Rent-Stabilization Hike: Lose-Lose?

I think it's fair, somewhere right in the middle. Unfortunately, we all have to pay for inflation and rising energy costs.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:02 AM

Squeeze those bitter renters!!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:05 AM

The median rent stabilized/regulated household pays 800/month. Thus, the dollar minimum rent hikes actually mean that the majority of these renters will see rent hikes of at least 5.625% for one year renewals and 10.625% for two year renewals.

I can't believe that no one seems to have reported this in the press.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:08 AM

Could it be any more obvious that Quinn is running for mayor and pandering to all?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:10 AM

Quinn is such a vote whore.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:13 AM

I have a tenant in park slope who has been in his apartment for over 15 years. he pays 500 per month and signs a 2 year lease every time.

he will not be effected by this rate because of the year that he signs the lease. hopefully they will keep the minimum for 6 year residents at $85 per new 2 year lease

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:15 AM

Several ways to improve the housing stock and lower rents long term:
1) 100% vacancy decontrol.
2) A rent stabilized tenant who owns any property (think a house in The Hamptons), is decontrolled.
3) Currently, rents can go to market when the rent is $2,000 and the tenant's income is $175,000 for two years. Anyone making $175,000 for two years would be bumped to market rent, irrespective of the rent.
4) Eliminate "inheritence" rights to apartments.
5) Currently, a property owner can't knock down his 6-unit tenement and replace it with a much larger building because one tenant refuses to leave. Change the law so the tenants have to leave (with some required compensation for the tenants).
6) And last but no least, all rent laws would expire in 20 years (with some exceptions for certain indigent tenants).

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:22 AM

I have no problem with a truly needy case getting a stabilized or controlled apartment, such as an elderly couple on a fixed income. But allowing someone who can afford market rate to remain is wrong. A tenant's finances should be reviewed at each lease renewal and the decision to stay incumbent on need, not longevity. I know of several people who have rent stabilized apartments but own second homes in the Hamptons or in other states. It's a shame that they hoard an apartment that someone else could really use.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:22 AM

$45 rent increase is peanuts

5% or more decline in value on a 500k or better property is not

i will keep renting
not bitterly though

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:24 AM

9:22 yes there are some douchebags who hold on to a rent controlled apartment and have the $ to afford market but not all

my mom has a 2 bedroom in a nice section of queens for $745 a month (she has been there for over 30 years)not the greatest but it is safe and well cared for and clean

thank god she does otherwise she would have trouble staying afloat

not all rent control people are sucking off the city but the ones who are can go to hell

(cyndi lauper is one that comes to mind)

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:28 AM

9:28, yes, your mom sounds like someone whose financial situation would warrant a rent stabilized or controlled apt. As I said, if the need is there, the apt. should be available. But every apt. occupied by someone who can afford market rate is another unit that goes to someone who no longer needs it.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:35 AM

So basically, 9:22 #1, purge the poor. You're such a yuppie. So am I.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:40 AM

In public housing, your income is reviewed and your rent goes up or down, depending on your income. I think tenants in rent stabilized and controlled situations should also be subject to the same financial review. At the very least, it would mean that those with lower incomes get to stay, and those with higher incomes would have the option of moving or taking an increase in rent. For those landlords housing tenants on the lower income scale who are still regulated or controlled, how about a property tax rebate incentive on a sliding scale basis?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:41 AM

I lived in Boston when Massachusetts rent control went out the window across the state. Here's what happened:

-- Elderly tenants had to move out of my building. (After some tried to save money by sitting in the dark and saving on electricity.)

-- Individual apartments got filled by three and four roommates who could afford the escalating rents, making the building denser, dirtier, and noisier.

-- Yearly increases created a transient environment as people rotated in and out; neighbors didn't know each other any more; for the first time, crime began to occur in my building and others nearby, because people didn't know who belonged or not.

-- In nearby Cambridge, the school system lost 25 percent of its kids because so many parents could no longer afford to live there.

