Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The argument here (not saying I agree with it) is that it's common to let units sit empty over particular periods, based on other business decisions and an understanding of the market.

eg, If you have a lease that ends in September, the make ready process takes 2-4 weeks, so the unit will be available for lease again in October. There's not a high churn of residents in October-December due to holiday periods, etc. and demand doesn't pick up again until January. Therefore, it's better for you to let that unit sit empty now, because demand is so much lower for the next 2-3 months you won't be able to get the same increase in lease price as you will when demand skyrockets in January.

Another example is an understanding that some kind of amenity will change over a period. eg, a new public transport route is going in, or the property next door is being rezoned and demolished, from an industrial site to a commercial precinct, and so waiting for that to happen means that you can get a higher price on your lease once that happens, to the extent that it will offset the loss from leaving the unit vacant.

The defendants will argue that the analysis provided by the plaintiff doesn't consider these kinds of business decisions and that this part of the argument should be considered flawed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: