Landlords

Latest story

125 Shares179 Views

U.S. Plans to Accuse RealPage of Enabling Collusion on Rents

by

The Justice Department is set to file an antitrust suit against the real estate company RealPage alleging illegal price-fixing facilitated by algorithms.The Justice Department plans to file an antitrust lawsuit as soon as Friday against the real estate software company RealPage, claiming its software enabled landlords to collude to raise rents, two people with knowledge of the lawsuit said.The suit, which will be joined by California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington and other states, was expected to accuse RealPage of facilitating a price-fixing conspiracy that boosted rents beyond market forces, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.The suit would escalate the government’s efforts to regulate what it sees as misuse of technology. Officials have sued Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple over what they said were monopolistic behaviors that harm consumers.RealPage’s YieldStar product, which gathers confidential real estate information, has been at the heart of the government’s concerns. Landlords, who pay for the software, share information about rents and occupancy rates that is otherwise confidential. Based on that data, an algorithm generates suggestions for what landlords should charge renters, and those figures are often higher than they would be in a competitive market, according to allegations in prior lawsuits against RealPage by state attorneys general.A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.Owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, RealPage has advertised its software to landlords as a tool that can help them outperform the market by 3 percent to 7 percent. It says its software is used in metro areas around the country.RealPage did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Thoma Bravo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Landlords Raise Rents Based on RealPage Software, Suits Say

    by

    Antitrust cases contend that use of RealPage’s algorithm, which lets property owners share private data, amounts to collusion.Imagine a system that lets big landlords in your city work together to raise rents, using detailed, otherwise-private information about what their competitors are charging.Such a system is already underway, according to a series of lawsuits filed by tenants and prosecutors across the country. The plaintiffs argue that real estate software from a company called RealPage is being used by apartment owners to increase rents.Through the Texas-based company’s YieldStar product, plaintiffs say, landlords share rental pricing data and occupancy rates — information the company funnels through algorithms to spit out a suggestion for what landlords should charge renters. Those figures are often higher than they would be in a competitive market.In a vast majority of cases, landlords adopt the suggested prices, passing the costs on to tenants, the plaintiffs assert. RealPage, owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, advertises its software to landlords as a tool that can help them outperform the market by 3 to 7 percent.RealPage has denied that it facilitates collusion through its software. In a statement on its website in June, the company blamed “a host of complex economic and political forces,” including an undersupply of rental housing units, for rent increases nationwide.A company spokeswoman, Jennifer Bowcock, said by email that the lawsuits were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how revenue management software works. The software often recommends rent reductions, she added.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    WeWork Bankruptcy Would Deal Another Blow to Ailing N.Y. Office Market