And no, I don't live in a rent controlled or stabilized apartment here in New York or support guidelines for personal reasons. I've just seen the adverse impact of deregulation first hand.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:43 AM

Does anyone know what the increases for rent CONTROLLED tenants was?
Is it the same as rent stabilized?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:46 AM

Did anyone see the end of that horrific thread yesterday where Biff went completely insane???

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:50 AM

It's beyond me how renters can complain (note I rent in a 3 family house and am not stabilized).
It's insane that people think they should have an inalienable right to artificially low rent in the Capital of the World.
No one has an automatic right to live in NYC. Why this law that was put in place as a war time measure has been allowed to continue all these years is beyond me. Why should property owners subsides artificially low rents for those who could afford market rate?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:56 AM

9:28 Your mother is living off of someone else's back. Why don't you subsidize her living arrangement? Why does some landlord have to do it?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:12 AM

The idea that 1 million different apartments could be given a blanket mandate of "appropriate" rent increase based on some generalized cost increases is absurd beyond belief and a relic of ignorant thought that for some reason NY clings to. No one should be satisfied until the rent guidelines board is dissolved and the entire system of shortage inducing price controls is abolished forever!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:16 AM

Your taxi fares are also regulated and reviewed by TLC.
Why do I never here such rants about taxi fares?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:20 AM

rents going up is only going to continue to prop up the nyc housing market...

i see rents rising more in the next 2-5 years to come more in line with housing prices.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:21 AM

Retail milk prices are regulated too. I haven't heard too many complaints lately, maybe because we don't have dairy farmers on Brownstoner.

How about we get rid of zoning, too, since it limits the revenue owners can get from their property. I want to tear down my brownstone and build a 10 story finger building on the lot. Why would you deny me that right?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:29 AM

9:50 he's effing nuts. Then he left and was having conversations with himself in an old grocery store thread from june 4th.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:31 AM

How in the world did you find that out, 10:31?

You were scouring the archives of bstoner last night?

So many crazies on this website these days...

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:38 AM

10:38 the active post section on the right side.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:42 AM

ooooooh.....sorry...

Yeah, I just looked and I was in total SHOCK!

The meltdown of Biff, Bxgirl, Dave etc is so SO disturbing.

Like crazy freakin, needing to be locked up disturbing.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:46 AM

Someone who is renting an apartment for 30 years should have bought an apartment when they were going for 20 grand. They would be rich now.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:48 AM

Wow...my 450.00 rent is going up 9% for my two year lease which I will resign in August...oh yeah I live on W.63rd St in a 1 bedroom apt with river views....and I make 52K a year..and I will NEVER move.

Anyone who is mad can kick rocks..

-KAM

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:50 AM

This is EXACTLY why it's good to buy something if you plan to stay in NYC long term.

Otherwise you're going to be 65, retired, on a fixed income and paying 10K a month for a 1 bedroom.

Some people don't factor that into their brilliant math calculations when telling us all how much better it is to rent than own.

What about the 20 years I'm going to live AFTER my mortgage is paid off...?

Doesn't that factor in???

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:51 AM

I'm sorry to hear that, gwbrubaker. Truly.

One could make the argument, however, that in your situation, living in the most expensive city in the country is probably not the wisest idea.

But I wish you the best of luck...

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:00 AM

I totally understand...

I'm really sorry. I've always enjoyed your posts here and hope you find a way to make it work. My heart goes out to you...

We need people like you here, so hopefully things will somehow work themselves out. If I had a place to rent you for cheap, I would offer...

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:09 AM

Why do landlords think they should pass all of the high energy costs to tenents? It's expensive for everyone these days and I am sick and tired of airlines to companies to LANDLORDS passing the buck onto the consumer, or in this case the tenent. It just doesn't make sense to me?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:11 AM

11:11 Move to Cuba.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:27 AM

Thank you, gwbrubaker. Always happy to meet other nice guys...

;-)

Have a great weekend and take care.

- PS neighbor

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:31 AM

THE FREE MARKET AND DEREGULATION WORK!!!

Just look at:

Cable and media,
Oil, gas and coal industries
mortgage and credit industries
Securities.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND THE FREE MARKETS!!!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:38 AM

Am I still paying your rent? did you move out?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:42 AM

bxgrl - please tell me what non-monopoly business does the Govt tell private buisness people - "you make enough, we arent letting you raise prices"?

Yes - Landlords make $ on RS buildings - if they didnt they would abandon them - why would someone risk capital and work hard for no (or little) return?

My greatest objection to the current RS discussion is that rents of private buildings - should be tied to the incomes of individual tenants or landlords.

So if I am an efficient landlord who makes timely repairs and re-invests conscientiously - the (new) RS board will see that I have low expenses and good profits and will tell me - no rent increases for you.

BUT

if I am a lousy landlord, totally inefficient and reactionary and have high costs - the (new) RS Board is going to see low or no profits and say - ok you can have a rent increase

how is that fair - to the landlord or the tenants (why should a tenant subsidize an inefficent landlord with higher rents?)

and what about long-term vs. short-term ownership - so if I have owned a property for years and have a low cost basis and therefore am (finally) making good money - the (new) RS board is going to say no rent increases?
But to the new owner who is loaded with debt and expenses - the (new) RS board will grant an increase?

Sounds ridiculous

and conversely

If I am tenant in a RS apartment who pay 30% of my income for rent and then I work hard and maybe improve my education and thereby get a raise - the (new) RS board is going to say you now have to pay more in rent (thereby disincentivize advancement)

and to the lazy worker who always stays stagnate - the (new) RS board is going to have a rent freeze?

This is the perversion that you people are asking for....

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:17 PM

If the landlords aren't happy with regulations, let them get out of the business. I was born in this city as were my parents and children and am lucky enough to own a house. All you who crab about the right to live in the city should think about who keeps your city running: Who operates mass transit, teaches your kids, hauls away your garbage, cleans your office buildings, fixes your streets. They have just as much right to live here as you do.

Only the arrogant think that what happened to Gwbrubaker can't happen to them.

It's amazing how heartless, and uncaring so many NYers are. Who cares if a few wealthy New Yorkers have a cheap apartment - why punish all the rest.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:18 PM

There are at least two separate issues here:

(1) Should the needy [however defined] have their housing subsidized

(2) Who should subsidize it

If the answer to #1 is yes, the answer to #2 should be the community as a whole. Deciding, through rent stabilization, that landlords are solely responsible for paying for social justice in housing out of their own pockets is like fighting hunger by legislating how much grocers are allowed to pay for food (while the wholesalers they buy from are still allowed to charge as much as they want).

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:21 PM

So 12:18 how many below market renters do you allow to live in your house? Since you're crowing about helping people out you can do your part too right?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:29 PM

12:18 - many LL did get out of the business in the 1970's and early 80's - they walked away - and the result was abandonment, foreclosure and city takeovers of vast number of buildings - this did little to help "affordability" and did alot to make the city even worse for those hard working NYers you claim to care about.

LLs provide an essential service and they are entitled to a profit on that....why doesnt the Government tie the price of food to individuals income and the 'profit' of each grocery store? (some people cant afford food - shouldnt they pay less and why should the grocers get rich off the poor?), why doesnt the Government tie the price of Gas to individual income and the profitibility of gas station owners? (Some people need to use gas and they cant afford it) etc, etc, etc....

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:35 PM

Thank you, 12:17. Good points.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:39 PM

But BxGrl - tax abatements in the RE industry ARE tied to responsibility - you generally only get them for making Capital Improvements, or particpating in some program (energy, tenant assistance, etc...) that has a societial benefit or trade-off.

Further I (and few) are advocating that (legitimatley) low income-disabled-or elderly people should be kicked out of their long-time homes and left to fend for themselves - what I am saying is that the responsibility to help these people out is a societal one - for which we pay the Government to handle on a macro scale - it is wrong (and actually harmful) to put that subsidy soley on the landlord - the Government should subsidize these people - and if that means more taxes for LL (along with EVERYONE else who can afford it) then so be it.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 12:43 PM

I personally believe that rent control/stabilization laws should protect the physically and mentally disadvantaged rather than people who are capable of working and doing better for themselves.

It seems to me that those who live in Rent Controlled/Stabilized apts become financially dependent on their situation in order to live rather than become Financially INDEPENDENT.

This is absolutely the wrong incentive. If people were discouraged from being dependent on things, think about cigarettes, they will break their bad habits of being dependent, if they don't have a disability.

Over the long term, when they realize that they are in trouble unless they buy a place and lock in a fixed rate mortgage, they will be not only better off, but will have a much higher net worth.

I actually encourage all my tenants to buy eventually and explain to them that they should not look at the immediate gratification of lower rents now, but at the pain of higher rents tomorrow.

Only an opinion.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 1:04 PM

"Are there no mitigating benefits when a landlord has rent controlled or stabliized tenants?"

No there isnt - the only benefit that is even possible is that the 'law' has mandated yearly increases (even though sometimes the market rate rents fall) - but that is more than offset by the fact that the LL has no right to raise rents when the market rate increases faster than the stabilization rate.

But no there is no benefit, tax wise, income wise or otherwise to owning rent stabilized apts vs. market rate and there are tons of disadvantages including costly administration.
Now I am not saying you cant make any $ owning RS buildings - you can - but the LL doesnt get any benefit for owning RS properties.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 1:04 PM

The truly amazing thing is that NYC did not just completely implode and burn down in the late 1970's and early 80's given the pseudo-soviet leanings of the local government back then, rent control included. But the city did muddle through somehow and old run-down rental buildings started going co-op. More and more New Yorkers owned rather than rented. Suddenly "pre-war apartment" took on a glamorous, rather than grim, connotation. People took care of their investement and the housing stock, long ignored, was suddenly valuable and desirable again. Not just as low-cost flophouses but as real family homes. Let rent control and that whole disasterous period be a lesson to us as to how wrong the "best and brightest" (products of Old Money and the Ivy League) can be. And how fathomless their contempt is for their fellow citizens although that contempt is carefully wrapped in self-rightous self-aggrandizing pieties.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 1:28 PM

As a resident of Boston I can tell you that rent control lead to significant neglect of buildings and greatly contributed to the dereliction of neighborhoods. Landlords had no incentive to maintain property that they could not make an profit on. Entire swaths of the city became so run down, no one wanted to live in them, the tax base evaporated and the city pretty much abandoned streets. There was significant arson for profit in the 70s and 80s since the quality renters, who are almost impossible to evict, and rental rates were so poor, the only profit was to collect insurance money. Since rent control was nixed in the city property upkeep has increased exponentially. What were once almost exclusively abandoned neighborhoods have been completely renovated. Grand apartments, townhouses, mansions, etc. which had fallen into ruin or worse, have reverted back to their original pre-rent control uses.

Why is it wrong to allow a property owner to charge the market value of a property in order to maintain it and make some profit?

Jealousy and misplaced altruism do not jive with the reality of market forces. Economics are rooted in math and logic, emotions aren't.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 1:51 PM

I don't think he sounded bitter at all ... made good points.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:06 PM

No, bitter seldom.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:10 PM

"But in this country deregulation has always driven prices up for everything"

Really - not airfare, not telephone, not financial services....

I wouldaddress the rest of your post but since the basic premise is wrong I dont feel the need - except to say - of course RS/RC didnt 'cause' all the problems in the 1970's and 80's but it certainly didnt help and almost certainly caused the problems in housing to spread wider and to last longer than otherwise might have.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:33 PM

No landlord is "subsidizing" tenants unless he or she personally purchased their building before rent stabilization began, about 70 years ago. Sales prices for investment properties are based on the legal rental income, and landlords are GUARANTEED a fair return based on the price -- however excessive -- they paid.

