Recent comments in /f/boston

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6ia7jz wrote

The types of properties we've lived at the past 8-9 years have all been larger properties with management companies (and that's sort of what we're looking for). I do get what you're saying regarding broker fees for smaller "mom and pop" rentals. Those aren't common in most other parts of the country but the costs are rolled into the rent I'm sure.

1

_Karagoez_ t1_j6i8akz wrote

Reply to comment by muddymoose in South Station PSA by [deleted]

As someone who needed the assistance of transit police last week when there was a fight on the platform, can confirm they are utterly worthless. They ignored the first guy that tried to get their attention and shushed him and went behind the corner until I went around and told them. They meandered their way to the fight where somebody could've easily fallen onto the tracks.

15

cuddlebear t1_j6i6sve wrote

Based on your responses to folks who answered you, your high demands, unwillingness to be near families/community spaces, and your casual use of the words rape... any way we can convince you to stay in Saint Paul? Or at the very least move to a suburb decently far from where I live?

11

alexblablabla1123 t1_j6i6fla wrote

I can think of 2 ways to go:

  1. live physically closer but out of ways of commuters, south Medford, Watertown, parts of JP or Dorchester;

  2. get rid of 🚗 live right on T: Malden center, assembly, east Boston, some parts of Dorchester, Quincy

Rent is higher for 2) but you save money by getting rid of car. Really depended on where do you want to be close to. For instance if all your friends are in Cambridge, try to stay north of the Charles….

2

modernhomeowner t1_j6i64z9 wrote

If a landlord is a large company, they don't need a realtor, they have staff. Sounds like something similar to where you live when you mention a "building". If a landlord is the 90 year old man or the 60 year old woman who owns one or two two-families (the two people I rented from), they hire experts to do everything as needed rather than having a staff, such as an electrician, plumber or realtor. You can chose to rent from those people and pay the fee, or large companies with staff, depending on what you want. You can go to an overpriced grocery store with personal attention where you get a cashier or the big Walmarts who have eliminated cashiers except for the handicapped register. We have options, but getting rid of realtors would probably just incentivize that 90 year old man to sell his properties to a large corporation who have staff to deal with vacancies.

1

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6i4re2 wrote

Again, I understand the math. Brokers offer no value and tenant acquisition costs are a small fraction of a month’s rent in Boston. Adding a broker inherently makes the transaction more expensive for renters, directly or indirectly.

Rent seeking landlords and the scummy ecosystem around them are greedy parasites to a functioning city.

3

modernhomeowner t1_j6i3s8n wrote

You are right, they could not use a real estate agent and get away with not paying the fee. There will always be some tenant acquisition cost, either a broker, advertisement listings, a management company, a vacancy allowance, or some combination.

NY law recently shifted broker fees onto the landlord rather than the tenant. Rents in NYC increased at a faster pace (33%) in the last 2 years (when the law was passed) than Boston (25%), despite NY losing a higher population than Boston. That 8% difference on a $2500 a month apartment is $2400, basically that broker fee, and that person in NY now has to pay that $2400 every single year rather than just when they moved in. Getting rid of broker fees in NYC didn't save the tenant, it actually costs them more now.

−2

Winnie_07 t1_j6i3pdq wrote

If it moves the needle, think about dropping the ESPP contribution. You’re already investing a lot in your company from a risk diversification perspective (company does poorly, stock goes down, you may lose job and investment). Up to you, but I’d rather have the funds for preferred housing or put in my own diversified retirement plan or emergency savings. Biotech is a rocky road.

2

fishpen0 t1_j6i3bn1 wrote

This is called whataboutism. Problem A is somehow not bad or notable because of problem B. It is a logical fallacy that increases the mental energy to actually initiate problem solving by lessening all problems down and constantly redirecting focus.

Given the scale of our society it should be, and is, possible to care about and solve multiple problems without putting people down over which ones they talk about or care about.

3