too bad, perhaps you might have to actually do some work. 15% of first year's rent because you opened the door and said do you like this place? is not actually a job, its extortion
12
Some nations even prohibit real estate fees in the purchase of a house. Recall in the housing boom when supply was too low for demand & housing prices shot up. It took only a day or two to sell a house. The amount of "work" put in by Realtors was negligible to the amount of money they skimmed off.
Face it , Realtors are the Ambulance Chasers of the lawyer world. The Internet of Everything was/is supposed to get rid of Middlemen who contribute Little or No Value Added to the wealth of the nation. Time`s up soon for Realtors among others.
3
As a long time newyorker I assumed this racket would go on forever because it was so ingrained in the process of renting an apartment since at least the early 90s. My personal experience is the the "brokers" did very very little other than have a key to open the door of the apartment. Then they wanted you to fill out of a form about your financials. They faxed that to the landlord and that was all they ever did. I always assumed the broker handed some of that fee back to the landlords because it was obvious they were working together.
31
“The agents are out there, pounding the pavement, going up and down stairs, looking at apartments that may not have been treated for bed bugs, doing some really hard work.”
Lolol this part really made me chuckle. Are you kidding?? Get a real job. People get into real estate because they think they can make EASY money, that’s it. I’ve never worked with a broker that did anything for me except hand me a key and take my money. Real tough work.
44
Finally a win for the average person.
Brokers have been greedy and manipulative for years.
The playing field is now level for people trying to put and keep a roof over their head (except the outrageous cost of rent).
28
This sounds unconstitutionally and illegal to me. Why should brokers be singled out and prohibited from earning a living by charging for the services they provide?
If going into the transaction, prospective tenants are made aware that they will be liable for brokers fees and they're willing to pay it, what's wrong with that? If you are against paying brokerage fees don't use a broker.
Brokers, take the State and our whining nitwit governor to court to have this legislation stayed and then thrown out.
11
I talked about the first reporting the Times did on this ban with my roommate last night.
We reminisced on handing $3,000 up front to a broker (in addition to the security deposit and first month's rent) for an apartment we found ourselves through an online listing. We remembered how the broker lied to us about some of the place's amenities and changed the application requirements twice on the day we signed the lease. We talked about how much easier it will be to find a place to live the next time we look for an apartment because the broker's fee would be likely built into the rent of the market rate apartments we'll look at — paying those high fees over the term of the lease will allow us view better apartments that were previously out of our financial reach. The frantic search for housing will be much easier and more accessible for millions of tenants in NYC. We couldn't believe the Times didn't frame this ban as long awaited relief and an advance toward housing equality for millions of New Yorkers.
We then concluded that the New York Times has simply been rich too long.
35
There's been a lot of hoopla in the media about this DOS ruling, but it's still too early to tell what the final impact will be. The rental market has gradually been moving towards landlord-paid fee scenarios for several years already.
While this ruling/interpretation accelerates that trend, it's not settled law at this point. If a tenant or landlord decides to hire a real estate professional to market their property or help them secure an apartment, they are still free to do so. It was never the case that anyone was forced into such an arrangement.
This recent DOS interpretation of what constitutes an application fee will likely have unforeseen consequences, as would such government intervention have in any industry or marketplace.
I expect that as the nuances get worked out, the cost of broker fees will continue to shift more to the landlord side, but I don't expect tenant-paid broker fees to disappear.
1
I just paid a 15% fee (over $2,700) on Dec 13, 2019 for a stabilized rental unit in Manhattan. I'm searching for clarity - has the "no broker fee" rule been in effect since June 2019 or new as of Feb 2020? If it was in effect as of June 2019 what is my recourse to seek a refund (assuming the broker will fight it).
I should add that I moved from a stabilized unit in my building (6 years of being a good tenant who always pays rent on time) to a slightly less expensive stabilized unit in the same, 10-floorf building and never met my broker in person. She texted, called and emailed me only. The former tenant of my current unit showed the unit to me. When I signed my lease at her brokerage office, she was not present. In addition, I supplied her with photos of my former unit which she used (never having visited my unit) to post online and set up a 2-hour viewing window- while I still occupied the unit, with my permission, and my unit was rented within 5 days of her posting.
It didn't feel right at the time, and now it seems even worse- assuming they knew and were rushing the process in hopes I would not find out that the June changes included a no broker fee ruling.
Very curious to know when this went into effect and why all the brokers interviewed for these articles seem so flummoxed and are having "internal meetings" about how to proceed? Why? There's a new rule. Tenants have to follow all the rules, why can't they?
20
@matinee lady
It went into effect June 2019. The Department of State just issued "Guidance" on the Act on 1/31/20 to brokers stating they may not collect broker's fees unless the renter hires an agent. The DOS sent a revision yesterday stating that the no brokers fee guidance on 1/31 will not be retroactive from June.
3
I own a two-family building in Queens. My family lives in one unit and we rent the other. The rental income pays about a third of the building's mortgage and upkeep. Fees have long been too high for both tenants and landlords, in my opinion, but finding good tenants can be quite challenging (even with the help of a broker), so I have worked with a half dozen or so brokers over the years. In the past few years, however, the brokers have all made it clear that I probably won't find many prospective tenants unless I pay the broker's fee and use what is called a "no-fee listing." My experience has shown this to be largely true. Seems to me that in the outer boroughs, more and more tenants have been refusing to pay fees, so the new rule has gradually been becoming the default situation anyway. Perhaps this is not the case in Manhattan or at larger, corporate-owned buildings? Maybe this new law will shake up the broker industry to find a more tenable business model, if they are to remain in business.
17
Does it not occur to anyone that those and other regulations are causing developers to escape NY to better, freer states, and that this causes a decreased amount of goods - in this case, apartments - for the same number of apartment seekers? In effect, those regulations - whose true intention is the opposite of what it seems - cause the supply availability to rise without a corresponding increase in demand, and therefore, the prices. How can people not see such a simple reality?
2
@Sean "How can people not see such a simple reality?"
maybe things are not always as simple as you think. this law doesn't increase costs on landlords - they will bake the fee in the rents. so why would they want to "escape NY"?
4
@Sean sure, let them try getting $2000 a month for a studio in Mississippi. They won’t abandon NY because there is a large well paid pool of renters. This just gets rid of intermediares who were of little use.
17
@Sean If developers indeed do leave (which I am sure they won't) this will only make it easier for regular people to buy real estate. Now you have to compete with developers who come with all cash offers, do a slap-dash reno and then charge insane mark-ups.