The landlords on this thread who want rent control abolished are just looking for a handout -- an undeserved, unmerited, lottery win at the expense of everyone else in the city.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:34 PM

YOU ALL DO KNOW THAT BXGIRL IS BIFF, RIGHT...???!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:56 PM

@2:34 Those with rent-control on this thread who are just looking for a handout -- an undeserved, unmerited, lottery win at the expense of everyone else in the city.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:01 PM

2:34 - I have been arguing against RS (12:17,12:43, 1:04, 2:33) and I agree with you to a point.....
Yes an abolishment of RS at this point would be a lottery win for current owners and so I dont favor that. But conversely, the current proposals to tie RS increases to the income of the LL and/or the tenant is an insane proposal and is not/was not part of the 'deal' when current owners invested in their properties. The reality is that the RS Board process is a sham - and an embarrassment to all. The increases should be tied to some regional inflation/COLA number and take the arbitrary and silly politics out of it.

I also must take exception to the notion that a fair return is guaranteed in the purchase price of RS apartments. 1st of all many properties are sold at prices that actually see a loss - b/c the buyer believes he will see cap gains and/or income increases in the future (see Stuy Town) - which if not realized b/c of changing market prices will result in perpetual losses. Now since I dont endorse rank speculation like that - even when properties are bought with a projected return - it is far from guaranteed factors such as...fuel costs, taxes, water, non-paying tenants, new regulations(like local law 11), legal expenses, liability insurance, etc... can all spike in unexpected and historically unusual ways (like in any business) and can easily take a building that had a projected return and create a loss very quickly.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:04 PM

It is also worth noting that the end of RS would be a boon for all those tenants who are living in or contemplating moving into apartments with market rate rents - there is no question that having 1M apartment dwellers suddenly having no incentive to stay in their current apartment (other than non-$ related factors) will bring a TON of apartments on the market at once and will result in the 'market rate' apartment rent falling (true - it will be at the expense of those who are currently enjoying below markt rate rents now)

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:12 PM

I worked and saved very hard for 3 years in the late 80's to buy a RS building. alot of money and sweat went into keeping the apartments in good shape. Although the area has changed a great deal and market rents are high...I am still getting rents that are way below market ($560 average).

So even though I own a large brownstone in one of the hottest area's in brooklyn...I STILL HAVE TO WORK A 9-5 JOB!

There is no way I would be able to support my family on the building's income alone!

So yes, I do believe that I should be compensated better for investing most of my hard earned money to ensure my tenants have a good place to live.

If the landlords did not take care of their buildings in park slope....the place would be a dump!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:23 PM

If the rents are deregulated, is will also end the hording of apartments that are way too big for the amount of people living there.
If your one person and only paying $1000 per month for a 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment in a doorman building 1/2 a block from Central Park, there is no incentive for you to move, even though your kids have long since moved out (and yes I know person that has this deal for their stabilized apartment). But if your subject to market rent, you will end up looking for some place that is not meant to house an entire family.

Now if you can afford a market rent 3 bedroom *just* for your self, then hey go for it, but why should the landlord subsidize your spreading out to such a large space just because you inherited the stabilized apartment? People rent these places, there should be no birthright to inherit a stabilized apartment. Why is something that is not owned being passed down?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:26 PM

3:26 - is absolutely correct. The inheritance law is crazy.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 3:49 PM

The people sitting in their Upper West Side rent stablized 2-bedroom apartments who could have bought them for $100,000 in the 1980's are the true losers.

2:34 - yes rent control started 70 years ago. But rent stabilization started in the 1970's.

As an aside, if NYC never had rent control, there would have been so many more rental buildings constructed, along far fewer coop conversions, that market rents would be a fraction of what they are now.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:00 PM

Polemicist - not sure what is funny

BXGRL or BIFF or whomever said deregulation leads to higher prices - I was simply citing three examples of where deregulation led to lower prices. And since I do not want to get into a debate on the good or bad effects of the Fed - I will say that my example of deregulation in Financial Services had to do with commissions - which were originally regulated and then deregulated and led to an incredible and rapid fall in cost.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:01 PM

Landlords and their advocates who complain about the infringement of their property rights are missing the point. RR isn't about property rights. It's about the group ("society") using public policy to try and create the kind of world we want to live in. You can disagree with that or not, but it's fundamental to the way public policy is conducted in this country, both for better or for worse (think marriage penalty, or the farm bill). Rent regulation, specifically, exists because the majority of the group implicitly consents to it by: choosing to live in NYC, where RR exists; paying taxes to support the abatements that go to landlords who have chosen to participate in the program by purchasing or building property that's subject to the RR laws; and voting for representatives that don't repeal the RR laws.

So, why does the majority of the group support this system? For myself, it's because I don't want to live in a New York that is populated exclusively by the rich who can afford market rents in new luxury buildings. I don't want to incent developers to tear down all the old tenement buildings and brownstones every chance that they get so they can build new glass boxes and maximize their returns. I want college grads who don't have trust funds, and elderly people who don't have multi-million-dollar bank balances, and the working poor who do most of the dirty work to make everyone else's lives in NYC so much easier and more pleasant - all to be able to live in NYC. I moved to Manhattan when I made 20K 15+ years ago, and RR was what made that possible - and I don't want to pull the ladder up behind me just because I'm a landlord now. Obviously I speak only for myself. But complaining about the violation of property rights in a lot of ways proves the point of RR - many, if not most, of us don't want to live in a NYC where individual property rights are the primary guiding principle behind public policy.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:13 PM

4:13 Like you said you are speaking for yourself so please open YOUR wallet.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:19 PM

bxgirl = biff's loser wannabe lover

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:20 PM

4:13 - but what if the truth is that while RR helped YOU, on a macro level it actually results in a NYC that is more like the one you DO NOT want - then what?

I havent heard too many people argue against RR based soley on a 'property rights' argument - Frankly you can remove LL entirely from the equation and you still have the issue of - is it good to have a system that causes market rate tenants to pay more so that below market rate tenants can pay less.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:36 PM

4:33 - virtually everyone agrees with that - the question I have is why does someone who invests and manages a grocery store (for example) potentially pay less for the "greater good" than someone who invests in and manages an apartment building?

Both are required to pay taxes on income, and gains , plus fees for services like water and fuel (and other associated taxes), - so why does it make sense that only the property owner whould "pay" more by directly foregoing income to benefit (not necessarily 'needy') tenants?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:42 PM

"The regulation of the financial industry has in fact created a century of diminished access to capital"

What the heck are you smoking, Polemicist?

Seriously.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:51 PM

4:36 - 4:13 here. While it is undeniably true that there are a few people abusing the RR system, that's true of almost any system. Anecdotal evidence of a few people here and there living in below-market housing when they could afford more doesn't make the RR system fundamentally broken. Personally, I believe the goal should be to maintain a stable pool of RR housing, so that we can preserve the economic and social diversity that makes this city such an amazing place to live. I'm no public policy wonk, but introducing a means test sounds like a good idea, as long as it takes into acount more than a couple years of income, and as long as it is tied to rolling back vacancy decontrol.

4:19 - I already have opened my wallet, as has every other taxpayer in NYC. Ultimately the RR system is subsidized by us, just like all other economic public policy.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 4:55 PM

Brownstoner, you incorrectly summerized the new rent increases.

The $45/mo and $85/mo increase is not in addition to the rent percentage increase, it is in place of it, if the tenant has been in residence for more than six years.

This is an unfortunate error. Please be more careful in the future.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 5:02 PM

4:55 - if you means test for RR then essentially you will incentivize landlords only renting to people of means (at least enough means to not qualify for RR)

And people who enjoy below market rate rent rent are not "abusing the system" - the system puts no weight on income (except for luxury decontrol).