    by

    The fallout would be particularly hard for landlords already struggling with piling debt and companies scaling back their office footprint.For years, landlords around the world clamored to get WeWork into their office buildings, a love affair that made the co-working company the largest corporate tenant in New York and London.Now, WeWork is perhaps days away from a bankruptcy filing — and its demise could not come at a worse time for office landlords.With fewer employees going into the office since the pandemic, companies have slashed the amount of space they lease, causing one of the worst crunches in decades in commercial real estate.Many landlords have accepted lower rents from WeWork in recent years to keep it afloat, but its bankruptcy would be an enormous blow. The pain would be centered on landlords that have leased a large proportion of their space to the company, particularly in New York, and are struggling to make payments on the debt tied to their buildings. Some landlords might quickly accept lower rents from WeWork as part of a bankruptcy reorganization and keep doing business with any new entity that emerges, but others might have to fight in court to get anything.“If you look at a lot of the vacancy in New York City, you will find that a fair amount of that was space that was leased to WeWork — and there will be even more abandoned after a bankruptcy,” said Anthony E. Malkin, the chief executive of the company that owns the Empire State Building and an early skeptic of WeWork.WeWork, despite its efforts to cut costs, still had an empire of 777 locations in 39 countries at the end of June, compared with 764 locations in 38 countries nearly two years earlier. On Friday, its website listed 47 locations in New York, where at the end of March it leased 6.9 million square feet of office space, equivalent to more than 60 percent of all co-working space, according to Savills, a real estate services firm. In London, WeWork listed 38 locations.Speculation of a possible bankruptcy filing intensified in August when WeWork warned that it might not be in business much longer. Its shares have fallen 90 percent since then.Last month, WeWork said it would miss interest payments totaling $95 million. After a 30-day grace period, the company reached a deal with creditors for a seven-day forbearance, which expires Tuesday.A WeWork office space in London. The city has 38 WeWork locations.Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn New York, where a fifth of office space is unleased or being offered for the sublet, the highest amount in decades, the fallout from a WeWork bankruptcy would be felt most in older office buildings in Midtown and downtown Manhattan. Nearly two-thirds of WeWork’s leases in Manhattan were in these so-called Class B and Class C buildings, according to the real estate advisory firm Avison Young.“We believe the value of Class B and Class C buildings will probably be 55 percent less than they were prior to the pandemic,” said Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a real estate professor at Columbia Business School who has been tracking the decline in office building valuations. “These are the buildings that are struggling the most and will have a tough time with a WeWork bankruptcy.”Owners of these older buildings were thrilled a few years ago to lease entire floors — or even entire buildings — to WeWork, but they now find themselves under siege. In cases where WeWork has stopped paying rent on the leases, landlords have been unable to make debt payments on buildings that are being valued sharply lower than they were a few years ago.That’s the quandary facing Walter & Samuels, a real estate firm that has WeWork as a tenant in five of its office buildings in New York. At one, 315 West 36th Street, a small edifice built in 1926 in Manhattan’s garment district, WeWork leased about 90 percent of the space and stopped paying rent earlier this year, according to Morningstar Credit. Walter & Samuels stopped making payments on a $77 million loan on the building, Morningstar said.The loan’s special servicer said the appraised value of the building had fallen to $42 million, down from $127 million when the loan was made five years ago, and the servicer is moving to foreclose, according to Morningstar.Executives at Walter & Samuels did not respond to emails seeking comment.WeWork occupies nearly all of the office space at 980 Avenue of the Americas, a mixed-use development owned by the Vanbarton Group. Joey Chilelli, a managing director at the company, said the firm could consider a range of options for the space if WeWork vacated, including turning it into residences.“We have tried to do everything we could earlier this year when they went to every landlord and asked for rent reductions and concessions,” Mr. Chilelli said. “If they are able to reduce their footprint, it will hurt the office market again.”A WeWork bankruptcy would be felt most in older office buildings in Midtown and downtown Manhattan.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesMichael Emory, the founder of Allied, a real estate investment trust that operates office buildings in Canada’s largest cities, said his company walked away from a potential deal with WeWork in Toronto in 2015 because there were drawbacks for Allied. But he said he had watched other developers, particularly in New York, lease space to the company, believing that co-working providers would occupy a large percentage of office space for years.Also, Mr. Emory said, WeWork focused on landlords that were eager to fill up their office buildings and then sell them based on the new occupancy and rental income.A bankruptcy filing “will be very consequential for the New York market,” he said.WeWork declined to comment for this article.At its peak, when investors were feverishly bullish about the company and the vision of Adam Neumann, its eccentric co-founder, WeWork was valued at $47 billion. Its model was to rent office space, spruce it up and charge its customers — established companies, start-ups and individuals — to use the space for as long as they needed it.The flexibility of using a WeWork space — and its community vibe: “Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness,” the company declared — was supposed to attract businesses away from stodgy offices that tied tenants down with yearslong leases.But the economics of WeWork’s business were always upside down: What the company took in from customers was not enough to cover the cost of renting and operating its locations. It kept growing anyway, and from the end of 2017, it lost a staggering $15 billion. After WeWork withdrew an initial public offering in 2019, its largest outside investor — the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank — provided a lifeline with a multibillion-dollar takeover.Before that debacle, WeWork had ardent fans in the commercial real estate world who believed the company was pioneering an exciting new service.“We know these folks, we know them well,” Steven Roth, the chief executive of Vornado Realty Trust, one of the largest office landlords in New York, said in 2017. “We think what they’re doing is unbelievably impressive.”Mr. Roth declined to comment for this article. Vornado leased space to WeWork in a building in Manhattan and another in Washington, and they teamed up outside Washington to introduce WeLive residences, one of WeWork’s much-hyped but failed subsidiaries, including the for-profit private school WeGrow.Vornado no longer has WeWork as a tenant. In 2019, after questions about WeWork’s financial health mounted in the industry, Vornado’s chief financial officer said the company had limited its exposure to WeWork.The president of BXP, a part owner of an office development in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, said WeWork had stopped paying rent there.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesJLL, a real estate services firm, once predicted that co-working firms would be leasing 30 percent of all office space in the United States by the end of this decade. Such predictions did not seem outlandish just before the pandemic, when WeWork and other co-working providers accounted for 15 percent of both new and renewed leases signed in New York, according to JLL, up from 2 percent in 2010. Co-working providers accounted for less than 1 percent of all leases signed in New York last year, JLL said.And some landlords believed they would be somewhat insulated from problems at WeWork.“WeWork is out there taking on these start-ups en masse, realizing that some will stay, some will go,” Raymond A. Ritchey, an executive at BXP, formerly known as Boston Properties, said in 2014. “But they tend to be taking that risk as opposed to the landlord on a direct basis.”BXP is a part owner of a shiplike office development in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Dock 72, where WeWork has been a major tenant since it opened in 2019 but was struggling to fill its space. At the end of last year, BXP was leasing nearly 500,000 square feet of space to WeWork across its portfolio.Douglas T. Linde, the president of BXP, said Thursday on an investor call that WeWork had stopped paying rent at two of its locations, including Dock 72. “We don’t expect WeWork to exit all the assets,” he said, “nor do we expect them to remain in place in the current footprint.”Some landlords might be able to get other co-working companies to take over WeWork’s spaces, or operate their own version, avoiding a situation in which their buildings appear desolate. But they are unlikely to take in the revenue they were initially getting from WeWork, which did end up going public, in 2021, by merging with a special-purpose acquisition company.Mr. Malkin, the Empire State Building landlord, said he had always doubted WeWork’s business model. Also, he never wanted WeWork in his company’s buildings because, he said, it packed too many people into its spaces, causing overuse of elevators and toilets.“Why would you want to do business with these people?” Mr. Malkin said. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Tech Firms Once Powered New York’s Economy. Now They’re Scaling Back.