6
And in top of paying the 15% fee it’s paid with after tax dollars. If the landlord pays the fee, the landlord and deduct it as marketing costs and they would likely pay much less than 15%.
13
In no other city have I had to pay a broker’s fee to find an apartment.
Why would stopping this horrid practice in NYC apparently be the end of the world?
46
The dying cries of the parasitic industry of brokers who provide a service to the landlord (listing and showing units) yet are paid by the tenant.
The tenant should not be asked to defray the cost for the landlord of showing a unit from which the landlord profits. This law just shifts the burden onto the person rightfully responsible- the landlord- for paying contractors for providing them a service.
222
@Yep I agree that the way it is currently set up (with tenants being forced to pay thousands and thousands of dollars up front to move into a new place) is not right.
But the reality is that tenants defraying the landlords' costs of renting out a unit is literally how rentals work.
13
@Yep
Agree 100%. Before the internet, the best way to find a rental in Manhattan was to use a broker. While they didn't typically charge you an immediate fee they did charge the "broker fee" once you found an apartment and signed the lease (typically 10%-15% of the first year's rent). Some of these brokers actually worked more than others but short of using the NYT real estate section, it was difficult to find rentals without one. Once the internet grew to include websites like Street Easy there was little to no need for these brokers to find and show you the apt (often they didn't even go with you to see the apt). The last brokers' fee I paid was in 2016 for an apt on the UWS. The fee came to $11,700 (15% of the first year's rent). There was no way the broker did enough work to justify that amount (probably less than one hour of work) however if I wanted the apt. that was the price of access.
Good riddance to these obscene fees. While I am sure that they will find another way to milk renters it's a step in the right direction.
79
@Yep
Exactly correct. Let's hope the internet can do to these parasitic middlemen what Uber and Lyft did to cabs.
21
Only in the topsy-turvy world of NYC real estate would this situation have endured for so long. If a landlord hires someone to market & show their property, vett prospective tenants, do all the paperwork, etc. then it's the landlord who should pay the fee! Spare me the violins about the poor, hardworking rental agents. The few times I've used them, most of the time they just sat in the office, collected money in exchange for the keys, and told me to go take a look and bring back the keys. No legwork, nothing. When you buy a house, the broker's fee comes out of the seller's end of the transaction, not the buyer's. Renting should be no different.
145
@A. Cleary Just for clarification, when you buy a house, although the broker's fee is paid from the seller's proceeds, it is indeed the buyer who is paying the fee (as it's baked into the price of the house.)
3
FINALLY. A long-overdue move.
Well done at last, NYC, on behalf of millions of renters who struggle to simply pay rent and make a life for themselves.
The landlords should be paying those fees, period. If they don't want to, don't use a broker and do the work themselves.
104
Finally! In an age of street easy and online listings, real estate brokers provide very little value in the apartment search process. The renter is the one who does all the work: finds the listings, visits many apartments, inspects it and takes all the risk. It makes total sense that the owner should pony up the fee and not the tenant. Of course I feel bad for ppl losing their jobs/livelihood but they should either find a new profession (it’s an irrelevant job in this day and age), or out in laws for the owner to provide the fee as they are the ones profiting the most from the transaction.
65
This was always a ridiculous fee. All they did was show you an apartment, run a credit check (which you had to pay for), fill out a lease and that was pretty much it. This did not require 15% of the yearly rent. If anything it should have been 3-5% and still. That's the landlord's job of the company managing the property. Glad it's going away.
19
@Jonathan that's because you only saw what work the broker did for you, the guy who ended up getting the apartment. but he probably shown that to dozens of renters. maybe some even submitted paperwork, which the broker had to verify and ask them for what's missing, just to see them withdraw their application at the last moment.
i think the law might be a good idea, but people here don't seem to understand that somebody will still have to show the apartments, do the paperwork, and get paid for it.
15
@Bogdan why should the renter who ultimately took the place have to pay for the many hours a broker took to show it to others?
22
@EmmettC that renter also saw many apartments for which he didn't pay a fee, right? or do you usually just rent the first apartment you set your foot in? it all evens out:)
seriously though, this law cannot possibly make much difference to rental prices as many posters have pointed out already. i'm as progressive as it gets but laws cannot change basic economics principles. if we want cheaper housing we need (much) more apartments, or even stronger rent stabilized laws that will keep new comers out of the city.
1
According to a report released by Curbed last April, landlords on average make around $540 in profit per rent-stabilized unit—that puts Mr. Mandelbaum’s yearly rental income for 300 units at around $162,000, not counting any non-stabilized units that he may have under his control. If this is the same Raphael Mandelbaum who is a high-profile developer and property manager, this also does not account for any additional income from his position as Principal at Lantree Developments, which manages over $90 million in assets.
Despite numerous complaints of persecution from landlords in recent months, their profits on rent-stabilized units seem to have risen substantially from 2018, when a report on Business Insider found that found landlords earned, on average, around $335 per month on a rent-stabilized unit. June’s rent laws capped the rate of growth but did not decrease these profits. When a landlord claims that he “cannot afford to pay the brokers,” that claim should be contextualized. There is a difference between "can't" and "doesn't want to." Landlords’ self-perceived victimhood is not necessarily supported by material reality, and though they are entitled to voice their perspectives, readers deserve the full context to make that judgment for themselves.
19
Brokers charge to much money for the little they do. There only middlemen/women.
4
This brings to an end to one of many broker/landlord scams. This is a move to the right direction. To those shedding crocodile tears I'd say 'Get over it'.
10
I have never dealt with a more unprofessional, unethical group of people than the New York City brokers I've been forced to encounter over the years. Good riddance.
28
@LJ Molière they're not going anywhere, i'm sorry to break it to you. somebody will have to still show prospective renters the apartments.
"Tenants would avoid paying a large, one-time broker’s fee, but, over time, they could end up paying more: Instead of just paying when they move in, tenants could face paying a higher rent with the broker’s fee baked in even after a tenant renews a lease."
i think this is crucial. if under the previous law an apartment can fetch $2000/month plus $3600 broker fee, there is no reason why the person who'd rent that apartment wouldn't be willing to pay $2300/month outright, under the new law. what happens when at the end of the year the landlord asks you to renew the lease at the same price, $2300/month? if you say yes, you have basically agreed to paying the broker's fee all over again. so you would have the basically renegotiate the rent down to $2000 or so just to break even.
the flip side is that renters will have more leverage at lease renewal since landlords will have an incentive to keep the renters they have rather than pay a broker's fee again.
overall, i guess not much will change, except that maybe brokers will have to take a cut since landlords can negotiate lower fees with them. but in the end someone will have to show these apartments and get paid for it, and as i have shown, the market has already shown that the renters can bear the cost of the fee, so the landlords will extract that from them.
i don't expect the changes caused by this law to be that significant.
