There's only so much land the good lord made, if you got a piece, hold on to it..

---

There's only so much land the good lord made, if you got a piece, hold on to it..

There's more than enough land, the issue is getting land in a desirable location. All you have to do is go southwest out of Duval to find plenty of room, just few people want to be that far off the coast.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'll play ball.  Give one answer for if they are American citizens, and another for if they're not.

Sure, American citizens would tell the guy to buzz off. Illegal aliens would run for the hills.

Ok, and in the second case, the workers ran away.  Is your department, in the short term, now more productive or less productive?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There's only so much land the good lord made, if you got a piece, hold on to it..

There's more than enough land, the issue is getting land in a desirable location. All you have to do is go southwest out of Duval to find plenty of room, just few people want to be that far off the coast.

People also want a quicker commute to work. I moved to the westside of Jacksonville years ago when I worked in Aerospace simply because I could get on 295 to 95 in less than 15 minutes.

Then I bought a house in Green Cove and had a 1.5 hour commute.. Yeah, no thanks.

---

If you cared about saving time you wouldn't reply at all.

Suppose someone from the government came into your office and said, "I'm sending all the men away.  From now on only women can do this job." Your department immediately starts recruiting women to replace the men who were just sent away.  There are women willing to do the work but you have to lure them away from their current positions.  So in the short term, did your department just get more productive, or less productive?

---

So why did rent go up so much?

Rents are up for a number of reasons. First landlords can onlt raise rents based on their leases so they have to estimate costs in the future. No one is going to lose money.

Just a few influencing factors for you there are more.
First, housing in Jax has historically appreciated on a yearly basis about 3% in town and 5% at the beaches.
The price of gas went up causing a chain event that increased pressure on landlords. ex. Everything from materials for upkeep to the cost to maintain common areas in multi family buildings.
Insurance cost rose as these costs piled on making it more expensive to cover claims 
Interest rates are up, making financing costs higher.
Regulations have been added requiring more capital and alterations to bring up to code.
Increased municipal costs and the rising value of the property have raised property taxes, it also had an effect on insurance costs.

The energy cost portion will abate as the administration moved to lower energy costs pre election. (Diesel is now around $3 now vs $5 in June 21) 
The interest rate portion will lag and take some time as the interest rates come down. The Fed is meeting this week and is projected to cut rates .25% the .50%.
The regulation portion may or may not change.

I bought a house in 1980 for 39k.  Today I can get about 175k, that is a 3.5% annual increase in value over 44 years. The percentages may remain constant but the real dollars become larger as the base increases.

Hope this helps

Incorrect right at the beginning.  Landlords lose money all the time. It's not always a guaranteed win.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Rents are up for a number of reasons. First landlords can onlt raise rents based on their leases so they have to estimate costs in the future. No one is going to lose money.

Just a few influencing factors for you there are more.
First, housing in Jax has historically appreciated on a yearly basis about 3% in town and 5% at the beaches.
The price of gas went up causing a chain event that increased pressure on landlords. ex. Everything from materials for upkeep to the cost to maintain common areas in multi family buildings.
Insurance cost rose as these costs piled on making it more expensive to cover claims 
Interest rates are up, making financing costs higher.
Regulations have been added requiring more capital and alterations to bring up to code.
Increased municipal costs and the rising value of the property have raised property taxes, it also had an effect on insurance costs.

The energy cost portion will abate as the administration moved to lower energy costs pre election. (Diesel is now around $3 now vs $5 in June 21) 
The interest rate portion will lag and take some time as the interest rates come down. The Fed is meeting this week and is projected to cut rates .25% the .50%.
The regulation portion may or may not change.

I bought a house in 1980 for 39k.  Today I can get about 175k, that is a 3.5% annual increase in value over 44 years. The percentages may remain constant but the real dollars become larger as the base increases.

Hope this helps

You also forgot one of the largest recent drivers which is scarcity due to population growth caused by an influx of yankees and illegals coming here for our great economy and tax structure.

My bad I sincerely apologize....

I also left out the first house was financed at the VA rate of 9.5%, when the market was about 12%. I had thought I had one the lottery !!
and
My first one bedroom furnished  apartment cost me $300 a month (which was cheap at the time), which at 3.5% increase would be $1600 dollars today.

---

Rents are up for a number of reasons. First landlords can onlt raise rents based on their leases so they have to estimate costs in the future. No one is going to lose money.

