Connect with us

Finance

I Saved $1,200 on NYC Rent by Negotiating With My Landlord

Published

on

I Saved ,200 on NYC Rent by Negotiating With My Landlord

Though I write about the housing market and mortgages for a living, I’m a Gen Zer renting my first New York City apartment. I’m also new to the workforce and living in a Brooklyn neighborhood where the median rent is above $4,000. 

Housing is unaffordable right now, for both renters and buyers. Personal finance experts often recommend that you avoid spending more than 30% of your pretax income on housing. But that’s usually out of our control. And when you don’t live in a rent-stabilized property in NYC, your housing expenses could increase hundreds of dollars with each lease renewal. 

I learned that the hard way. 

When our lease was up in April, my roommate and I saw that our landlord was proposing a 4.5% annual increase, raising our rent by $200 a month, and costing us each an additional $1,200 over the next year. 

We could’ve easily accepted the increase, but all it took was a bit of research, a well-written email and a quick phone call to get our landlord to budge.

Advertisement

My easy strategy for negotiating rent 

Since our apartment doesn’t have rent-stabilized protections, there’s no legal limit on how much our landlord can increase our rent. Still, the proposed 4.5% bump was much higher than we expected. 

I knew we’d be leaving money on the table if we didn’t at least try to negotiate. Landlords can often appear superhuman, impervious to normal business haggling. But that’s not always true. Here’s what we did to negotiate our rent.

I did research on average rent increases

I started by researching how much average rents had increased in our Brooklyn neighborhood over the last year. I found that average rental prices went up by less than 3% during that time, giving us pretty good leverage to negotiate. I also noted in my email that a 4.5% increase was above the current pace of inflation, which was at 3.4%.

I built my case as a responsible tenant

In many cases, it’s more convenient for a landlord to renew a lease with a responsible tenant than to deal with a vacancy. My roommate and I always pay our rent on time and in full. We alert management to any issues, like a leaking faucet, to prevent further damage or costs to the building. So we had that going for us. 

I figured it was also worth noting recent issues with the apartment. For instance, last fall, there was some pretty major flooding in our bathroom. We’d been disappointed by how long it took the building super to reply to our requests and follow through on the repairs. 

Advertisement

I was prepared to make concessions 

I knew we wouldn’t be able to avoid a rent increase entirely. So I suggested an increase that I felt was in line with the local rental market, the pace of inflation and our reliable rental history.

Instead of 4.5%, I proposed a 2% increase as our starting point. That left us with some wiggle room in our budgets in case our landlord came back with a higher number.

I wrote a professional email 

After we sent the email, the building’s management took about a week to respond. They asked if we could hop on a brief phone call to discuss the terms of our renewal. Our landlord offered an increase of just above 2%, meaning our rent would be going up only $100 a month as opposed to $200. 

AI can help you negotiate with your landlord

 

We didn’t use AI to draft the email to our landlord, but in hindsight, we definitely could have.

 

When putting together this article, I decided to give Gemini, Google’s AI service, a prompt to see if it could help someone write an email to negotiate rent. The result wasn’t too different from the actual email my roommate and I sent.

Advertisement

 

Here’s something you can use as a template to negotiate with your landlord if you’re in a similar situation.

 

Dear [landlord name], 

 

Advertisement

I hope this email finds you well. 

 

I am writing to you regarding the upcoming lease renewal for my apartment [your apartment number]. I have been a resident here for [number] years and have always enjoyed living in the building. 

 

I received the notice of the proposed rent increase to [new rent amount]. Though I understand that rent increases are sometimes necessary, I was hoping we could discuss the possibility of a lower adjustment.

Advertisement

 

Here are a few reasons for my request:

 

[State your reason(s) for the negotiation. Here are some options:]

  • Market research: I have researched comparable apartments in the area and found that the average rent for similar units is [average rent amount].
  • Good tenant history: Throughout my tenancy, I have consistently paid rent on time and in full, taken good care of the apartment, and maintained a positive relationship with you and other residents.
  • Financial hardship: [optional — if applicable, you can briefly explain any financial hardship that makes the increase difficult]
  • Alternative: [optional] I would be happy to sign a longer lease term of [number] years in exchange for a smaller rent increase.

 

I am committed to staying here at [apartment complex name] and believe that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. I am open to discussing different options. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know your availability to discuss this further.

Advertisement

 

Sincerely,

[name]

 

You’ll still need to fill in some details, like information about your specific rental market as well as your experience as a tenant. But it’s a great starting point, especially if writing and sending emails gives you anxiety.

Advertisement

A little self-advocacy can go a long way

The rising cost of living —  for housing, medical expenses and other essentials — isn’t something we can control. But there are small measures we can take to save money and make informed financial decisions that benefit us in the long run.

You’re allowed to ask questions about the bills you receive and advocate for yourself. It won’t eliminate high costs altogether, but it could help you keep more money in your pocket.  