If you want to maintain a diverse society wouldnt it make alot more sense to have total vacancy decontrol and Rent Stabilization on ALL apartments (i.e. not just the ones built pre '74)? And maintain a robust system of direct subsidy for the working poor, diabled and other vulnerable communities?

Under this system no one is 'forced' to move and everyone who is renting can have a reasonable expectation of future rents ( I mean why should the 90K yr person - paying market rate rent - be forced to move any quicker than the 30K a year person paying a RR when the whims of society drastically pushes up the rent in one neighborhood or another?) If all this is about maintaining societal cohesion and stability - then why is RR limited to only certain aged buildings?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 5:13 PM

Actually, 5:13, the usual implication of a means test for RR is that a regulated unit can only be rented to someone who meets an income test - not the other way around as you suggest.

Like everything else, RR has to strike a balance between preserving diversity and preserving a free market for both renters and landlords. Universal regulation would remove the incentive to develop a range of properties at various price points to serve a full range of renter preferences. Some people want to (or can only afford to) live in an $800 sixth floor walkup; some people want to live in a $10K penthouse.

I don't think anyone would argue that the RR system as it exists today is the best possible implementation. It's actually the worst - except for all the other ones.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 5:26 PM

"I'm living in a dream world on that one."

Posted by: bxgrl at June 20, 2008 4:33 PM

So true!

Since, by your own admission, you live in your friend's building, you don't get to decide or have an opinion about how RR or the free market work or have an impact on real people. You are not part of either equation.

Off to be a whore this weekend, Biff?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 6:26 PM

I am 100% CERTAIN that BIFF, BXGRL AND NOKILISSA ARE THE SAME PERSON.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 7:09 PM

"I did line in one, until I decided to move to CH. But i also confess to being a little confused."

A little HA! and I line in one too Bx.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:01 PM

3:23, by what logic did you assume you could quit your day job if you bought one measly brownstone and rented it out?

There are a lot of old-timers in my neighborhood -- ex-cops, ex-sanitation workers, ex-LIRR conductors -- who each acquired multiple apartment buildings during their career lives and who worked their day jobs till they day could retire and take their pensions. Before then, they spent their weekends working on their buildings.

That was how NYC real estate was before the fast-buck artists jumped into the game. It was an income *supplement*. You weren't Donald Trump just because you owned one lousy walk-up.

Rent stabilization had been in effect for 15 years by the late 1980s. You bought that building knowing it was stabilized, what the law was and that your tenants' rents would be indexed by the rent board, probably forever.

So whose fault is it that you didn't invest that money in Microsoft stock instead? Albany?

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:13 PM

Many hard working immigrants live in these places. They come to NY for a better life for their families, and work 12-16 hour days 6 or 7 days a week in sh**ty jobs that you wouls never do, but someone needs to do. The rent control allows them to save their money and send their children to college so the 2nd and 3rd generation can be the next middle class that will pay taxes for your social security and to keep this city running.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:30 PM

so give you a break Bx many others here would question your education. Save it you're not cute!

So you kept on renting while the conditions were crappy, just because it was a RS apt that’s the bottom line! Stop pretending.

How much was your rent? 300.00 in prime CH?
(Is there such an area anyway?)

I myself is sick and tired of supporting slick people like you.
This blog proves that you have way too much time on your hands. You are always bashing owners here and you were sucking the blood out your landlord and expected new tiles! Get out the hell out of here.

PS: if you are really retarded and can’t wipe your ass for shit and need the RS apt... My bad.
Please don’t jump up the basement coal chute opening in an attempt to end your retched life.

Besides I don’t need you writing letters complaining about me to Mr B. Yeah I read the grocery store thread Brown nose!