Just a few influencing factors for you there are more.
First, housing in Jax has historically appreciated on a yearly basis about 3% in town and 5% at the beaches.
The price of gas went up causing a chain event that increased pressure on landlords. ex. Everything from materials for upkeep to the cost to maintain common areas in multi family buildings.
Insurance cost rose as these costs piled on making it more expensive to cover claims 
Interest rates are up, making financing costs higher.
Regulations have been added requiring more capital and alterations to bring up to code.
Increased municipal costs and the rising value of the property have raised property taxes, it also had an effect on insurance costs.

The energy cost portion will abate as the administration moved to lower energy costs pre election. (Diesel is now around $3 now vs $5 in June 21) 
The interest rate portion will lag and take some time as the interest rates come down. The Fed is meeting this week and is projected to cut rates .25% the .50%.
The regulation portion may or may not change.

I bought a house in 1980 for 39k.  Today I can get about 175k, that is a 3.5% annual increase in value over 44 years. The percentages may remain constant but the real dollars become larger as the base increases.

Hope this helps

Incorrect right at the beginning.  Landlords lose money all the time. It's not always a guaranteed win.

You have a link?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

You also forgot one of the largest recent drivers which is scarcity due to population growth caused by an influx of yankees and illegals coming here for our great economy and tax structure.

My bad I sincerely apologize....

I also left out the first house was financed at the VA rate of 9.5%, when the market was about 12%. I had thought I had one the lottery !!
and
My first one bedroom furnished  apartment cost me $300 a month (which was cheap at the time), which at 3.5% increase would be $1600 dollars today.

---

Incorrect right at the beginning.  Landlords lose money all the time. It's not always a guaranteed win.

You have a link?

No apology needed, just adding to your argument.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You also forgot one of the largest recent drivers which is scarcity due to population growth caused by an influx of yankees and illegals coming here for our great economy and tax structure.

My bad I sincerely apologize....

I also left out the first house was financed at the VA rate of 9.5%, when the market was about 12%. I had thought I had one the lottery !!
and
My first one bedroom furnished  apartment cost me $300 a month (which was cheap at the time), which at 3.5% increase would be $1600 dollars today.

---

Incorrect right at the beginning.  Landlords lose money all the time. It's not always a guaranteed win.

You have a link?

I have friends who are landlords.
Things can happen. Insurance renewals come in way higher than projected. Repair costs can come in way higher than projected.  Especially unscheduled emergency repairs.  Vacancy rates can go up. If they all happen at the same time that's basically a guaranteed short term loss.

Basic question: Suppose you had a tenant move out and also had costs go up at the same time.  Suppose the going rate for new tenants is not enough for you to make a profit.  You will have a slight loss.  Do you (a) let the unit stay vacant and take a big loss every month it stays vacant, or (b) take what you can get and hope the market conditions are better at renewal time.

Many landlords would choose (a).  But they haven't had to lately because the "going rates" have been very high.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My bad I sincerely apologize....

I also left out the first house was financed at the VA rate of 9.5%, when the market was about 12%. I had thought I had one the lottery !!
and
My first one bedroom furnished  apartment cost me $300 a month (which was cheap at the time), which at 3.5% increase would be $1600 dollars today.

---

You have a link?

I have friends who are landlords.
Things can happen. Insurance renewals come in way higher than projected. Repair costs can come in way higher than projected.  Especially unscheduled emergency repairs.  Vacancy rates can go up. If they all happen at the same time that's basically a guaranteed short term loss.

Basic question: Suppose you had a tenant move out and also had costs go up at the same time.  Suppose the going rate for new tenants is not enough for you to make a profit.  You will have a slight loss.  Do you (a) let the unit stay vacant and take a big loss every month it stays vacant, or (b) take what you can get and hope the market conditions are better at renewal time.

Many landlords would choose (a).  But they haven't had to lately because the "going rates" have been very high.

Yea, that is part of running a business. Risk and reward.  Many businesses lose money and end up on the trash pile. There are however many that do not.  You asked why rents were as high as they were and I gave you a solid answer. If you want to now discuss why some landlords don't do well and some do that is a totally different subject. I can't believe anyone sets out to lose money. You just have to get by that first sentence as it is not the topic. I can assume you have no link?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

I have friends who are landlords.
Things can happen. Insurance renewals come in way higher than projected. Repair costs can come in way higher than projected.  Especially unscheduled emergency repairs.  Vacancy rates can go up. If they all happen at the same time that's basically a guaranteed short term loss.