    by

    For much of the last two decades, including during the pandemic, technology companies were a bright spot in New York’s economy, adding thousands of high-paying jobs and expanding into millions of square feet of office space.Their growth buoyed tax revenue, set up New York as a credible rival to the San Francisco Bay Area — and provided jobs that helped the city absorb layoffs in other sectors during the pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis.Now, the technology industry is pulling back hard, clouding the city’s economic future.Facing many business challenges, large technology companies have laid off more than 386,000 workers nationwide since early 2022, according to layoffs.fyi, which tracks the tech industry. And they have pulled out of millions of square feet of office space because of those job cuts and the shift to working from home.That retrenchment has hurt lots of tech hubs, and San Francisco has been hit the hardest with an office vacancy rate of 25.6 percent, according to Newmark Research.New York is doing better than San Francisco — Manhattan has a vacancy rate of 13.5 percent — but it can no longer count on the technology industry for growth. More than one-third of the roughly 22 million square feet of office space available for sublet in Manhattan comes from technology, advertising and media companies, according to Newmark.Consider Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. It is now unloading a big chunk of the more than 2.2 million square feet of office space it gobbled up in Manhattan in recent years after laying off around 1,700 employees this year, or a quarter of its New York State work force. The company has opted not to renew leases covering 250,000 square feet in Hudson Yards and for 200,000 square feet on Park Avenue South.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, and Roku is offering a quarter of the 240,000 square feet it had taken in Times Square just last year. Twitter, Microsoft and other technology companies are also trying to sublease unwanted space.“The tech companies were such a big part of the real estate landscape during the last five years,” said Ruth Colp-Haber, the chief executive of Wharton Property Advisors, a real estate brokerage. “And now that they seem to be cutting back, the question is: Who is going to replace them?”Ms. Colp-Haber said it could take months for bigger spaces or entire floors of buildings to be sublet. The large amount of space available for sublet is also driving down the rents that landlords are able to get on new leases.“They are going to undercut every landlord out there in terms of pricing, and they have really nice spaces that are already all built out,” she said, referring to the tech companies.The tech sector has been a driver of New York’s economy since the late-90s dot-com boom helped to establish “Silicon Alley” south of Midtown. Then, after the financial crisis, the expansion of companies like Google supported the economy when banks, insurers and other financial firms were in retreat.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, right.George Etheredge for The New York TimesSmall and large tech companies added 43,430 jobs in New York in the five years through the end of 2021, a 33 percent gain, according to the state comptroller. And those jobs paid very well: The average tech salary in 2021 was $228,620, nearly double the average private-sector salary in the city, according to the comptroller.The growth in jobs fueled demand for commercial space, and tech, advertising and media companies accounted for nearly a quarter of the new office leases signed in Manhattan in recent years, according to Newmark.Microsoft and Spotify declined to comment about their decision to sublet space. Twitter and Roku did not respond to requests for comment. Meta said in a statement that it was “committed to distributed work” and was “continuously refining” its approach.A few big tech companies are still expanding in New York.Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, a large office near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year. Including the terminal, Google will own or lease around seven million square feet of office space in New York, up from roughly six million today, according to a company representative. (Google leases more than one million square feet of that space to other tenants.) The company has more than 12,000 employees in the New York area, up from over 10,000 in 2019.Amazon, which in 2019 canceled plans to build a large campus in Queens after local politicians objected to the incentives offered to the company, has nevertheless added 200,000 square feet of office space in New York, Jersey City and Newark since 2019. The company will have added roughly 550,000 square feet of office space later this summer, when it opens 424 Fifth Avenue, the former Lord & Taylor department store, which it bought in 2020 for $1.15 billion.“New York provides a fantastic, diverse talent pool, and we’re proud of the thousands of jobs we’ve created in the city and state over the past 10 years across both our corporate and operations functions,” Holly Sullivan, vice president of worldwide economic development at Amazon, said in a statement.And though many tech companies continue to let employees work from home for much of the week, they are also trying to woo workers back to the office, which could help reduce the need to sublet space.Salesforce, a software company that has offices in a tower next to Bryant Park, said it was not considering subletting its New York space.“Currently I’m facing the opposite problem in the tower in New York,” said Relina Bulchandani, head of real estate for Salesforce. “There has been a concerted effort to continue to grow the right roles in New York because we have a very high customer base in New York.”New York is and will remain a vibrant home for technology companies, industry representatives said.“I have not heard of a single tech company leaving, and that matters,” said Julie Samuels, the president of TECH:NYC, an industry association. “If anything, we are seeing less of a contraction in New York among tech leases than they are seeing in other large cities.”Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, right, a new campus near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesFred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures, said tech executives now felt less of a need to be in Silicon Valley, a shift that he said had benefited New York. “We have more company C.E.O.s and more company founders in New York today than we did before the pandemic,” Mr. Wilson said, referring to the companies his firm has invested in.David Falk, the president of the New York tristate region for Newmark, said, “We are right now working on several transactions with smaller, young tech firms that are looking to take sublet space.”Many firms are still pulling back, however.In 2017 and 2019, Spotify, which is based in Stockholm, signed leases totaling more than 564,000 square feet of space at 4 World Trade Center, becoming one of the largest tenants there. It soon had a space with all the accouterments you would expect at a tech firm — brightly colored flexible work areas, eye-popping views and Ping-Pong tables.But in January, Spotify said it was laying off 600 people, or about 6 percent of its global work force. The company, which allows employees to choose between working fully remotely or on a hybrid schedule, is also reducing its office space, putting five floors up for sublet.“On days when I’m by myself, I end up sitting in a meeting room all day for focus time,” said Dayna Tran, a Spotify employee who regularly works at the downtown office, adding that the employees who come in motivate themselves and create community by collaborating on an office playlist. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Stress Builds as Office Building Owners and Lenders Haggle Over Debt