4
A landlord who collects rent off 5 apartment buildings cannot afford the broker’s fee? Even though he readily admits that the broker provides HIM a direct service, he still wants his tenants to pay. Greedy.
27
Landlords and brokers in New York have had their way for so long that now they're apoplectic over not being able to conduct business as usual. They've been gouging tenants simply because they could. With this, as well as with making tenant protections permanent, Albany is finally on the side of the average, hard-working New Yorker.
21
@Vic unfortunately this is not how things work in the real world. rents will just incorporate the broker's fee, as others have pointed out. if you want lower rents you need rent control or more rentals - i.e., development.
1
@Bogdan I agree more rent control and affordable development is needed. But if landlords didn't use this excuse to raise rents, you can bet they'd find another.
2
@Vic i think landlords don't need an excuse to raise rents, they just charge what the market allows them. so if they could have already raised the rents before this law was passed, they would have already done so. i'm all for affordable housing, but let's not pretend now that economic laws don't exist. let's leave reality-denying to the right-wingers.
5
I wonder how many people cheering the banishment of fees for brokers, who are viewed as middleman adding nothing to the process, still defend a health care system in which insurance middlemen extort huge sums while adding nothing to the quality of care.
12
@Terry completely agree. This is a lesson to health are insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies charging exorbitant fees. Public anger may lead to some draconian actions to their interests unless they get their cost structure and profits under control. Brokers should have seen this coming. Charging 15% fees for nothing in many cases was not sustainable politically. It’s only unfortunate it took too long.
12
Of what relevance is this? I suspect all those “cheering” the demise of brokers’ fees are more likely to be glad of the disappearance of all greedy middlemen everywhere. Why would you think the opposite?
7
@Terry While the insurance companies may or may not provide value, as a consumer I at least have a choice of whether or not I want to buy health insurance and use them for provider access, network discounts, credentialing providers, adjudicating of claims, etc. There's nothing preventing me from going to the doctor/hospital directly for care and services. I don't have that choice when renting an apartment in NYC (outside of the small number of no-fee apartments).
1
The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 reads as follows:
“no landlord, lessor, sub-lessor or grantor may demand any payment, fee, or charge for the processing, review or acceptance of an application, or demand any other payment, fee or charge before or at the beginning of the tenancy, except background checks and credit checks....”
The Dept of State's guidance on this is that Broker's fee fall into this. If that's the intent of the Act, it would seem given this wording that a landlord cannot collect 1st months rent or security deposit as well.
@LGA nope. rent is not a fee and security deposits are addressed separately so that's clearly not the intent of the law.
4
@Bogdan
Please read the exact wording. It states: “no landlord.....may demand...any payment, fee, or charge...."
Rent is most definitely a payment.
@LGA that "payment, fee or charge" applies to " the processing, review or acceptance of an application".
i'm not sure why you are insisting on a completely absurd interpretation of the passage. nobody believes that legislators intended to make all apartments rent-free so your interpretation of the law is obviously flawed. however, a reasonable case can be made that legislators intended to eliminate buyer's broker fees, so that interpretation is valid, unless a court says otherwise.
2
I rented several apartments in cities with tough rental markets, including San Francisco, and I never paid a fee to a broker.
New York's broker fees always seemed to me like a kind of scammy welfare program funded by renters.
32
How much convincing the board that approves rate increases do you think will be needed to justify rent increases because landlords will have to pay the brokerage fee? It's a cost to them, so I don't see how the rent board could deny a request for an increase based on those changes, at least when apartments change to new tenants.
The best outcome of this is that landlords may have enough power to push back against the brokers on the amount of the fees. As long as the tenants were paying and there was a steady demand for the apartments, why would the landlords care how much the brokers charged? Now, maybe those fees will go down.
@JM Good luck getting that approved. NYS legislature is run bu progressive Democrats at this point and doesn't care about landlords.
1
So now there will be exorbitant charges for credit checks and background checks.
Landlords want their tenants vetted and brokers want to get paid and they will move the numbers around to do it
So the rent will rise by $200 but hey no broker fee but there will be two months security and the first months rent and $400 for a credit and background check.
@Deirdre renters cannot be charged more than 20 dollars in fees of any kind, and security deposit is capped at a month's rent.
6
When I was hit with the broker fee, I had to sign a statement that certified that I understood that the broker provided no services to me. So why did I have to pay $5,000?
28
@Neighbor2 If you have a copy of that statement (assuming the broker also signed it), sounds like you could sue to get your money back -- the statement essentially says that you paid for a service not rendered. And you could do it in small claims court which is really not that difficult.
2
It's about time!
In 1987 I went to the onsite administrative office of a rent stabilized housing development in Queens to rent an apartment. The landlord was a family corporation with a large administrative office in Manhattan. Despite this, I was referred to a commercial real estate broker on Queens Blvd. and forced to pay 25% of the first year's rent as a brokerage fee in order to rent the apartment. I ultimately filed a complaint with the NYC Division of Housing and Community and Renewal and lost.
The situation reeked. I was and still am convinced there was an illegal kick-back to the landlord involved in the transaction. I'm delighted to learn this abusive practice has finally been outlawed.
18
@Cordelia you're right, and i think that's the best justification for the law actually. this kind of scheme is not possible for free-market apartments, but for rent-stabilized ones i assume this happens quite often - big broker fee paid by the buyer, then broker offers the landlord a gift-card.
3
Another question to consider: Who is the broker working for? Who is the client? Is the client the landlord? If so, the landlord should pay the broker's fees and laws put in place that does not allow them to transfer that cost to the tenant. Is the tenant the client? Then the tenant pays. if the broker is willing to be my (as a tenant) advocate and find the best apartment for the best possible price, and take care of all the paperwork, then I am willing to pay the broker's fees. The problem in the industry seems to be that the broker seems to really work for the landlord, while extracting most of their fees from the tenant. That's why this law is music to tenant's ears. This might help readjust an industry that seems to work against the very people from whom it derives most of its revenue.