Basic question: Suppose you had a tenant move out and also had costs go up at the same time.  Suppose the going rate for new tenants is not enough for you to make a profit.  You will have a slight loss.  Do you (a) let the unit stay vacant and take a big loss every month it stays vacant, or (b) take what you can get and hope the market conditions are better at renewal time.

Many landlords would choose (a).  But they haven't had to lately because the "going rates" have been very high.

Yea, that is part of running a business. Risk and reward.  Many businesses lose money and end up on the trash pile. There are however many that do not.  You asked why rents were as high as they were and I gave you a solid answer. If you want to now discuss why some landlords don't do well and some do that is a totally different subject. I can't believe anyone sets out to lose money. You just have to get by that first sentence as it is not the topic. I can assume you have no link?

Costs did increase for landlords.  No doubt.  But as I've shown, the landlords can't always pass those increased costs on to their tenants.  They only can when there is a scarcity of housing.  When vacancy rates are low.  

Rents don't go up when there is a surplus of occupiable units.  Even if other costs go up, rent usually stays low when there is a surplus of units.  We have a shortage.  It would be nice if we had a surplus.  Right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yea, that is part of running a business. Risk and reward.  Many businesses lose money and end up on the trash pile. There are however many that do not.  You asked why rents were as high as they were and I gave you a solid answer. If you want to now discuss why some landlords don't do well and some do that is a totally different subject. I can't believe anyone sets out to lose money. You just have to get by that first sentence as it is not the topic. I can assume you have no link?

Costs did increase for landlords.  No doubt.  But as I've shown, the landlords can't always pass those increased costs on to their tenants.  They only can when there is a scarcity of housing.  When vacancy rates are low.  

Rents don't go up when there is a surplus of occupiable units.  Even if other costs go up, rent usually stays low when there is a surplus of units.  We have a shortage.  It would be nice if we had a surplus.  Right?

So you have no link?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Costs did increase for landlords.  No doubt.  But as I've shown, the landlords can't always pass those increased costs on to their tenants.  They only can when there is a scarcity of housing.  When vacancy rates are low.  

Rents don't go up when there is a surplus of occupiable units.  Even if other costs go up, rent usually stays low when there is a surplus of units.  We have a shortage.  It would be nice if we had a surplus.  Right?

So you have no link?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you have no link?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

I went to the site and was met by the following.


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2019)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2019)

The article has Issues?
Possible original reseasch?
Needs verification?

I call BS.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

I went to the site and was met by the following.


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2019)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2019)

The article has Issues?
Possible original reseasch?
Needs verification?

I call BS.

It's a starting point.  See the talk page.  See if any of the people who refuted David Ricardo support your idea that landlords can set whatever price they want and won't lose money.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Scientific American has endorsed Harris.

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

---

Scientific American has endorsed Harris. 

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

I don't give a flying [BLEEP] what or who they endorse.. Anyone who endorses Kamala is the enemy of this country.

---

Scientific American has endorsed Harris. 

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

SA has a known leftward bias. I used to subscribe to them and cancelled because of it. And that was long before the world became so divided. I didn’t want my scientific news from a publication which couldn’t present it neutrally.

---

I went to the site and was met by the following.


This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2019)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2019)

The article has Issues?
Possible original reseasch?
Needs verification?

I call BS.

It's a starting point.  See the talk page.  See if any of the people who refuted David Ricardo support your idea that landlords can set whatever price they want and won't lose money.

Not at all what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth.  The article is not a link that supports any position.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

It's a starting point.  See the talk page.  See if any of the people who refuted David Ricardo support your idea that landlords can set whatever price they want and won't lose money.

Not at all what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth.  The article is not a link that supports any position.

The article is a rough introduction to classical macroeconomics. 
You did say that landlords don't lose money.
In which case you would need some schooling.
But it seems you meant to say landlords don't lose money on purpose, which is generally true.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not at all what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth.  The article is not a link that supports any position.

The article is a rough introduction to classical macroeconomics. 
You did say that landlords don't lose money.
In which case you would need some schooling.
But it seems you meant to say landlords don't lose money on purpose, which is generally true.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No issue, the free market has a way of sorting out people that should not be in business.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.