    by

    A real estate investment fund recently defaulted on $750 million of mortgages for two Los Angeles skyscrapers. A private equity firm slashed the value of its investment in the Willis Tower in Chicago by nearly a third. And a big New York landlord is trying to extend the deadline for paying down a loan for a Park Avenue office tower.Office districts in nearly every U.S. city have been under great stress since the pandemic emptied workplaces and made working from home common. But in recent months, the crisis has entered a tense phase that could damage local economies and cause financial hits to real estate investors and scores of banks.Lenders are increasingly reluctant to make new loans to owners of office buildings, especially after the collapse of two banks last month.“They don’t want to make new office building loans because they don’t want more exposure,” said Scott Rechler, a New York landlord who is a big player in the city’s office market and sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.The timing of the pullback in lending couldn’t be worse. Landlords need to refinance about $137 billion of office mortgages this year and nearly half a trillion dollars in the following four years, according to Trepp, a commercial real estate data firm. The Federal Reserve’s campaign to fight inflation by raising interest rates has also substantially raised the cost of loans still on offer.Banks’ unwillingness to lend and building owners’ desperation for credit have created a standoff. Lenders want to extend loans and make new ones only if they can get better terms. Many landlords are pushing back, and some are threatening to default, effectively betting that banks and investors stand to lose more in a foreclosure. Blackstone slashed the value of the Willis Tower in Chicago by 29 percent. Lyndon French for The New York TimesThe Willis Tower, formerly the Sears Tower, is the third tallest in the country.Lyndon French for The New York TimesHow private negotiations between lenders and building owners are resolved could have major ramifications. Defaults could heap pressure on regional banks and help push the economy into recession. Local property tax revenue, already under pressure, could plummet, forcing governments to cut services or lay off workers.“What we are seeing is this dance between lenders and owners,” said Joshua Zegen of Madison Realty Capital in New York, a firm that specializes in financing for commercial real estate projects. “No one knows what the right value is. No one wants to take a building back,” he said, adding that building owners don’t want to put in new capital, either.He added that the office sector was feeling far more stress than other kinds of commercial real estate like hotels and apartment buildings.Some industry experts are optimistic that given enough time, building owners and their lenders will hammer out compromises, avoiding foreclosures or a big loss in property tax revenue because everybody wants to minimize losses.“I don’t see it as something that is going to result in systematic risk,” said Manus Clancy, a senior managing director at Trepp. “It’s not going to bring down banks, but you could see some banks that have problems. Nothing gets resolved quickly in this market.”Loans on commercial buildings are typically easier than home mortgages to extend or modify. Negotiations are handled by bank executives or specialized finance firms called servicers, which act on behalf of investors that own securities backed by one or more commercial mortgages.But striking a deal can still be hard.Mr. Rechler’s company, RXR, recently stopped making payments on a loan it used to finance the purchase of 61 Broadway in downtown Manhattan. His company got its original investment in the building back after selling nearly half its stake to another investor several years ago, he said. He added that the lender, Aareal Bank, a German institution, was considering selling the loan and the building.“In this illiquid market, can they sell that loan? Can they sell the building?” Mr. Rechler said. Aareal Bank declined to comment.Blackstone bought Willis Tower for about $1.3 billion in 2015.Lyndon French for The New York TimesAnd it committed to spending $500 million on renovating the 50-year-old building.Lyndon French for The New York TimesEric Gural is a co-chief executive of GFP Real Estate, a family-owned firm that has stakes in several Manhattan office buildings, mostly older ones. He has been embroiled in nearly seven months of negotiations with a bank to extend a $30 million loan on a building in Union Square, and just two months are left on the mortgage.“I’m trying to get a one-year extension on an existing loan so I can see what interest rates look like next year, which is likely to be better than they are now,” Mr. Gural said. “Hybrid work has created fear in the banks.”Though many workers have returned to offices at least a few days a week, 18.6 percent of U.S. office space is available for rent, according to Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate services firm, the most since it started measuring vacancies in 1995.Public pension funds, insurance companies and mutual fund firms that invest in bonds backed by commercial mortgages also have an interest in seeing problems resolved or put off. A wave of foreclosures would lower the value of their securities.Many of the mortgages that analysts are most worried about involve buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington — cities where there is a glut of vacant space or where workers are reluctant to return to offices.One such property is the 108-story Willis Tower in Chicago — the third-tallest building in the country, after One World Trade Center and Central Park Tower, both in Manhattan. The giant private equity firm Blackstone bought it for about $1.3 billion in 2015 and committed to spending $500 million on renovating the 50-year-old building, formerly the Sears Tower, including adding retail space and a rooftop terrace.But in December, United Airlines, the building’s largest tenant, paid an early termination fee and vacated three floors; the company still occupies 16 floors. That month, about 83 percent of the building was occupied, according to KBRA Analytics, a credit data and research firm. Blackstone disputes those numbers; Jeffrey Kauth, a company spokesman, said that “approximately 90 percent of the office space is leased.”Blackstone recently notified some of its real estate fund investors that it had written down the value of its equity investment in Willis Tower by $119 million, or 29 percent, said a person briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive financial information. In March, Blackstone got a fourth extension on the $1.33 billion mortgage, pushing the due date to next year, according to Trepp. Under the terms of the loan, the firm can seek another one-year extension next year.The loan on the Gas Company Tower in downtown Los Angeles is in default.Tag Christof for The New York TimesA loan default sets up 777 Tower for potential foreclosure or sale.Tag Christof for The New York TimesBlackstone said only around 2 percent of the firm’s real estate funds were invested in office buildings — down a lot from a decade ago.Even streets with some of the priciest real estate in the country are not immune.In Manhattan, the owner of 300 Park Avenue, an office building across the street from the Waldorf Astoria, is seeking a two-year extension on a $485 million loan coming due in August, according to KBRA Analytics. The property is owned by a joint venture including Tishman Speyer and several unnamed investors.The 25-story building, built in 1955, is the headquarters for Colgate-Palmolive. But the consumer products conglomerate is shrinking its presence there.“We requested that our loan be transferred to the special servicer well in advance of its maturity so that we can work together on a mutually beneficial extension,” said Bud Perrone, a spokesman for Tishman Speyer.Portions of a bond deal that includes the 300 Park Avenue loan were downgraded last fall by Fitch Ratings because some tenants had left the building, and a lower-rated slice of the bond now trades at about 85 cents on the dollar.Across the country, an investment fund connected to the real estate giant Brookfield Properties defaulted on $750 million of loans for the Gas Company Tower and a nearby building, 777 Tower, in downtown Los Angeles, setting up a possible foreclosure or a sale of the properties, according to the fund.Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Brookfield, said in an emailed statement that office buildings suffering financial challenges were “a very small percentage of our portfolio.”Even as building owners struggle with vacancies and high interest rates, some have found a way to put their properties on a more solid footing.The owners of the Seagram Building in Manhattan have been working to refinance a portion of a loan that comes due in May.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesNew tenants are needed to fill several floors that Wells Fargo occupied in the Seagram Building.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesRFR Holding, an investment group that bought the Seagram Building in 2000, is trying to lure tenants back to the office.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesThe owners of the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue in Manhattan have been working to refinance a $200 million portion of a loan that comes due in May while finding new tenants to fill several floors previously occupied by Wells Fargo.RFR Holding, an investment group led by Aby J. Rosen and Michael Fuchs, bought the 38-story building in 2000 for $379 million. To entice employees back to the office, RFR last year built a $25 million “playground” in an underground garage that’s equipped with a climbing wall and pickleball and basketball courts. Four new tenants signed leases in the past few months, according to Trepp.Even with all the vacant space, some landlords like Mr. Rechler’s RXR still want to build new towers. RXR is moving ahead with plans to build what could be one of the tallest buildings in the country at 175 Park Avenue.“It’s one of a kind in what is and will always be one of the best office markets in the world,” he said, referring to the tower. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Has Hit Tenants Hard. What About Their Landlords?