17
It's about time! I just remember applying for an apartment through a listing that connected me to a management company. The broker did almost nothing, and in fact was very unresponsive and I ended up doing almost everything directly through the management company. I even had to go to the management company myself to get the keys on moving day since the broker would not respond. She showed up with her husband while I was moving to collect the fee, and he acted like he was about to beat me up, as if I had avoided them! It was truly unfair. Realtors do not work that hard that they deserve a percentage of the value of the real estate. A set fee would be fine-that reflects the hours they spend listing and showing a property.
17
Does anybody, anywhere, feel sorry for those in the NYC real estate business? This was a long time coming.
29
In Boston, renters look on-line, find a place, the landlord links them to broker. That broker opens the door, asks "Do you want it?" If yes, broker accepts paperwork in exchange for 1 month's rent. Low end 1 bedroom is $1700/month. On top of 1st and last month's to landlord, it keep people from moving out even when current apartment is unsafe or landlord non-responsive. Biggest rip-off ever.
8
In 1945, news of Japanese surrender caused the stock market to go down as this negatively impacted the growth of landmine, casket, and prosthetic limb manufacturers. This was not regarded as a bad thing.
7
I’ll never forget the smirk on the broker’s face when I handed over an $1800 broker’s fee for a sight-unseen Boston apartment I found on Craigslist in 2014. It was like the grin of someone thinking “Wow, I just got $1800 for an hour of work - this job is a dream.” Thank you NYC for leading the way with getting rid of tenant-paid broker’s fees.
27
@John well thats a bit unfair if you consider the fact that he might have shown that apartment 100 times before he found you. many brokers work long hours for not much pay.
but i still think this is a good change.
1
This is populist folly. Anyone with half a mind can tell that it would cause the rent prices to increase further; New York City regulation has become so draconian that it is no longer in the interest of many to conduct their business here. What must follow is a worsened economy; less jobs, more unemployment.
4
@Sean but if the landlord prices in the broker's fee in the rent, what exactly is your problem?
1
Spoken like a broker “with half a mind” as you posit.
2
@Sean The landlords are not seeing any of the fees being paid today so I do not think it is logical to assume that they will automatically jack up the rent in the amount of the fee the renter used to pay. While some less scrupulous landlords will certainly capitalize on the opportunity it's unfair to say the law won't make a bit of difference to the renter going forward.
You will usually find me taking a pro-business approach to such affairs. But rental apartment brokers? The heck with them. Tenants do all the work online themselves nowadays. Two months’ additional costs for being a convenient middleman who adds nothing to the process? Time for the broker industry to get “disintermediated.”
18
So, a tenant finds her/his own apartment and then charges the renter? This seems utterly bizarre. And utterly unfair. Not that it means anything to those who make money this way. My prediction: brokers will now make it mandatory for renters to hire them in order to get the desperately needed apartment. Shameful.
3
Brokers do what? Seems like a scam. But then, that's New York, the home of Trump.
10
Brokers are some of the biggest parasites in the economy. They exist entirely because of a power imbalance in the market, not because they provide some valuable service.
I’ve met many over the years and they have all been among the most sleazy, lazy, immoral, dishonest people I’ve ever encountered. More often than not, their fees are just over glorified “key money” - they are simply gatekeeping the apartment YOU find. Often they work for the building’s management company.
But even if they were all angels, it is preposterous that governments in the US even consider such narrow vested business interests of a tiny minority as a factor over the obvious economic interest of the vast majority of “the people.”
A person should not have to pay thousands of dollars just in empty fees to change apartments, particularly in a society that gives them no protection from gargantuan rent increases. They should not have to subsidize some immoral - but most definitely ‘middle class’ appearing - rent seeker for the privilege, just as we would not expect our government to subsidize a totally unprofitable industry.
Now brokers can deal with their true market value, when it falls to the landlord to negotiate their fee for service: approximately $15/hr.
17
My heart bleeds for the poor starving middlemen. Won't someone think of the middlemen?!
19
Thought experiment: if the brokers suddenly went away - would people stop finding an apartment to rent? Would landlords find themselves with no tenants?
Kudos for wiping out a parasitic class of useless bureaucracy. This does not happen enough in our country.
31
@Scott Newton if brokers went away, landlords would need to show the apartment themselves to prospective tenants, or hire someone to do so and pay them for it. we call these people brokers in nyc.
so no, brokers are not really gonna go away.
i'm all for this rule, but it doesn't change the fact that somebody's gonna have to do the work of showing the apartment to many, many renters before somebody likes it enough to lease it. as other have pointed out, the ll will probably price in the fee in the rent.
1
This is great news.
Maybe someday they will finally get around to telling us other things that we all already know; like how a real estate agent's 6% commission is price collusion and a complete scam.
14
@EDM well that fee is already paid by sellers who can always sell the apartment themselves if they want to. not sure i follow this.
3
Looks like the real causes of homelessness are beginning to be acknowledged, and those causes are not mental illness, joblessness or addictions. Plenty of folks with those issues live in apartments and homes, The causes of homelessness have always been greedy landlords and overpriced rents, to say nothing of this group of profiteering "brokers" whe do very, very little to earn their pay other than swindling protential tenants over a sheet of paper.
First and last month's rent, security deposit, finder's fees, etc. if you can't wipe out a population physically isn't the next best method to wipe them out economically
6
I'm front Kansas, and we don't pay broker fees unless we're buying a house and those can be negotiated. I don't understand why a tenant should be required to pay anyone anything expect a security deposit and the first month's rent and sign a lease. I think it is appaling that a person or family have to come up with such huge amounts before they get the keys to a place to live.
10
"Jed Wilder, a real estate broker at Compass, said that when brokers collect fees from a landlord, not the tenant — an atypical arrangement in New York — the fees are usually no more than one month’s rent. Tenants typically pay more, between 10 and 15 percent of the annual rent."
It appears that Mr. Wilder's assumption is that brokers are entitled to earn more based on how his industry has played NY tenants for all these years. If landlords pay much less - and the industry still functions - then perhaps that's an indicator of how the broker industry has gauged tenants. Insofar as brokers have offered a service, if the work was put in by the tenant to actually find a Craigslist/Streeteasy posting, then show up at the open house, it's difficult to understand why someone is entitled to a 12-15% cut.
The broker industry in this town has been nothing more than a monopolistic racket that's driven up the cost of moving. The new law changes fundamentally do one thing - they make the market for apartments more open and competitive. I'm happy to have my rent increase to cover a landlord's brokerage costs and expect that increase won't amount to 15% of a year's rent.