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 9:38 PM

It is a peculiar twist that the free marketers as they like to refer to themselves had no problem with the great big government rushing in to save the ass of the financial markets, thereby they figure saving their own precious one. I was in business since I was in my 20's, and I started from zero. Never did I think anyone should support my income. When landlords make a fortune in profits, they don't share it with the tenants. When costs are high, why should tenants subsidize landlords, how are we responsible for their income. I'll tell you what, if a landlord can't make money in the city then they should get the hell out, right, free marketers? In fact, we'll all go.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 10:16 PM

I am an owner. I own a rent stabilized building in Brooklyn. Let me tell you how it is.
I have good tenants. they pay the rent. fine.
No less than three of these tenants have homes in their home country. No joke. they've shown me the photos.
They go to and fro a few times a year. They got the apartments before I owned the building. there is no background income/asset check required. They got the apartments and pay a relatively low rent that subsidizes their lifestyle in (dominican republic/puerto rico/trinidad), take your pick.
Many live with extended families, that help maintain the properties here and there.
Now if this is my story and I am only a single landlord, how many folks in rent stabilized apartments are really in need of subsidizing?
I continue to play the game as it is set up. and I continue to increase the rent as allowed by the People's Republic of New York.
But let me tell you, like most entitlement programs, if you are giving something away, people will naturally flock to take it. whether they need it or not.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 11:16 PM

"to commit suicide you jump DOWN a coal chute, not up."

Yes but since YOU live in a sub-basement with no windows.... and being that you're so smart, you probably would try and jump UP the chute after reading some virtual, crazy, frantic, twisted guest post.

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 1:09 AM

Bx, fresh air now!

YOU simply didn’t get it. It was over your head like, everything and everyone in life.

You’re a real nut case you know! Please stop it with the alter aliases already.

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 2:13 AM

"no, I pay far more than 300$. Unlike you, I've always paid my way, never sucked the blood of anyone."

For the record last week you said you rented for 4 generations. And today, come to find out it was a RS apt.

WTF Dracula?

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 2:37 AM

Heather,
What are you talking about? That poster at 11:16 wasn't even complaining and you're going all off on an argument he didn't make.

The point of that post was that the city needs to look real hard at the very idea of subsidizing housing when so many people don't actually need subsidizing.

Stop making excuses for people's lack of accountability in our society. If they don't need subsidizing, they shouldn't be subsidized. If you are in need, you should be able to prove you are in need.

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 8:24 AM

BXGRL IS OFFICIALLY THE MOST IGNORANT POSTER ON BROWNSTONER.

EVER!!!!

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 1:59 PM

bxgrl = montrose morris

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 4:52 PM

i don't like bxgirl either. she/he seems like a self-righteous snob.

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 6:43 PM

Awesome comments so far.

Say, anyone a fan of titfucking?

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 7:35 PM

bxgrl sounds like she's a know it all. without regard for listening to alternative views. you just know she's a bitter renter.

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 8:16 PM

I can not afford to fill my car up with gas to get to work or buy groceries to last until parday even though I am working my ass off. I live in a two-fare zone in Brooklyn but work in the Bronx on the second shift. Can the city please subsidize and/or regulate the price of gas and food?

Posted by: guest at June 21, 2008 10:53 PM

http://www.cafepress.com/FireMTANow

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 1:38 AM

Here in a nutshell is the problem with rent stabilization. Gov. Paterson gets $179,000 and lives in a 2-bedroom doorman building where he pays $1,250 a month because he is stabilized. Christine Quinn makes $141,500 a year and pays $1,500 because she is stabilized.

Why do people vilify landlords instead of politicians?

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 3:27 AM

8:16- yeah but all you guys are such know-nothings. What that has to do with renting, got no clue. But it does make you seem even dumber than you think she is.

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 10:39 AM

renting is so low class

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 12:29 PM

you should know low class, 12:29- you define it

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 1:22 PM

10:39 = Biff in shining armor

Posted by: guest at June 22, 2008 6:37 PM

One day...when I grow up...I want to rent an apartment!

Posted by: guest at June 23, 2008 12:43 AM

"Someone who is renting an apartment for 30 years should have bought an apartment when they were going for 20 grand. They would be rich now."

Don't you think that they would have if a) there had been available apartments, b) they had the cash and c) they could have gotten financing?

Posted by: guest at June 23, 2008 2:29 PM