    by

    Publicly traded corporate landlords are reporting some of their highest margins ever, while smaller operators say rent increases are eaten up by costs.Of all the categories driving inflation in recent months, among the largest — and most persistent — is rent.In buildings with more than 50 units, tenants in one-bedroom apartments have been handed new leases costing about 17 percent more on average than they did in March 2020, according to CoStar Group, a Washington-based real estate data company. The Labor Department’s rent indicator — which includes ongoing leases, not just renewals — has steadily risen, to 6.7 percent last month over the previous August.So while tenants absorb rent increases that often exceed their income gains, are landlords minting money? It depends on the landlord.Publicly traded owners of sprawling real estate portfolios, like Invitation Homes, have enjoyed some of their best returns over the past few quarters. Things look very different, however, for Neal Verma, whose company manages 6,000 apartments in the Houston area.Earlier this year, Mr. Verma experimented with raising rents enough to cover the cost of spiking wages, property taxes, insurance and maintenance. Turnover doubled in the properties where he tried it, as people left for nearby buildings.“It’s crushing our margins,” Mr. Verma said. “Our profits from last year have evaporated, and we’re running at break-even at a number of properties. There’s some people who think landlords must be making money. No. We’ve only gone up 12 to 14 percent, and our expenses have gone up 30 percent.”Overall, the ferocious run-up in rents has been driven by tenants’ desire for more space and location flexibility created by remote work; rising interest rates that have locked would-be buyers out of the for-sale market; and cost increases on delayed maintenance. But the one factor landlords track most closely is their customers’ ability to absorb higher rents.Higher-earning tenants, who flock to newer buildings with more amenities, have been more willing to accept rent increases. Low-income renters, while seeing faster wage growth, have borne the brunt of higher prices for necessities like groceries and gasoline, and rents in older buildings are rising at a slower rate than in newer, nicer ones.“The reality is that rents can only rise as incomes rise,” said Jay Parsons, chief economist at the real estate data firm RealPage, noting that rent averages 23 percent of the monthly incomes across the apartments that RealPage tracks. “If people can’t afford it, you can’t lease it.”Geography also matters. Even among the largest landlords, those with a presence in Sun Belt cities such as Miami, Tampa, Nashville and Phoenix saw far faster rent growth than high-cost coastal markets like San Francisco, where rents fell substantially during the pandemic lockdowns as white-collar workers fled for remote locations.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 75 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Ends Biden’s Eviction Moratorium