Here are some other costs that are worth negotiating: 

Medical bills and health care costs

You can contact your health care provider, insurer or hospital to negotiate medical costs. Your provider may lower your bill, offer a payment plan or provide financial assistance if you’re a low-income patient or uninsured. Always carefully review your medical bills and look for mistakes, and if you have any questions about the charges, ask your provider. 

Credit card fees and interest

You may be able to get a better interest rate or reduced fees by simply calling your credit card issuer. Before you hop on the phone, though, be sure to research your account’s history and terms, in addition to competing credit card offers, so you can make a strong argument. 

Advertisement

Cable, internet and phone 

Cable, internet and phone providers often lure you in with a low introductory rate. But after a year, your price goes up. You can either contact your provider to see if it has any deals available, or mention you’re considering canceling your service. Your provider would rather keep you as a customer for a lower price than lose your business altogether. 

In my opinion, self-advocacy is an underrated personal finance tool. By speaking up for myself, I avoided spending an extra $1,200 this year. And I won’t be afraid to do it again when my internet provider’s promotional offer expires this summer.

Finance

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

On June 23, members of Congress did something commendable and all too rare: They came together to pass legislation in a broadly bipartisan move to address the housing affordability crisis in the U.S. The new law, designated the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, includes an expansive compilation of 56 separate provisions aimed at increasing the supply of housing, improving access to financing and limiting ownership by large financial institutions.

The act is more evolutionary than revolutionary, since many of the barriers are down to state and local zoning and building codes that are beyond the reach of the federal government. Still, the measure creates a framework for streamlining local permitting, removes several obstacles to expansion of manufactured homes and includes many incremental incentives that should materially improve the supply of residential housing units over time.

Housing affordability has emerged as a public policy priority in recent years, as costs have accelerated faster than incomes since the COVID pandemic. The median price of a single-family home today is $440,000, up 50% over the past six years according to the National Association of Realtors. Zillow reports that the cost to rent a single-family home has risen by 45% over the same period, while apartment rents are up 28%. Meanwhile, median nominal household income has risen by just 25% since 2020.

The housing bill cleared the House of Representatives on a vote of 358 to 32 and passed in the U.S. Senate by a margin of 85 to 5, a commendable accomplishment. However, on June 24, the president abruptly cancelled a scheduled signing ceremony in reaction to the Senate’s unwillingness to pass new voter restrictions, calling the housing act a “big yawn.” Legislators from both parties were blindsided, having anticipated a high-profile bipartisan victory to tout in advance of the approaching midterm elections.

The president’s action did provide Americans with an interesting constitutional lesson. When Congress passes a bill, the president may either sign it into law or veto the bill, challenging Congress to muster a 2/3 majority to override the veto. However, the president can also simply refuse to sign, in which case the bill becomes law after 10 calendar days, excluding Sundays, if Congress is in session. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act therefore went into effect automatically at midnight on July 11.

Advertisement

Among the numerous provisions in the law, a few stand out as particularly promising.

Manufactured housing. In what may be the most impactful action, the act eliminates one of the biggest impediments to expanding manufactured housing: the permanent chassis requirement. Since 1976, thanks to lobbying from traditional homebuilding interests, the federal government has forbidden the removal of the heavy steel trailer on which the unit was built even though 90% are never moved, and many are set on permanent foundations. This rule is risibly applied even in cases where an additional unit was stacked to form a second story. As I wrote in this space in October, factory-built homes can be produced more efficiently and therefore more affordably through mass production techniques. Eliminating the useless chassis after delivery could save a typical buyer an additional 5% and 10% of the purchase price as well as qualifying for more traditional mortgage financing.

Financial incentives to cities. Although the act does not include any additional federal funding, it directs a significant reallocation of existing incentives. The 1970s-era Community Development Block Grant program is reimagined, providing extra grant funding to high-cost metro areas that move aggressively to build affordable housing. The program is cost neutral, transferring funds from other cities that continue to discourage new unit construction through restrictive local policies.

Improving access to financing. Nearly half of the surge in housing costs is due to sharply higher mortgage interest rates since 2020. The housing act cannot impact rates, but it does provide additional access to financing. Small dollar loans of $100,000 or less will now be eligible for Federal Housing Administration guarantees, providing more access to lower-income buyers. The act also more than doubles the Federal Housing Administration loan limit for multifamily housing units.

Promoting rental homebuilding. The role of large institutions in purchasing single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis has garnered significant public attention. The housing bill strikes a constructive balance.

Advertisement

“Large institutional investors”, defined in the bill as investors holding 350 or more single-family residences, are now prohibited from acquiring additional homes subject to specific exemptions. For instance, homes purchased for the specific purpose of renovation for rental are excluded. These institutional investors are also not required to divest their existing holdings.