10
@masayaNYC -- the differential in fee paid by the landlord vs. the tenant reflects the difference in power between those two. The tenant is probably a one-time transaction for the broker, but the landlord will keep using the services of brokers who do a good job vetting tenants. It's easier for the broker to rationalize giving a "discount" to a landlord who provides a lot more business.
5
I *love* this ruling, but don't see how it is enforceable. What is to stop a broker from requiring renters to sign a contract that says that the renter is hiring the broker as a condition of showing the renter an apartment? I've actually had this happen to me because the broker feared that I would contact the landlord directly and the broker would lose their fee.
8
@John M One could argue that contract is unenforceable... unfortunately some brokers will have to see a courthouse before acknowledging that the industry has changed. That's the way it went with travel agents, and coal plants. Maybe brokers should vote republican?
2
@Mitchell Turner What specifically about the contract is unenforceable? The ruling specifically provides for the terms of the contract.
1
This is good new for everyone in NYC who isn't rich.
How about the landlords pay the broker fees if they want to go through a broker? Otherwise, they should do the work themselves.
It's ridiculous that a renter should have to pay for a service that benefits the landlord exclusively. This is like renters paying for a plumber if the pipes break; that's the owner's responsibility.
Renters could easily find apartments through apps without brokers, and it doesn't matter to renters who actually shows them the property, runs the credit check, and produces the lease.
And while this may cut into landlord profits, I don't see why it needs to hurt brokers in the end. Brokers are salespeople... so now is the time to sell the landlords on why they need your services. You'd not be the first in NYC to have to sing for their supper at one point or another. It's a free market, so if you can carry a tune, now's the time.
18
I rented 3 apartments during my years in NYC--I paid a 15% broker fee on the first one (as a student before I took my first job, this required a $5k loan which my father had to co-sign for plus a guarantee by him on my lease) and the others I leased directly from management in one case, and in the other the broker was paid by the landlord (and the rent was a great deal at the time). In the latter case, this occurred during the depths of the 2008-09 recession. I was actually able to get a two year lease for that place, which was awesome. I don't think this is really going to affect tenants at all--the issue is access to apartments--the no fee rentals are almost always more expensive than the ones in which the broker charges a fee but I think most people would prefer to spread the cost out over the lease term--the rents are going to be charged based on market so I don't think it's accurate to say that the costs will automatically be much higher for tenants. The 12-15% fees are where the gouging really occurs--I think the more middle market brokers charge a month's rent, which is really what the max should be.
2
Here in MA the landlord pays the brokers fees. Tenants are better protected than in NYC. The idea that many brokers will lose their livelihood is laughable since they make more than the average hourly or commission based employee. NYC is a big city, they’ll survive.
4
It is not my experience that here in Mass the landlord *always* pays the broker’s fees. It is not a legal requirement.
@Jonathan Janov
The real estate commissioner in NYC is a fellow by the name of Benjamin Dover.
The big scam here in Nevada are the management companies who charge large fees to process applications and to check credit reports. The trick is this; they don't process one application to see if a person qualifies to rent a home, they run upwards of 15 or more and then choose the "best one". That means the other 14 people who applied, who may have been approved had their application been process individually, simply paid the management company for nothing. Some of the management companies charge upwards of $100.00 per applicant, or $200 per couple. The true cost to run credit is just $15.00 (or less).
Management companies are making bank off this scheme. And one has to wonder if they actually process all the applications or if they simply pocket funds, once an applicant is approved. How would anyone know? One test would be to see how many application fees are returned? Mostly likely none.
If you are applying to rent a house or an apartment, ask for a copy of your credit report. If the management company stated they ran your credit, they should provide documentation to you with out hesitation. Than add your credit report to your next application.
This practice of running multiple applications should not be allowed. It's unethical and it should be illegal to discriminate against a qualified renter.
7
I have rented all over NYC and paid a lot money to brokers. It's a lot to ask a renter. 1st months, last months, a security deposit + the broker fee. That can easily add up to more than $10,000 just to move into an apartment. How many renters have that? In my last apartment I went into credit card dept. to cover all the costs.
Now I'm a landlord in Brooklyn. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee for a broker to find me a good tenant.
11
@DC It's been illegal since June to ask for last month's rent - the tenant has only been required to pay first and security in addition to any broker's fees. All that this new law is going to do is drive rents up even more.
Wouldn't it make sense for the tenant to choose whether or not to pay the fee or have it baked into a higher rent? If they pay the fee their base rent would be lower which would be financially beneficial to them if they planned on renting the same apartment for more than a year.
1
Now if we can get rid of the outrageous real estate brokers' fee when you buy a house. That would be real progress.
5
@Anita In many states, and definitely in NY, the seller of the house pays the broker fees not the person who buys the house. In any case, the seller can always choose to sell the house without a broker and their fees.
@Anita thats paid by the seller in nyc.
Brokerage costs are costs for operating a building as is heating as is laundry machines .
Sometimes they are charged by including it in the total rent . Sometimes they are broken into pieces and charged for separately .
Regardless its the renters job to consider the total cost and decide if its something they can afford .
The majority of New York States 19 million residents do NOT live in the most expensive city in the state .
If you feel so strongly that it is everyone's right to live in the most expensive city then either petition the city agency Nycha to build and operate more low cost housing, or petition the government to pay for rental vouchers so that the cost and burden is shared by all tax payers .
Since when do we arbitrarily impose our own prices and take what we need from people who happened to build what we need ?
If you bake bread and I need bread can I set your price and take your product ?
1
While I've always hated paying broker's fees, the cost is still going to fall on the tenant. If the landlord has to pay the broker's fees, then the landlord will adjust the cost of rent to make up the difference.
1
@Hɛktər the thing is- property owners have more leverage to negotiate the fees with the broker. So instead of 12-15%, it could be more like 5%.
5
@Hɛktər
Untrue, Hɛktər. Many people are saying this but it makes no sense. Rents will go as high only as the markets will bear, period. That's what "market-rate" means. And rent-regulated apartments will stay as they are according to legal requirements.
6
@H. Vandergelder i'm not sure you're right, in the sense that the market right now bears the monthly rent plus the broker's fee. that is, there is no reason why an apartment that's $2000/month plus a broker's fee of $3600 cannot be rented out on the free market for $2300 and no broker fee.
