Hellish Landlord Drawing Protest in the Slope

I find it very odd that whenever I see a story like this, the discussion rapidly turns into the pros and cons of rent stablization, or "move if you don't like if we are not communists". Such "arguments" have no bearing on whether the landlord is following the law, and are simply a crock. A landlord has obligations, by law, to the tenant, and the landlord must follow the law, if said landlord breaks that law, then that landlord should be placed in jail like any other lawbreaker.

Posted by: liekiller at October 31, 2005 2:08 PM

Once again a number of you are mixing oranges with grapes, the issue is that a landlord is breaking the law, NOT whether rent control/stablization is good or not. A landlord can't decide "gee, I want to stop following the law and turn off the heat in winter because I don't like the rent stablization thing". A landlord gives up rights in a property when he/she accepts money from a tennant. A landlord can no longer do whatever he/she wants, thats why they get paid, that is the bargain they made. A landlord is required by law to provide things like hot water, etc. A landlord can not decide "I don't want to do that now because I want to sell the building because the building is more valuable now and so I will drive the tennants out by breaking the law."
The argument many of you are making is simlar to saying I don't like stop signs they slow me down, and keep me from driving as fast as I want, so therefore I am going to feel free to speed and run people over to make up for having to stop. You don't get to ignore and break one law because you don't like a different law. A landlord does not get to break the law and place people's health and safety at risk because the landlord no longer likes the deal he/she made. If a landlord does not want to own a rent control/stablized building, then don't buy it in the first place, its that simple. Its like anything else, if you don't want the responsbility, then don't do it in the first place.

Posted by: liekiller at October 31, 2005 3:40 PM

no, not everyone does agree that you have to follow the law, that is, apparently, the problem with the landlord in question. The landlord is trying to drive people out by breaking the law, that is exactly the problem and you keep trying to make it about something else. Iam starting to wonder if you are the landlord in question, or know the landlord in question, or are a landlord who practices such things, and therefore have a conflict of interest in this discussion which you should reveal?
There are plenty of landlords who absolutly refuse to follow the law. Maintaning a building in compliance with things like the fire code has nothing to do with "RS" or "RC".
Yes there are many cheaper places in other areas of the country, places like Iowa. Go to Hoboken, its not cheap there is it? Its the same as NYC, or maybe you think Greenwich Conn. is so cheap? Where around NYC is it "cheap" huh? Patterson NJ or some other dump? Please tell me where I can get a 1 bedroom apartment around here in a decent area for $500? Where? Where is "your many cheaper alterntives" tell me. You can't because it does not exist anywhere around here in the entire tri-state area, in places where there is not "RC" or "RS".
Furthermore "RC" and "RS" is not limited to NYC, it also exists statewide, and if you go upstate NY, its cheaper. Its not "RC" or "RS" that makes it more expensive, its the fact that the population of the city increased 750,000 in the last 10 years and there are more people who want to live here then there are places to live, that and the fact that landlords can charge and get high rent. Moreover, the argument that new apartments do not get built is simply not true, places are going up all over, have you been to willamsburg, or queens or downtown brooklyn? It does not "freeze" the market because new apartments are not subject to "RC" or "RS". And by the way $1,800 dollars, which is still "RS" in NYC is not a cheap apartment anywhere else in the country. As for forcing a landlord to charge below market, nobody made them buy the building, the landlord knew it was rc or rs when bought, they made the deal, its not anyone else's fault or responsibilty that said landlord was not smart enough to know there own mind, or too irresponsible to know what they bought. As for property taxes, etc and landlord who are losing moeny, tooo darn bad, its not the teneant's fault that a landlord is too stupid to make money legally off apartments in the most expenseive housing market in the country and he/she should be out of business.

Posted by: liekiller at October 31, 2005 6:01 PM

Joshk you argue that rc and rs raise the cost of non rc apartments and ask for proof that they do not and yet you offer no proof of your own. I wonder also if you considerd, when you made your comments, all the tax breaks and special deals that landlords get for rs housing, who is that costing? Certainly not the landlords.
I await your nomiation for a noble.
And to your other "absurd comment", yeah landlords are going broke, just look at poor donald trump, or broke leona helmsely or the tishman group, or extell, or the day group, obviosuly they figured it out. To blame a landlord who can't make money legally on tennants who assert their legal rights when slum lords violate the law is absurd. Talk about blaming the victum.