Importantly, the restrictions do not apply to so-called build-to-rent acquisitions wherein large investors purchase newly constructed homes specifically for rental. Economic research generally finds that large investor ownership tends to push up home purchase prices to buyers but reduces pressure on rent costs by adding to supply, just what the doctor ordered.

Local zoning and permitting reforms. As mentioned above, states and municipalities retain jurisdiction for their own local building and zoning codes, many of which have served to hinder the construction of more affordable residential units. The new housing act directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a template incorporating best practices for modernizing zoning and land use policies to support more housing construction and renovation.

A curiously unrelated addition to the bill forbids the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital cryptocurrency version of the U.S. dollar, called a stablecoin, until 2030. The crypto industry has vigorously opposed an official U.S. stablecoin and accounted for nearly half of all corporate political contributions to federal election candidates in 2024. The president himself has amassed $1.4 billion in profits from his various crypto ventures since taking office in 2025.

Additional elements include a variety of incremental pilot projects, regulatory reforms and tweaks to existing federal housing programs that, taken together, could also have a meaningful impact and set the stage for further progress based upon the results. And perhaps most important: bipartisan cooperation, compromise and agreement.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for $4.3 million loan fraud

Published

on

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for .3 million loan fraud

LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – A former bank chief financial officer was sentenced to three years in prison for a bank fraud scheme involving a car wash and undisclosed debts in a $4.3 million loan scheme.

The Department of Justice said Aaron T. Luneke, 44, of Columbus, was sentenced after being convicted of committing bank fraud and attempted bank fraud in connection with loans he sought to build and operate a Legacy Express Wash, a car wash in Columbus.

According to the DOJ, Luneke was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system.

After his release from prison, Luneke will begin a five-year term of supervised release. Luneke was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

The jury found that Luneke attempted to defraud Stearns Bank, located in St. Cloud, Minnesota, by using fraudulent and inflated contractor invoices to artificially inflate the valuation of the car wash property in pursuit of a $3.5 million refinancing loan. Further evidence at trial established that Luneke failed to reveal significant personal debts owed to family members in connection with the Stearns Bank loan application.

Advertisement

The jury also found that Luneke defrauded Bank of the Valley by submitting fraudulent and inflated invoices from contractors as the basis for additional construction loan proceeds, obtaining two loans totaling approximately $4,320,000.

At the sentencing, the judge found that Luneke’s abuse of his position as chief financial officer at Bank of the Valley significantly allowed for the fraud against the victim bank to occur, and helped to conceal the crime.

The DOJ said the court further determined that Luneke employed sophisticated means to carry out the scheme, and that he served an aggravating role by organizing, leading, managing, or supervising others in executing aspects of the fraud.

Luneke also obstructed justice by providing false testimony during trial and caused a victim to suffer substantial financial hardship.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KOLN. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Finance

Butterfield Readies CIBC Caribbean Purchase

Published

on

Butterfield Readies CIBC Caribbean Purchase

The Bermuda bank agrees to buy a 91.7% stake in CIBC Caribbean Bank for $1.8 billion, creating a regional giant.

This article appears in the July/August issue of Global Finance Magazine.

Butterfield Group has agreed to acquire a 91.7% stake in CIBC Caribbean Bank Limited for $1.8 billion — $1.09 billion in cash and the remainder in shares — in a deal that would create one of the region’s largest banking groups.

This is at least the third time in the past seven years that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) has attempted to sell some of its Caribbean interests.

“This deal combines two storied, complementary banks with significant local scale advantages and time-honored customer relationships in their respective core jurisdictions,” said Michael Collins, Butterfield’s chairman and chief executive, in a statement. 

Advertisement

The new banking group will hold an estimated $29 billion in assets. The Bermuda-based Butterfield Group—formerly The Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited—also operates in The Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.K. CIBC has a presence in 10 countries and is based in Barbados.

CIBC will hold about 22% of the enlarged Butterfield Group and will have the right to appoint two directors to the board. 

The bank’s top brass says the deal underscores a shift in the Caribbean financial sector. 

“This is really a change in Butterfield’s positioning because it now picks up both a retail and a business portfolio that spans the entire gamut of the region, and it probably could make it the biggest bank in the region,” former Butterfield CEO Mariano Browne told the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian.

Butterfield has promised to maintain CIBC’s Barbados office. Customers should expect no immediate changes. Existing branches will remain open, and clients can expect improved cross-border payments and expanded consumer, digital, and merchant banking.

Advertisement

The deal, pending regulatory approval, should close in the first half of 2027.

In 2018, CIBC attempted to list FirstCaribbean on U.S. stock markets to raise up to $240 million but withdrew the application less than a month later after failing to drum up sufficient investor interest. A 2019 deal to sell 66.7% of CIBC to GNB Financial Group for $797 million fell through after the deal failed to secure regulatory approval.

Nic Wirtz is a contributing writer based in Guatemala.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending