the short term? No, but it chips away at the problem and enhances the effectiveness of whatever other efforts are being put toward it.
So for example, if somehow suddenly 2500 new housing units appeared on the market, there will now no longer be a mysterious force magically keeping their prices synced up and automatically increasing to match anticipated demand. Landlords will need to once again make their own evaluations, creating natural asymmetries that force them compete with each other on price, applying much needed downward pressure.
Or 2500 fewer renters could appear on the market... but for some reason my "let COVID run rampant in the community" plan isn't gaining much traction. I think it's possible to agree with both you...
if somehow suddenly 2500 new housing units appeared on the market
Or 2500 fewer renters could appear on the market... but for some reason my "let COVID run rampant in the community" plan isn't gaining much traction.
I think it's possible to agree with both you and the other poster: they could approve/build more houses and that would also help but not having essentially a monopoly on rent is surely going to help. I think "build more houses" just feels more tangible.
This will help with the housing shortage. RealPage’s price fixing places rents at a level that results in higher vacancy rates, but higher overall profits. Banning AI pricing algorithms will...
This will help with the housing shortage. RealPage’s price fixing places rents at a level that results in higher vacancy rates, but higher overall profits. Banning AI pricing algorithms will decrease vacancy rates by probably ~5% or so. That will have a significant impact in the short term.
It's early days but my bet is that the situation is going to improve for buyers and renters across the SF Bay area. Give it a five to ten year lead time for projects to be planned and built I...
It's early days but my bet is that the situation is going to improve for buyers and renters across the SF Bay area. Give it a five to ten year lead time for projects to be planned and built
I don't have contacts in SF but I'm aware of a couple new tall tower apartment buildings that are already in process in Berkeley
I don’t exactly understand how allowing housing to be built lowers the neighbors’ property values. If a lot with a SFH on it sells for $1.2m, but zoning changes make it possible to build a 6 unit...
I don’t exactly understand how allowing housing to be built lowers the neighbors’ property values. If a lot with a SFH on it sells for $1.2m, but zoning changes make it possible to build a 6 unit building in the same spot, the land price should appreciate. If the theoretical building has 6 units valued at $700,000 each, the possibility of building that should increase the value of the land.
Definitely in some cases. There are a lot of historic areas of SF with specific aesthetics. But I don’t think placating concerns is necessary. There are enough renters to just tell owners to fuck...
Definitely in some cases. There are a lot of historic areas of SF with specific aesthetics. But I don’t think placating concerns is necessary. There are enough renters to just tell owners to fuck themselves.
I definitely see the importance of protecting historical areas, but cities still must meet the needs of the current population. San Diego was developed at the same time as San Francisco, but the...
I definitely see the importance of protecting historical areas, but cities still must meet the needs of the current population. San Diego was developed at the same time as San Francisco, but the area around Balboa Park in San Diego has been largely rebuilt. It definitely has less character than the preserved portions of San Francisco, but does provide more housing.
They did something in Houston where they removing zoning laws from the city, but allowed neighborhoods to opt out if they wanted. Maybe a similar system could work for San Francisco. Rich people having cute houses around parks still benefit others in the city who can appreciate the aesthetics, but the whole city can’t opt out.
Something to keep in mind when judging whether it's worth preserving existing buildings or not are their quality. A large percentage of the protected housing in San Francisco are victorians that...
Something to keep in mind when judging whether it's worth preserving existing buildings or not are their quality. A large percentage of the protected housing in San Francisco are victorians that were hastily and cheaply built after the earthquake and are objectively not good housing; they're badly insulated, have single pane windows, are often poorly or inadequately wired by modern standards, and would all fail catastrophically in an earthquake. Most of their value is tied up in being cute.
There's also things that can be done to help maintain character in new developments. I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate sticking to a particular style for new construction, and there are types of multi-unit housing that significantly increase density without going as far as towering skyscrapers.
Hmm, you could have neighborhoods fight to out bid each other for limited slots where zoning doesn’t change. Then use that money to help build new housing and improve the city.
Hmm, you could have neighborhoods fight to out bid each other for limited slots where zoning doesn’t change. Then use that money to help build new housing and improve the city.
That's good news for me. I live in the city and my building uses RealPage.
I'm moving to the DC area and working with an apartment complex on a lease. I was quite disappointed when I found out they use RealPage. But it also explains the weirdness with with their pricing. It basically changes everyday, until an applicant puts down a deposit on a unit. Could go up a little or down a little each day. I'd never seen that before. Made making lists and comparison of units and prices a pain.
They basically set rent like a commodity. The complex we used to live in started using it several years ago. We wanted to move my MiL at one point, and found they were using something similar to RealPage. They rates changed daily til you locked them in for new leases, signing mid week was better than busy weekends. Then our lease renewal went from 12 monrhs for $$, to: choose between an 8 mo to 13 mo lease with the rates all over the map.
It's definitely predatory. We were fortunate to be locked in somewhat but were fearful of a huge rent increase at any time. That was part of our reasoning for purchasing our small retirement place. Turns out they rented our unit for $310 per mo more than we were paying on our last lease. That would have not been affordable for us.
FYI DC has sued RealPage pretty recently: https://oag.dc.gov/release/attorney-general-schwalb-sues-realpage-residential. Maybe you can bring that up when negotiating the rent and try to get some leverage. DC also has a pretty decent rent control program, so I'd look for a controlled building if possible. It doesn't really help you when moving in for the first time but it stops them from jacking up the rent too much once you're already in.
Welcome to the DMV! Hope you live near a Metro station, as that makes it easy to get to many of the popular attractions like the museums and zoo.
Thanks! And yeah, I'm living right next to Metro stop on the VA side. I have a car, but having driven in DC traffic as a tourist before...No thanks. I figure living next to a stop will also help me just get my bearings. Driving in old east coast cities, as a Midwesterner, has always been "an adventure," to say the least. The whole no grid thing is no bueno. But yeah, I'm excited for a change of scenery!
Oftentimes the Metro is more convenient than hunting for parking, even when the traffic isn't terrible. It's been 20 years since I lived on the VA side, but I remember King ST station being a fun stop on the yellow line with restaurants and a farmers market along the walk to the water front. I was completely carless back then. I moved back to the West Coast, and recently moved back to the Maryland side, albeit with a car now.
If you do any work for the federal government, look into public transportation benefits that can cover your commute costs.
How did you discover they use it? Is it in the lease? Do they openly advertise their use?
The payment portal is on realpage.com
Oh wow I didn’t realize it was integrated into rent payments. Wild.
I applaud this. But I wonder how this will be enforced? There’s no way the city can tell if a price has been set automatically or manually unless they’re spying on a property manager or landlord’s computers.
If there is a lawsuit, it will come out in the discovery process
Hmm, I guess. I think that places too much locus of responsibility on the tenant: suing is expensive and an extreme option, and the vast, vast majority of people aren't going to sue their landlords — so most landlords are going to get away with using the software.
At least in San Francisco, there are active tenant advocacy nonprofits.
It's likely that, since the technology itself is outlawed, the state government may directly prevent the companies offering this technology from offering it within the state. Since these services set prices for landlords based on other rents within a given area, doing this would effectively curtail usage without requiring anyone to directly go after every individual landlord.
Banning software isn't going to solve the San Fransisco property crises. Removing regulations that prevent building more buildings and adding supply is the primary issue, as San Francisco has approved construction on 16 houses in the first half of the year.
The point of banning the software is that Real Page is designed to be a mechanism for landlords to violate Antitrust law
There are new laws in California that are meant to prevent cities from obstructing new building projects.
That's great, but again, it's not going to make a dent on real estate prices in San Francisco. If the goal is affordable housing, this change won't significantly help.
Consider that complicated real world situations are often the result of a hundred little problems. This fixes one.
Yes exactly. Is it likely to make a profound difference in the short term? No, but it chips away at the problem and enhances the effectiveness of whatever other efforts are being put toward it.
So for example, if somehow suddenly 2500 new housing units appeared on the market, there will now no longer be a mysterious force magically keeping their prices synced up and automatically increasing to match anticipated demand. Landlords will need to once again make their own evaluations, creating natural asymmetries that force them compete with each other on price, applying much needed downward pressure.
Or 2500 fewer renters could appear on the market... but for some reason my "let COVID run rampant in the community" plan isn't gaining much traction.
I think it's possible to agree with both you and the other poster: they could approve/build more houses and that would also help but not having essentially a monopoly on rent is surely going to help. I think "build more houses" just feels more tangible.
This will help with the housing shortage. RealPage’s price fixing places rents at a level that results in higher vacancy rates, but higher overall profits. Banning AI pricing algorithms will decrease vacancy rates by probably ~5% or so. That will have a significant impact in the short term.
It's early days but my bet is that the situation is going to improve for buyers and renters across the SF Bay area. Give it a five to ten year lead time for projects to be planned and built
I don't have contacts in SF but I'm aware of a couple new tall tower apartment buildings that are already in process in Berkeley
Exactly this. San Francisco will do literally anything other than actually build housing.
I would love to have a “fuck your property value” party. I think spite is an underutilized resource in fighting NIMBYs
I don’t exactly understand how allowing housing to be built lowers the neighbors’ property values. If a lot with a SFH on it sells for $1.2m, but zoning changes make it possible to build a 6 unit building in the same spot, the land price should appreciate. If the theoretical building has 6 units valued at $700,000 each, the possibility of building that should increase the value of the land.
Definitely in some cases. There are a lot of historic areas of SF with specific aesthetics. But I don’t think placating concerns is necessary. There are enough renters to just tell owners to fuck themselves.
I definitely see the importance of protecting historical areas, but cities still must meet the needs of the current population. San Diego was developed at the same time as San Francisco, but the area around Balboa Park in San Diego has been largely rebuilt. It definitely has less character than the preserved portions of San Francisco, but does provide more housing.
They did something in Houston where they removing zoning laws from the city, but allowed neighborhoods to opt out if they wanted. Maybe a similar system could work for San Francisco. Rich people having cute houses around parks still benefit others in the city who can appreciate the aesthetics, but the whole city can’t opt out.
Something to keep in mind when judging whether it's worth preserving existing buildings or not are their quality. A large percentage of the protected housing in San Francisco are victorians that were hastily and cheaply built after the earthquake and are objectively not good housing; they're badly insulated, have single pane windows, are often poorly or inadequately wired by modern standards, and would all fail catastrophically in an earthquake. Most of their value is tied up in being cute.
There's also things that can be done to help maintain character in new developments. I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate sticking to a particular style for new construction, and there are types of multi-unit housing that significantly increase density without going as far as towering skyscrapers.
EDIT: Added bit about bad earthquake-proofing.
We could just keep the cute facades and put better housing behind them. Just go full Buffalo Bill on San Francisco.
Hmm, you could have neighborhoods fight to out bid each other for limited slots where zoning doesn’t change. Then use that money to help build new housing and improve the city.