Posted by: liekiller at November 1, 2005 3:37 PM

Those websites do not offer any proof, they merely offer opioion and diatrad, which is far from facts or proof. One is for the cato instutite, which is a right wing think tank that has nothing to do with reality. The website that you listed as "center" is also simialar, and uses for its "facts" the opions of candians, swedes, etc (no disrespect to swedes or candains or etc, I happen to like em) and the website that you listed for the left makes no argument pro or con as to the virtues of rent control. That is proof? Where is a stastical break down? Where are facts? Where are figures? You could maybe start with something like NYC (not canada) average rent for a studio, 1,2, and 3 bedroom apartments, bourgh by bourgh, rc and rs vs. "free market" and then offset and compare that against various other economic factors. But you did'nt do that, you merely refered me to some other persons opinion. That is not proof.
Now please prove to me why landlords should be allowed to break the law because they don't want to deal with rs or rc even thought they knew thats what they were buying and who that serves, which is the real subject of this thread.

Posted by: liekiller at November 1, 2005 4:40 PM

sigh, once again you refuse to answer the question of why should landlord be allowed to break the law when they no longer feel like dealing with rc and rs and instead create a straw-argument laced with juvinile taunts that you prop up with links to websites authored by right-wing koo-koo bananas groups or housing assocaitions that have a vested interest in distorting the truth. You have not offered a singel scientific study by a dis-interested person or group. The first time you gave three websites. One was an artilce from the NY times which did not even argue the merits or lack of merits of rc and rs. I still don't even understand why you linked that. Brilliant. One from the cato instutite, and the other from a simialar group which were links to artilces that contained obvious and factual falsehoods such as "landlords can't get an incraease in rent if heating costs go up" (paraphrase), which is not true. In NY landlords DO get a rent increse for such things. These articles simply lie, and is not proof of anything, despite your contnetion that everyone says it, so it must be true. Yeah, and germans all thought hitler was great too but that did not work out very well did it?
The second batch of websites is no better (did you even read these?) One, I needed a password to get into and so who knows what it says, the other is from a guy not at MIT but the Manhattan Instutite (yeah REAL objective there) and his whole argument is that people who live in rc or rs apartments are already paying the market rate anyway and so rc and rs don't matter, if it went away rents would hardly change in any direction, that its basically a wash. Thats your "its a done deal" arguement?
The third is from a housing association bent on raising rent, leveraging landlord positions, and geneally are hostile to anything not allowing them to do whatever they want and their article cites such insightful stats to bolster their argument as "areas around boston had higher vaccanies than boston did when rent control was in effect" Really? Duh, no kidding, a city has more people than a crappy suburb, how astounding. That proves EVERYTHING!!!! YOU WIN THE NOBLE PRIZE GENUIS!!!!!
I also really enjoy the effort you made to artifically narrow that discussion and then to make a few inflamatory comments as well, (hence my hostile reply to you) while at all times avoiding answering the question of why landlords should be allowed to break the law. Good job.
So since we are on the subject of boston, which ended rent control, here are some numbers for you to consider:
While it is true that new consturtion has built new buildings, it has not helped matters contrary to what your supply-voodoo economics would have us belive.
In a study conducted by Harvard University the data demonstrated that Boston has become one of the most expensive and least affordable palces to live and that the average rent went from $825 dollars when it was rent stablised, to $1,700 after rent controls ended. Gee rents went up, what a suprise, what happened to your theory there loudmouth? I thought they were supposed to come down?
According to the Mass. Assocation of Realators, Boston has a vacany rate of less than 1%. Why? Because even though there is new apartments going up they are just replacing the old buildings got knocked with new buildings at higher rent, thus not resulting in a higher net of housing, thus making rents actually go up.
The Donohue Institue at the Univertisy of Mass found that evictions after rent control ended increased 64% and that homelessness doubled. Now Mass. is trying to bring rent control back.
Seesh, I am going to go back to craigs list where at least the b.s. is funny and creative.

Posted by: liekiller at November 2, 2005 11:25 AM

no retard the board adjust EVERY TWO YEARS not every one year, as you incorrectly claim in your last post. You can go to their website right now and see for yourself. Yes they do get an increse for things, sheesh go to their website, you can even download the form. You can't even get something like that correct, and you want to talk about numbers? What a joke. You are clearly the one who does not a darn thing about this and you are clearly just making stuff up.

Posted by: liekiller at November 2, 2005 4:24 PM

no thanks I get enough spam already, and yours isn't even funny.

Posted by: liekiller at November 2, 2005 4:39 PM