About time! It will give owners an incentive to find good tenants, to retain their good tenants by taking care of repairs and maintenance, and to extend/renew leases instead of the opposite. As a tenant until now you shelled out a disproportionate fee but ended up with few rights once the lease was signed. The landlord could disregard small repairs knowing he had no financial stake if the renters decided to leave. And as a renter you were disinclined to move given the high cost involved in finding another apartment. This is not a death sentence to real estate agent, this is simply an adjustment with owners taking the responsibility for their investment. I am so glad and hope my landlord will finally start caring and will think a little before offering us to move every time we mention issues with our expensive rental.
9
@LL
What you are failing to realize is the you will indeed be paying a brokers fee, not all up front but over time as the landlord will increase base rent.
1
@Charles alexander not necessarily, it will depend on supply/demand. Right now, at least in my price point, there is a good amount of choice, prices are coming down. If landlords decide to raise prices by including those fees they will be priced out. I had to move out two years ago from a very expensive rental because my landlord could not care less. He treated us like... and now I am in a similar situation. I did not want to move again because of the fees, shelling out 5 figures just like that and be again taken advantage of by a landlord who does not want to be bothered. In many cities around the world leases are indefinite, and landlords have an incentive to take care of their tenants. Not in NYC. You sign for one year and have no rights. The brokers work for the owners, so the owners should pay them and hopefully care about their renters, especially if they pay on time and take good care of their unit.
1
@Charles alexander They can't raise rents in NYC. It's a socialist paradise.
If the broker is really providing a service with true economic value, then rents should rise to cover these fees. To some degree, it's just a re-jiggering of the invoicing.
4
The landlord should pay the broker the rental fee. The landlord hires the broker to lease the property.
If, the renter decides to enter into an agreement with the broker, the broker becomes the exclusive agent for the renter and is entitled to a fee from the renter. However, these agreement need to be signed up front so everyone knows the parameters.
The broker cannot act both a broker for the landlord and the renter for the same property.
4
I once paid almost $3000 to a broker who opened the door to an apartment in Brooklyn Heights and did nothing while I looked around and agreed to take it. Frankly, I'm not sure what else there was for him to do.
Later, he did the requisite financial background check, lease signing and taking the deposit, all in service to the landlord. That's who should have paid him.
28
Real estate brokers have very little knowledge of (or regard for) architecture, building materials, geography, or the law, routinely respond to simple questions like "When can the apartment be seen?" with "Do you have any pets?", insist on calling laminate flooring "hardwood", and think nothing of making utterly meaningless statements like "the landlord's going to" install/fix/replace whatever. In no other job but actually being a landlord can one command ever higher compensation despite such obvious incompetence.
11
@Christopher i would think "do you have any pets?" is a pretty good follow-up to a request for seeing an apartment. in fact, that right there pretty much makes the case for the existence of brokers if you ask me (not that they necessarily deserve such a big fee).
@Bogdan "Do you have any pets?" was not a follow-up. It was the answer. Anyway if the service is finding a tenant the landlord will like, that is all the more reason the landlord should pay the fee.
I have rented more than a few apartments in my 30 years of living in NYC. It's about time. This has been a racket from the beginning and is long overdue. The party is over. Rental real estate agents need to go back to school and learn a real trade.
20
@Bo Lang
Agreed. Real estate is a popular hustle because you need virtually no skills or training, and the possible rewards are high. What you really do need to know (there are laws and real estate rules and regs you actually do need to know about, such as non-discrimination laws, how banks and mortgages function, etc.) you can learn in a few days if you are a reasonably intelligent person. It requires hustle but it's not intellectually hard. In the world of high-end co-op/condo sales, the same applies, plus you must have a certain amount of social grace, poise, discretion, and the ability to speak the language of the rich. It also helps if you are attractive. Hence all the ex-performers and rich wives -- the east side ladies-who-lunch types -- who work in sales at the big firms. Look at the big fold-out ad inserts NYT and you'll see what I mean.
Under the "tenants pay the fees" rules, it was like shooting ducks in a barrel for rental brokers who got in with landlords. Constant turnover in apartment buildings virtually guaranteed income in a tight rental market. The fees were essentially cover charges, and the brokers were the bouncers. Now they are complaining because they actually have to do some work now.
I found my last apartment through a friend in the building, and rented directly from the owner, no fee, even though there was a broker for the building. I got the apartment before it was listed. Many apartments get rented this way, especially desirable ones.
3
Yes I rent a residence to renters and i pay a management fee to the company that handles these matters, Its included in my rent payments but is paid by the owner to the manager. Seems its a cost of business for the owner.
9
@Richard Head Can't raise rents in NYC.
The broker companies got too greedy by demanding an ever increasing fee and even from those who found the apartment themselves. It’s going to be painful but a lesson in what happens when you push people too far; they react with draconian measures. The pharmaceutical industry should take notice; lower your profits or the public will impose even more extreme measures than if they had voluntarily done so.
39
If the landlords pay the broker fee, they'll probably price it into the rent. But the result will be the same: tenants will pay for the privilege of renting.
2
@Blackstone There's nothing wrong with a tenant "paying for the cost of renting" just like a buyer in a home sale pays for the cost of buying when the real estate agent gets paid. There's services being rendered and they're being paid for.
The good news for renters here is that the overall broker fees, and therefore the amount ultimately paid by tenants, will probably drop because landlords will have more power and more incentive to hold fees down than would-be renters ever did.
3
Cry me a river, brokers. For every apartment of the many I have rented in Manhattan and Brooklyn, I found the apartment myself, reached out to the broker to schedule an appointment, and filled out all the paperwork myself. All the broker did was have possession of the key to let me into the apartment. It's obscene that these fees were ever the burden of the renter. These brokers are making their $45-60K on the backs of working people and students while landlords sit back and do nothing. This is long overdue.
92
@Carolyn It's great that you have been able to afford to rent and pay broker fees for "many" apartments over the years in Manhattan and Brooklyn but maybe you should enjoy your good fortune and not dump on people making $45-60K (which, by the way, is probably a high estimate for majority of agents) who can not afford to do the same. Blame the landlords and blame the real estate companies who churn through agents & take 40-50% cut of every single broker's fee.
@Carolyn
You try living in Manhattan on 45-60K
@Charles alexander Not everyone has to live in Manhattan.
1
This shouldn’t apply to market-rate housing. A prospective renter needs to look at total costs, including initial and recurring expenses. Is parking, utilities, armed security included or not? From that calculation, a renter decides what is in their best interest.
Everyone knows the brokers serve at the pleasure of the property owners, not the renters. It's an artificial industry, and serves no real purpose for apartment seekers.
37
When blackmail was outlawed, those who were once gainfully employed in that previously respectable profession had to retool themselves for the new workforce.
I fear brokers may soon face the same oppressive reality.
42
seems as if the brokers don't have an effective lobbying in the local government...
4
I hope Mr. Grant's broker doesn't read this line: "But ultimately, he said, if he were told that he had to honor his agreement and pay the fee to get his apartment, he would pony up."
Way to completely prejudice the dude's negotiating position!
9
Landlords and brokers are masters at evading the laws - and will do so again this time. My prediction: Landlords won't show tenants the best apartments unless they have a broker in tow - so they can split the broker fee with the broker. ... This happened to me many years ago when I was looking for apartments. When I called the building directly - every day - the leasing office claimed there were no apartments available. But when I called a broker, they had access to three vacant apartments in the building - one of which was amazing with views - which I wound up leasing. ... So, I'm guessing they'll just continue this shady practice so that brokers and landlords can receive broker fees.
50
The obscene broker fees hurt young people, immigrants (who NYC these make up 36% of the population), and low income groups more than anybody else. Being able to decide who to recommend for an affordable apartment (which not exactly is rocket-surgery), while legally being able to extract more than 5% of his or her annual income from the lucky new tenant, provided brokers with an indefensible position of power over anybody in need of a home. My own experience looking for a rent stabilized apartment was, that brokers with only a few exemptions were arrogant, abusive (I've been stood up more times than I can count), and provided no value whatsoever. I celebrate this development.
96
@Always Friendly
“Being able to decide who to recommend for an affordable apartment...”
This is pretty shocking--having a place to live shouldn’t rely on winning a contest, and then paying a fee to have done so.
Nor should landlords be able to pass on this cost; what’s the point of stopping the fee if you allow that? The process benefits the landlord, (s)he should pay.
10
@Always Friendly Broker fees are not very common outside of Manhattan and hot areas of Brooklyn
Agreed!
THIS IS HUGE
We'll see if it sticks.
8
Every week the NYT Sunday Real Estate section posts an article about a couple finding an apartment in nyc, their choices narrowed to three. Clearly they saw these apts with brokers, two of whom did the work but got no fee. Renters see only what they paid, oblivious of the unpaid work they got the benefit of.
11
What work? Handing over a key?
2
This is what happens when you rip people off. They finally get tired of it, and finally do something about it. Now, instead of being able to charge a reasonable fee for not that much work, you get nothing.
60
@JimBob Exactly. Brokers got greedy, greedy, greedy. If they were content with $500 to unlock the apartment for a few people on a Saturday, they would still be working. But they wanted thousands and thousands of dollars from working people to show up with the key (maybe, or not) and stand in the doorway playing Candy Crush and vaping while prospective tenants walked through an apartment they found themselves on Street Easy. The brokers I dealt with last go round knew nothing at all about the unit, the lease, the landlord, or the building. I had one swear to my face that the building had never had a problem with pests as we sat in a room littered with rat traps, staring at a massive pile of chewed paper and a hole in the moulding big enough to drive a Tonka truck through.
Good riddance. There's a parable about a goose that laid golden eggs...
3
You just made yourself some brand new Republicans, AOC.
4
@Chad How did she do that?
She serves in the US House of Representatives. This was passed by the New York State Assembly. Which is a completely different political entity from the United States Congress.
Do you understand how the American system of government works?
27
@Chad What do you imagine AOC has to do with this?
8
@Chad AOC does not serve in the NYS legislature.
9
It's about time this extortive practice was ended. This article doesn't mention the history of broker fees for rental apartments in NYC, specifically Manhattan. Landlords paid these fees until relatively recently. There was a time (when NYC was a dangerous dump) when many landlords couldn't keep their buildings full. When NYC became overcrowded and demand overtook supply, landlords shifted the fees to the tenants -- because they could. It was greed, plain and simple. A broker's fee for one apartment -- 15% of the annual rent -- might be a reasonable amount for building owner to pay for the services of publishing listings, showing apartments, and vetting and processing applications, but an insane fee for the average (not rich) person to pay, in addition to the first month's rent, security deposit, and moving costs.
It is reasonable for a tenant to pay the fee if he or she has hired the broker -- perhaps an out-of-towner looking for an apartment with limited time in the city to see apartments, or someone local, who could afford it, who doesn't want to pound the pavement looking for an apartment the way I did -- talking to friends, going up and down streets of neighborhoods I was interested in, talking to supers and calling managing agents listed on buildings. No one who looks for an apartment him or herself, the old-fashioned way, should have to pay exorbitant fees to brokers unless they actually do work -- for the tenant.
134
@H. Vandergelder
Exactly correct. Anything that eliminates or reduces the impact of these middlemen is good.
9
@H. Vandergelder Your main points are quite reasonable, but you seem to suggest that all landlords are "rich" people and therefore can easily pay 15% fees. Perhaps this is true of giant conglomerates and corporate owners of large buildings, but this city is full of landlords with two- and three-family buildings who are living extremely close to the margins, and they are anything but rich. A fee paid by the landlord is fair, I think, but 15% is enough to make balancing the budget impossible for many smaller landlords. Perhaps a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best solution?
2
Find a broker willing to charge less than 15 per cent . As far as I can tell there is no law that you have to charge 15 per cent.
1
The real estate industry & landlords have long held an almost collusive relationship in NYC. How is it fair to charge 15% of the annual rent to a tenant when the agents are working for the landlord, trying to rent out their units. They operate on these exclusive relationships and you are forced to go through them. It is absurd and the industry has gone unregulated for far too long. Considering the major implications of gentrification and the housing crisis in NYC, they had to see this coming. How can you require working class people who are pushed out of their neighborhoods to pay $4-8K upfront to move. It is outrageous. In my own personal experience, my first apartment I ever moved into I found online and was listed as a no fee apartment. When I called, a woman told me that if I wanted to see the apartment I should meet the super and view it. I did and loved the apartment, never meeting the woman who I later found out was an agent. She was non-responsive to my calls and I ended up connecting with the landlord directly. When she found out I was going to rent the unit she started to demand a brokers fee, which I refused to pay and the landlord ultimately ended up paying on my behalf. I totally expect to pay a fee if I hire someone on my behalf, which I did with my second broker who was amazing, but it can be really deceptive and shady. I applaud this change in the law and hope everyday working people push back when brokers still try to scam a fee out of them.
83
All this will do is shift the payment to the tenant through their rent, in perpetuity. Great move, guys.