    by

    The ruling followed political and legal maneuvering by the administration to retain protections for tenants. It puts hundreds of thousands at risk of being put out of their homes.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Biden administration’s latest moratorium on evictions, ending a political and legal dispute during a public health crisis in which the administration’s shifting positions had subjected it to criticism from adversaries and allies alike.The court issued an eight-page majority opinion, an unusual move in a ruling on an application for emergency relief, where terse orders are more common. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.The decision puts hundreds of thousands of tenants at risk of losing shelter, while the administration struggles to speed the flow of billions of dollars in federal funding to people who are behind in rent because of the coronavirus pandemic and its associated economic hardship. Only about $5.1 billion of the $46.5 billion in aid had been disbursed by the end of July, according to figures released on Wednesday, as bureaucratic delays at the state and local levels snarled payouts.The majority opinion, which was unsigned, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had exceeded its authority.“The C.D.C. has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the opinion said. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the C.D.C. the sweeping authority that it asserts.”Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the three dissenting justices, faulted the court for its haste during a public health crisis.“These questions call for considered decision-making, informed by full briefing and argument,” he wrote. “Their answers impact the health of millions. We should not set aside the C.D.C.’s eviction moratorium in this summary proceeding.”The majority said the issues were fully considered and straightforward. “It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the Covid-19 Delta variant,” the opinion said. “But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”“If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue,” the opinion said, “Congress must specifically authorize it.”In dissent, Justice Breyer wrote that “the public interest is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the C.D.C.’s judgment.”The Biden administration and other moratorium proponents predicted that the decision would set off a wave of dire consequences.“As a result of this ruling, families will face the painful impact of evictions, and communities across the country will face greater risk of exposure to Covid-19,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.The ruling also renewed pressure on congressional Democrats to try to extend the freeze over the opposition of Republicans.“Tonight, the Supreme Court failed to protect the 11 million households across our country from violent eviction in the middle of a deadly global pandemic,” said Representative Cori Bush, a Missouri Democrat who slept on the steps of the Capitol this month to protest the expiration of the previous moratorium. “We already know who is going to bear the brunt of this disastrous decision: Black and brown communities, and especially Black women.”But landlords, who have said the moratoriums saddled them with billions of dollars in debt, hailed the move.“The government must move past failed policies and begin to seriously address the nation’s debt tsunami, which is crippling both renters and housing providers alike,” said Bob Pinnegar, the president of the National Apartment Association, a trade association representing large landlords.It will most likely take a while for the backlog of eviction cases in many states to result in the displacement of renters. But tenant groups in the South, where fast-track evictions are common, are bracing for the worst.In recent days, Mr. Biden’s team has been mapping out strategies to deal with the likely loss of the moratorium, with a plan to focus its efforts on a handful of states — including South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Ohio — that have large backlogs of unpaid rent and few statewide protections for tenants.The administration had at first concluded that a Supreme Court ruling in June had effectively forbidden it from imposing a new moratorium after an earlier one expired at the end of July. While the administration had prevailed in that ruling by a 5-to-4 vote, one member of the majority, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, wrote that he believed the moratorium to be unlawful and that he had cast his vote to temporarily sustain it only to allow an orderly transition. He would not support a further extension without “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation),” he wrote.Congress did not act. But after political pressure from Democrats, a surge in the pandemic and new consideration of the legal issues, the administration on Aug. 3 issued the moratorium that was the subject of the new ruling.The administration’s legal maneuvering might have failed, but it bought some time for tenants threatened with eviction. In unusually candid remarks this month, President Biden said that was part of his calculus in deciding to proceed with the new moratorium, which was set to expire Oct. 3.Congress declared a moratorium on evictions at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, but it lapsed in July 2020. The C.D.C. then issued a series of its own moratoriums, saying that they were justified by the need to address the pandemic and authorized by a 1944 law. People unable to pay rent, the agency said, should not be forced to crowd in with relatives or seek refuge in homeless shelters, spreading the virus.The last moratorium — which was put in place by the C.D.C. in September and expired on July 31 after being extended several times by Congress and Mr. Biden — was effective at achieving its goal, reducing by about half the number of eviction cases that normally would have been filed since last fall, according to an analysis of filings by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University.The challengers in the current case — landlords, real estate companies and trade associations led by the Alabama Association of Realtors — argued that the moratorium was not authorized by the law the agency relied on, the Public Health Service Act of 1944.That law, the challengers wrote, was concerned with quarantines and inspections to stop the spread of disease and did not bestow on the agency “the unqualified power to take any measure imaginable to stop the spread of communicable disease — whether eviction moratoria, worship limits, nationwide lockdowns, school closures or vaccine mandates.”The C.D.C. responded that the moratorium was authorized by the 1944 law. Evictions would accelerate the spread of the coronavirus, the agency said, by forcing people “to move, often into close quarters in new shared housing settings with friends or family, or congregate settings such as homeless shelters.”The moratorium, the administration told the justices, was broadly similar to quarantine. “It would be strange to hold that the government may combat infection by prohibiting the tenant from leaving his home,” its brief said, “but not by prohibiting the landlord from throwing him out.”The case was complicated by congressional action in December, when lawmakers briefly extended the C.D.C.’s moratorium through the end of January in an appropriations measure. When Congress took no further action, the agency again imposed moratoriums under the 1944 law.In its Supreme Court brief, the government argued that it was significant that Congress had embraced the agency’s action, if only briefly.The central legal question in the case was whether the agency was entitled to act on its own. In June, with the earlier moratorium about to expire, the court voted 5 to 4 in favor of the administration, allowing that measure to stand.But that victory was distinctly provisional. Justice Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, wrote that he had cast his vote reluctantly and had taken account of the then-impending expiration of the earlier moratorium.“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Because the C.D.C. plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application” that had been filed by the challengers.The other members of the court did not give reasons for their votes in the June ruling. But four of them — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — voted to lift the earlier moratorium. Taken together with Justice Kavanaugh’s statement, that distinctly suggested that a majority of the justices would not look favorably on another extension unless it came from Congress.The Biden administration initially seemed to share that understanding, urging Congress to act and saying it did not have the unilateral power to impose a further moratorium through executive action. When Congress failed to enact legislation addressing the issue, the moratorium expired.Under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats and wary of the rise of the Delta variant, the administration reversed course a few days later.The new moratorium was not identical to the earlier one, which had applied nationwide. It was instead tailored to counties where Covid-19 was strongest, a category that currently covers some 90 percent of counties in the United States.Mr. Biden was frank in discussing his reasoning, saying the new measure faced long odds but would buy tenants some time.“The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster,” he said on Aug. 3. “But there are several key scholars who think that it may — and it’s worth the effort.”Many states and localities, including New York and California, have extended their own moratoriums, providing another layer of protection for some renters. In some places, judges, aware of the potential for large numbers of people to be put out on the street even as the pandemic intensifies again, have said they would slow-walk cases and make greater use of eviction diversion programs. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Most Rental Assistant Funds Not Yet Distributed, Figures Show

