« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

February 3, 2009

Democratic Assembly Passes Pro-Tenant Legislation

In a potentially huge set-back to New York City landlords, the New York State Assembly passed a new package of legislation yesterday that strengthen's rent regulation across the state and gives more authority to the pro-tenant New York City Council. According to The Times, the new rules would "essentially return to regulation tens of thousands of units that were converted to market rate in recent years" and reduce the amount a landlord is allowed to increase the rent upon a vacancy from 20 percent to 10 percent. “It’s a matter of fairness,” said Jonathan L. Bing, an assemblyman who represents the Upper East Side. “We’re trying to give people a way to live out their lives in the neighborhoods they’ve been calling home for decades.” On the other side of the coin: “This is going to be very devastating,” said Joseph Strasburg, president of the Rent Stabilization Association, a group that represents landlords and real estate agents in the city. “New York City is the last big city in the country that has any strong form of rent regulation. And at a time when we have an economic recession, when rents are actually going down, this will put another nail in the coffin.” In our opinion, the government should spend more time and resources making sure landlords adequately maintain their buildings and abide by the legal terms of their leases with tenants and less time trying to fight the laws of supply and demand. After all, rents are already coming down anyway.
Assembly Passes Rent-Regulation Revisions [NY Times]
Photo by Bobble

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8252

Comments

good news.

Curious...can anyone explain to me why NYC is so beholden to the NY Assembly for what should be local issues? Rent control is not the only issue that's not in control of the city.

Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 9:06 AM

BOOOOOOYYYAAAAAAA!!!!!!

The What (Obama will save the landlords)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 9:13 AM

IronBalls?

Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 9:16 AM

Rent regulation has been a horrible experiment. The law of unintended consequences always takes over when men and women of limited intellectual means attempt to regulate markets. This is bad long-term news for renters.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 9:16 AM

I believe they want to raise the cap from $175,000 to $250,000, and the deregulated rent from $2,000 to $2,750. So how does this help working-class New Yorkers who make 50K and pay $1,000 rents?

60 years of disasterous rent control and rent stabilization, and these morons still haven't learned anything.

Posted by: Suburbandude at February 3, 2009 9:20 AM

Bad news in my opinion.

Why does everyone assume that all landlords are wealthy conglomerates or land barons that don't need the increases?

With real estate tax going up, increases in utilities, and a recession building owners, especially the individual owners who rely on the rents to pay the mortgage and operating expenses, are going to be faced with tough times. Tough times that no one wants to acknowledge.

When rents are forced down by this regulation and the small landlords can't afford to pay for heat or pay the mortgage and get foreclosed on, who is going to champion their cause?

I'm sick of this demonetization of landlords and this repulsion to individual rights and success. If a landlords wants to charge $3k for an apartment let them. If they can't get it, that is their problem.

The market/economy should dictate value. The government should not.

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 9:21 AM

Joseph Strasburg would be better spokesperson if he didn't say something as awkward as "very devastating".

Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 9:23 AM

I, of course, am in agreement with the other free market capitalists above.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 9:23 AM

yeah, unregulated markets are the new big thing. They'll get us out of financial mess. Just ask Rush L. and rest of the nut jobs.

Posted by: Petebklyn at February 3, 2009 9:30 AM

"I, of course, am in agreement with the other free market capitalists above."

So Dave that means you are against "Bailouts" for Wall Street Assheads, right?

"Rent regulation has been a horrible experiment. The law of unintended consequences always takes over when men and women of limited intellectual means attempt to regulate markets. This is bad long-term news for renters."

This "experiment" was in place before you moved to this city Dumbass!

"The law of unintended consequences always takes over when men and women of limited intellectual means attempt to regulate markets"

This can apply to our Government and the imploding Mutant Asset Bubble!! You want thing to be one way and the next second the other. There will be some form of Government Intervention one way or another.

If you have a problem maintaing a building, you should sell it ASAP. No one forces people to become Landlords.

The What (Obama will save us, right?)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 9:32 AM

This of course comes the same week that we discussed rents falling around 20% in NYC due to.... wait for it... market conditions. Most elected representatives are happy to support a bad idea if it will give them a shred of popularity with a public that can barely be trusted to balance their checkbooks.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 9:33 AM

I don't think rent stabilization is going to go away any time soon when we have NY senators and the Governor having rent stabilized places.

On a practical note - surely the presence of rent stabilization is factored into the purchase price a landlord pays for the place?

Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 9:38 AM

I shudder to think that I am about to engage The What on an issue of substance, but here goes:

What, not all regulation is bad. Not all government intervention in the markets is bad. There are examples of smart intervention. TARP (the success of which is properly measured by how much worse things could be, not how much better we wish they were) is one such example. The current bailout package is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. Rent regulation was and continues to be a very bad idea.

TARP was designed by a very smart group of people who were able to move very fast under emergency conditions. The current bailout bears none of these traits.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 9:40 AM

in other words - Regulation is good if benefits the powers that be and the wealthy but when benefits ordinary people it is bad for society. Motto of a true republican.

Posted by: Petebklyn at February 3, 2009 9:48 AM

This is what I said would happen months ago.

The Democrat politicians in this city are beholden to the system scamming immigrant masses who elected them. What's so surprising?

I'm worried, but I don't think I'll be in much trouble unless they force landlords to actually lower rents, which I suppose is always possible with the extreme pandering that goes on in NYC politics.