3
@Steve WRONG. Landlords who shift the fees to tenants will not be competitive with the landlords who do their own marketing and have in house leasing offices. Landlords will now either get rid of the brokers and market themselves or simply use listing services and hire an employee to open the door.
19
@thewiseking Right and then they'll shift the cost of the in house marketing team to the renter.
The way that brokers work in NY never made any sense to me, but this cost is still going to get passed along to the renter in some form.
3
@Steve While some of it may shift to the renters, the majority will be managed by the landlords for many reasons, some of them below:
- Landlords will have to compete with the big rental companies which have their own rental offices and do not charge fees.
- Landlords have a lot of bargaining power, and I am sure they will find a way to reduce that fee. They never before had any interest, but now that they have to pay it they will look for ways to pay less. They can simply hire someone on staff, which depending on average number of vacancies per year could be much cheaper than paying a fee.
- The small landlords will simply use services like Streeteasy to directly list their property. Again, they never had to, because renters had to pay. Now they, all of a sudden, will find the time to show their properties themselves.
10
Brokers will continue to lie and make self serving statements but the truth of the matter is that they offer little value in these transactions and no, landlords can not simply tack on their fees as increased rent. The big players; Moinian, Two Trees, Rudin, L+M etc are offering free rent, concessions and no-fee rentals in what is generally considered to be a "renters market". Any landlord who raises his rents to accommodate brokers would be committing suicide. They simply will not be able to compete.
16
@thewiseking news flash: management companies such as Two Trees ALREADY have the broker fee baked into the rent. They pay the broker for bringing them the client, and have been doing so for years. Smaller landlords who offered lower rent rates because brokers collected their own fee will now raise their rents to cover the amount they’ll now need to pay to the broker. A rising tide raises all ships.
4
The law is vague--sometimes a fee can be charged, sometimes it can't--and unclear for renters and agents and needs to be clarified so people can understand what is right moving forward. What do they mean by if you "hired" a broker?
@Anonymous hiring a broker means that you engage them, and they represent you and show you multiple properties. This is unusual in NYC, where prospective tenants usually find apartments on their own and then deal with whatever broker happens to have been engaged by the landlord to show the particular apartment they want to see.
4
The imposition of this poorly conceived law and the comments here and on other similar articles reveal a remarkable lack of understanding what a real estate agent does. Most people think they simply open the front door and then collect an outrageous fee.
Real estate agents do many many many things they never are compensated for. They might show a prospective tenant 15 apartments only to have the tenant find an apartment on their own, or decide not to move, or look at one apartment with one agent and take it.
The agent can schedule 6 showings for a day and not have the tenant show up. The agent may give a landlord a great deal of advice and council only to have the landlord take that advice and use it for his own gain.
Agents act as intermediaries between two parties who have conflicting objectives. Agents often know of apartments that may be available soon but are not yet on the market. They give prospective renters market data and negotiating advice. If more than 1 prospective tenant wants an apartment, the agent can often help them package their offer so they are the one who gets the apartment.
A good agent is worth every dollar they are paid. They get no salary or benefits and they only get paid when they are successful. It is not an easy job and this new law the clueless legislators have passed is going to make thinks much tougher for tenants.
14
@Matt Williams Just a clarification, most of the services you mention (showing a single tenant 15 apartments, helping a tenant package their offer, give prospective tenants market data and negotiating advice) are still valid under the law for paying the broker fee.
If the renter HIRES the broker in their search to help them, they must pay.
This law is about the broker fee tacked onto listings where services aren't provided much other than listing the unit and unlocking a door or passing on the app to the landlord. That's up to 40% of listing on streeteasy and yes, it is a racket.
66
@Matt Williams There is also fielding calls and emails at all hours of the day and night, paying for advertising to get those calls and then making sure a tenant is qualified for an apt.
5
@Anonymous These are services performed on behalf of the landlord. That's who should pay for them.
43
Forcing renters to pay broker's fees seems completely regressive.
I think it compares to employment agencies charging employees for finding them a job - which many agencies used to do. If there are any now, I'm unaware of them. The fee is always paid by the employer.
23
I'm surprised there was no public review/comment period for the new regulations. Businesses value predictability, and this has come as quite a surprise.
3
@Matt It was part of The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 which was debated in open session and passed both houses of the Assembly and signed into law by Governor Cuomo more than 6 months ago.
This article is referencing guidance from the Department of State but the underlying law is part of a public Act, which is freely available for review.
It is NOT a regulation that was promulgated by an agency. It is part of a Public Law, passed by the duly-elected state legislature and signed into law by the governor in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Constitution.
3
@Matt B Hi Matt! Yes it's part of the law, but it is a clarification/interpretation of law. Usually these same things at the federal level (as with IRS guidance) have a little more heads up than this.
Having read several articles about this change, even lawmakers have been quoted as having missed this provision in discussions and debates of the law. This is the first time there is any sort of broader discussion of this requirement or its impact. It seems to have been a sleeper provision.
I remember paying one month's fee when I got my first apartment more than 40 years ago in Park Slope. I resented it then, and see that now many times the fee is almost 2 months rent. Economists call this - pardon the pun - a "rent seeking" activity. This is even more true today with online services providing readily searchable listings of available rentals; it's exploiting a monopoly-like position, controlling access to rental apartments.
16
Renters do not pay brokers’ fees in Toronto, Canada, a city comparable to NYC. In Toronto, the landlord pays a fee to a real estate agent to find tenants, if the landlord needs that service. Renters paying fees to a broker is yet another way, among many, that US-style capitalism makes life unnecessarily harsh and exploitative. Govt needs to provide incentives for industries to not pursue limitless greed at the expense of individuals.
84
@B PC: The same deal in Chicago. Landlords pay a fee for listing with a real estate agent.
10
I wish I could make $2500in 30 minutes. It’s a rip off. Sure there are ad costs (much cheaper online) and some time commitments. But I thought the law was pretty clear on this. No brokers fees. If it’s baked into the rent to cover landlord costs, so be it. That’s the cost of doing business.
30
@Rob Merrill instead of wishing why don't you just become a broker?
1
In my experience, there are too many part-time brokers in NYC who do not see their work as a profession but rather as a hustle to make a quick ~$10k here and there. Too many times I have been shown apartments by brokers who had at best dubious claims to have access to the building and little to no knowledge on the apartment itself. In the world of rental apps it has become increasingly easy for a landlord to list their apartment and the ones who rather want to rely on professional service will now be comforted by the fact that only professional brokers will survive this bill.
88