    by

    Just $1.7 billion in funds intended to prevent eviction were disbursed in July as the White House braces for a Supreme Court decision that could strike down its eviction moratorium.The $46.5 billion rental aid program created to pay rent accrued during the pandemic continues to disburse money at a slow pace, as the White House braces for a Supreme Court order that could strike down a new national moratorium on evictions.The Emergency Rental Assistance Program, funded in the two federal pandemic relief packages passed over the last year, sputtered along in July, with just $1.7 billion being distributed by state and local governments, according to the Treasury Department, which oversees the program.The money meted out was a modest increase from the prior month, bringing the total aid disbursed to about $5.1 billion, figures released early Wednesday showed, or roughly 11 percent of the cash allocated by Congress to avoid an eviction crisis that many housing experts now see as increasingly likely.That cash was slated to be spent over three years, but White House officials — who have spent months pressuring local officials and tweaking the program to make access easier — had hoped states would have spent much more by now.“About a million payments have now gone out to pay back rent for families — it is starting to help a meaningful number of families,” said Gene Sperling, who oversees the operation of federal pandemic relief programs for President Biden.“It’s just not close to enough in an emergency like this to protect all the families who need and deserve to be protected. So there is still way more to do and to do fast,” he added.Data released by the Census Bureau on Wednesday illustrated the magnitude of the eviction risk.An estimated 1.2 million households are very likely to face eviction for nonpayment of rent over the next two months, according to the bureau’s periodic Pulse survey, which extrapolated national totals from a pool of about 70,000 respondents who answered a survey this month.Of the roughly 2.8 million households that have applied for aid, only about 500,000 reported receiving assistance — another 1.5 million are waiting for approvals, while nearly 700,000 have been rejected, according to the estimates.And those are just the tenants who have tried to get access to the program: Over 60 percent of vulnerable renters have not even applied.To speed things up, Treasury announced another round of changes to the program, including a directive to local officials that they allow tenants to use self-reported financial information on aid applications as a first, rather than a last, resort, while granting permission for states to send out bulk payments to landlords and utility companies in anticipation of federal payouts to tenants.They are also expanding existing initiatives to prevent evictions at properties funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Agriculture Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs.Mr. Biden’s domestic policy staff has mapped out policy contingencies if the Supreme Court strikes down the moratorium, which is the administration’s principal safeguard for hundreds of thousands of low-income and working-class tenants hit hardest by the pandemic. White House lawyers expect a court decision this week.Mostly, the response will entail doubling down on existing efforts to speed up flow of the aid. But officials are likely to switch to a triage model, focusing on a handful of states and cities that have weak tenant protections, high backlogs of unpaid rent and low use of the federal rental assistance fund.The moratorium was initially put into effect by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September under President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Biden extended it several times this year, but allowed it to briefly expire earlier this month. He reinstated it, in a slightly modified form, on Aug. 3 under pressure from congressional Democrats.That final 60-day extension, enacted over the objection of White House lawyers, was intended to buy more time to distribute the emergency rental assistance.The program is administered by the federal government, but it is up to states to build out a system to deliver aid to struggling renters and landlords, and that has been the main source of its problems.Treasury Department and White House officials acknowledged on a conference call Tuesday evening that the program was not ramping up fast enough to entirely prevent a wave of evictions, even if the justices allow it to remain in place until its scheduled expiration on Oct. 2.[Read more on why it’s been so challenging getting aid to renters.]But they also cited progress. State and local agencies have begun to steadily increase payments to hundreds of thousands of households that were at risk of eviction, with most of those going to low-income tenants. They also believe the pace of payments has continued to accelerate in August.Administration officials continue to blame the program’s struggles on local officials, many of whom are reluctant to take advantage of the new fast-track application process, which allows tenants to self-certify on applications, freeing them from the need to provide detailed documentation.The new guidance emphasized that applicants can “self-attest” to declare their eligibility for rental aid without the need for additional documentation. The Treasury Department believes that this will expedite the process by reducing cumbersome paperwork requirements.The Treasury Department also took action to empower nonprofit organizations to more quickly provide relief to tenants who are facing eviction.In recent weeks, local officials have complained that moving too fast on aid applications could lead to errors, fraud and audits; the White House has countered by telling them that those risks are insignificant compared with a wave of evictions hitting tenants who did not get their aid quickly enough to keep a roof over their heads.“They can and should use simpler applications, speedier processes and a self-attestation option without needless delays,” Mr. Sperling said.Several states, including Texas, have been particularly effective in ramping up their aid distribution systems, officials said. But many others — especially New York, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio and South Carolina — have been sluggish, making tenants especially vulnerable to displacement once the moratorium is lifted, they said.But there are signs that things might be changing: New York released only a minuscule portion of its funding by Aug. 1, but has spent about $200 million in the last few weeks, according to a spokesman for the state agency that disburses the aid.Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, who was sworn in this week, has said speeding up the system is one of her top priorities.States that have not used much of their money by the end of September could see their funds reallocated to other states that have been able to distribute it more effectively.It will take local housing courts weeks to clear the backlog of eviction cases delayed by the moratorium. But many owners, especially small landlords, have rejected the federal aid, arguing that evicting nonpaying tenants is not only their right but the most effective way of ensuring their revenue is not interrupted in the future.Last week, Wally Adeyemo, deputy Treasury secretary, traveled to Hyattsville, Md., to talk to landlords, tenants and administrators of a rental assistance program that has had success by using self-reported applications and census data to determine eligibility.Administration officials, worried that a new moratorium could be struck down at any time, are also turning to state courts — which adjudicate tenant-landlord disputes — to help deliver aid, by pressuring landlords to accept federal payments instead of proceeding with evictions, and educating tenants, who often have no legal representation in court, on their right to apply for assistance. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Pelosi and Yellen to Discuss Rental Assistance as Eviction Crisis Looms

    by

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Tuesday imposed a new, 60-day federal moratorium on evictions in areas of the country ravaged by the Delta variant, a move aimed at protecting hundreds of thousands of renters at risk of being kicked out of their homes during a pandemic.The action was also intended to quell a rebellion among angry Democrats who blamed the White House for allowing a previous eviction ban to expire on Saturday — after the Democratic-controlled House was unable to muster enough votes to extend that moratorium.President Biden told reporters that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would seek to implement a new federal moratorium on evictions in communities across the country hardest hit by the virus.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesPresident Biden has been under intense pressure from activists and allies for the last week to protect people at risk of being driven from their homes for failing to pay their rent during the economic crisis brought on by the pandemic. The previous nationwide moratorium on evictions, which went into effect in September, expired on Saturday after the Supreme Court warned that an extension would require congressional action.The end of the rental protections has prompted a flurry of recriminations in Washington and a furious effort by the White House to find a solution that prevents working-class and impoverished Americans from being evicted from their homes on Mr. Biden’s watch as billions in aid allocated by Congress goes untapped.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Tuesday announced the new order barring people from being driven out of their homes in many parts of the country, saying that “the evictions of tenants for failure to make rent or housing payments could be detrimental to public health control measures” aimed at slowing Covid-19.The order will expire on Oct. 3, the C.D.C. said, and applies to areas of the country “experiencing substantial and high levels of community transmission” of the virus. Mr. Biden, in remarks ahead of the official order, said the moratorium was expected to reach 90 percent of Americans who are renters.“This moratorium is the right thing to do to keep people in their homes and out of congregate settings where Covid-19 spreads,” Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the director of the C.D.C., said in a statement. “Such mass evictions and the attendant public health consequences would be very difficult to reverse.”The decision to impose a new and targeted moratorium, rather than extending the previous national ban, is aimed at sidestepping a Supreme Court ruling from late June that seemed to limit the administration’s ability to enact such policies. While the court upheld the C.D.C.’s moratorium, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a brief concurring opinion explaining that he had cast his vote reluctantly and believed the C.D.C. had “exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.”Mr. Biden conceded on Tuesday that the new approach might be struck down by the courts as executive overreach. But he suggested the move could help buy the administration time as it tried to get states to disburse billions of dollars of aid to help renters meet their obligations to landlords.Congress previously allocated $46.5 billion in rental assistance in two coronavirus relief packages, but only about $3 billion had been delivered to eligible households through June, according to Treasury Department data.“Whether that option will pass constitutional measure with this administration, I can’t tell you. I don’t know,” Mr. Biden said of a new moratorium. “There are a few scholars who say it will and others who say it’s not likely to. But at a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, we’ll probably give some additional time while we’re getting that $45 billion out to people who are in fact behind in rent and don’t have the money.”For days, some of Mr. Biden’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, including some of the most progressive Democrats in Congress, have been publicly and privately assailing his lack of action to help renters, accusing the president and his aides of failing to find a replacement for the eviction moratorium until it was too late.Just days before Saturday’s expiration of the ban, Mr. Biden called on Congress to pass legislation to extend it. But with the House about to leave town for a seven-week vacation and Republicans solidly opposed to an extension, progressive Democrats described the White House call as a cynical attempt to shift blame to lawmakers. The administration, for its part, feared that any unilateral move would open the White House to legal challenges that could ultimately erode Mr. Biden’s presidential powers.The expiration presented the president with a thorny choice: Side with the C.D.C. and his own lawyers, who saw an extension as a dangerous step that could limit executive authority during health crises, or heed the demands of his party’s progressive wing to take immediate action to halt what they saw as a preventable housing crisis.Under intense pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, Mr. Biden’s team opted for an approach that would give them a chance to satisfy both camps, creating a new moratorium, based on a recent rise in infections from the Delta variant, that cited the risks associated with the movement of displaced tenants in areas where the virus is raging.But ultimately it came down to a simpler calculation: Mr. Biden could not ignore the call, led by Black Democrats, to reverse course.“Every single day that we wait, thousands of people are receiving eviction notices, and some of them are being put out on the street,” said Representative Cori Bush, Democrat of Missouri, who has been sleeping on the steps of the Capitol since the moratorium expired in a bid to pressure her party’s leadership. “People started sending me pictures of dockets, court dockets, that were all evictions. We cannot continue to sit back. We need this done today.”Ms. Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, were briefed on Tuesday on the C.D.C.’s plan by Dr. Walensky, the agency’s director, and Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, according to a person familiar with the call. Ms. Pelosi hailed the idea of a new eviction moratorium as a victory for many Americans who were struggling because of the pandemic.“Today is a day of extraordinary relief,” she said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Biden, the imminent fear of eviction and being put out on the street has been lifted for countless families across America. Help is here!”Yet for two days it was unclear how — or whether — any help would arrive as landlords prepared to turn to housing courts to evict tenants who were behind on their rent.At a White House meeting with Mr. Biden on Friday, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer bluntly informed Mr. Biden they did not have the votes to pass an extension — and pressed him to take whatever action he could using his executive power, according to two Democratic congressional aides briefed on the meeting.On Tuesday, House Democrats summoned Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen to explain what the agency was doing to help struggling renters. In a private call between Democrats and Ms. Yellen, the Treasury secretary insisted that her team was using all available tools to get rental assistance money to states and to help governments distribute those funds to landlords and renters.“I thoroughly agree we need to bring every resource to bear,” Ms. Yellen said, according to a person who was on the call.The White House had been scrambling to figure out exactly what its legal options were for continuing the moratorium. On Monday, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Biden had asked the C.D.C. on Sunday to consider extending the moratorium for 30 days, even just to high-risk states, but that the C.D.C. had “been unable to find legal authority for a new, targeted eviction moratorium.”A day later, however, the administration appeared ready to barrel through legal challenges and embrace a solution that did just that.The extension is likely to intensify a legal fight with landlord groups that have argued that the eviction ban has saddled them with debt.The National Apartment Association, which filed a lawsuit last week seeking to recoup lost rent, said the moratorium was jeopardizing the viability of the housing market. The group estimates that the apartment industry is shouldering $26.6 billion in debt as a result of the eviction ban.“The government has intruded into private property and constitutional freedoms, and we are proudly fighting to make owners whole and ensure residents’ debt is wiped from their record,” said Robert Pinnegar, the chief executive of the association.Legal experts said it was likely that the administration would face a new wave of lawsuits if the justification and structure of a new moratorium was similar to the one that had been in place.“The only logic by which this could be justified is a logic that would enable them to be able to suppress virtually any activity of any kind that they can claim might spread contagious disease,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. More