What are they trying to achieve by putting $2500/mo studio apartments in Soho back under regulation? Obviously the single professionals living in such apartments won't be effected by regulation one way or the other.

Out of sixty apartments I own, there's only one family living in any of them, and it's mine!

What "middle class families" are they talking about protecting? Under the current rent laws, as long as the tenant really occupies his regulated apartment, he can't be evicted anyways.

As usual, NYC Democrat politicians are pandering "what else can we give you?" fools.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 9:48 AM

Do anyone knows why we have rent stabilization?????!!! First it was put in place after WW2 because Landlords was gouging servicemen coming home from war. Plus the city build the Projects to provide housing for returning servicemen. is not for RS middle and lower class of people could not afford NY.

Now the reason for Rent Stabilization is if you remove RS rents would DROP!!!!!!! Yeah DROP and that would be very bad for landlords because they would have to compete for tenants! The Landlords would cut back on vital services and you would have slums instead of Apartment buildings! Ask anyone who grew up in the Bronx if they want to return to the days of that crap..

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 9:53 AM

IronBalls, today I have to heartily agree with you. The system will become a real clusterf(&ck if they try to bring currently deregulated units back into the system. Insane.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 9:53 AM

Christopher,

I'm also sick of this demonetization of landlords.In this time of economic trouble it's important to have strong currency, backed by something of value. It's comforting to know that each of my dollars is worth X number of landlords :-)

I also agree that it's unfair to demonize them (even though I was, more or less, brought up to do so).

Posted by: Bob Marvin at February 3, 2009 9:54 AM

Rent regulation exists because the market has failed New Yorkers. New York City needs affordable housing for the thousands of workers on whom the city depends that cannot afford market rates. If the market was working, it would not need government intervention.

Vacancy decontrol completely undermines the rent regulation system. Overturning vacancy decontrol is necessary to make rent regulation effective.

Posted by: geekyfemme at February 3, 2009 9:57 AM

In addition to posting comments here, I'd suggest that people make their opinions known to their state assembly representatives. It seems to me the majority of people on this board understand how unfair and destructive these laws have been but I think the bozos in Albany don't realize how many small landlords there are out there with rent regualated/stablized tenants. Find out how they voted on the bill and let them know how you feel.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at February 3, 2009 9:59 AM

Those Dem politicians could kill the NYC real estate market if they're successful, which is highly likely.

Landlords who purchased buildings in the last ten years with big mortgages expecting a certain amount of rent regulated attrition could be wiped out.

The What will be dancing in the street as the market crumbles. It's a horrifying thought.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 10:04 AM

The What - the reason the Bronx burned in the 1970's is because landlords, thanks to rent control (most buildings were built before 1947 and were subject to onerous rent regulations), had negative cash flow! There was no money for a new boiler, new roof or new windows. No bank would lend to them. So the buildings were abandoned and/or torched. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

If NYC wants rent stabilization, then landlords should be reimbursed by the city for a large percentage of the difference between market rents and stabilized rents. The burden of subsidies should not be on the landlords.

Posted by: Suburbandude at February 3, 2009 10:04 AM

Our state government is truly dysfuntional. The state is facing a budget gap on the order of 10's of billions of dollars,and what do the political hacks in Albany have on their mind: extending rent protection to those making $200,000 or more. Brilliant!

Do these hacks ever stop to ask themselves how other big cities manage without rent control?

All that this legislation will do is to further hasten the conversion of rentals to condos.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 10:05 AM

"The What - the reason the Bronx burned in the 1970's is because landlords, thanks to rent control (most buildings were built before 1947 and were subject to onerous rent regulations), had negative cash flow! There was no money for a new boiler, new roof or new windows. No bank would lend to them. So the buildings were abandoned and/or torched. You really have no idea what you're talking about."

Hey Asshead parse your own statement : "had negative cash flow! There was no money for a new boiler, new roof or new windows. No bank would lend to them. So the buildings were abandoned and/or torched. You really have no idea what you're talking about."

Just like now! Here are some metrics you Assheads don't know. In the good ole days (Pre MAB) a apartment building would go by the "Rent Roll". Usually about 3X rents was the norm then in 2003 (When I was in RE) it was 5X rent roll. Now you have retards paying 12X, 15X and yikes 22X rent roll!! This is why Stuyvesant Town is in big trouble!!!! You had Retard with access to big money and no clue on how to manage apartment buildings!!! This is the main reason why we had a Mutant Asset Bubble, too many Specuvestors and Dumbasses and I hope they get smashed!

"The What will be dancing in the street as the market crumbles. It's a horrifying thought."

I will be wearing the MC Hammer pants dancing to "You can't touch this"!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1sq9k_mc-hammer-you-cant-touch-this_music

The What (Obama is taking applications for TARP money)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 10:16 AM

Brooklynnative,

I agree. But also remember to vote Republican next time you go to the voting booth.

On the presidential level, it doesn't matter as much. But locally, you can't vote for these Democrat representatives if you really want free market housing in NYC.

As I said before, they're beholden to the one million plus below market rent regulated tenants who are loath to seeing their squatter rights affected.

A friend of mine's mother has a three bedroom Mitchell Lama rental on Cherry Street near Chinatown that she literally pays $25/month for. The parking lot is full of BMWs and Mercedes. The mother doesn't work, but the daughter who lives with her makes over $100k/yr. You think they could afford a rent increase?

It's a big joke and all working, tax paying New Yorkers without such crazy deals suffer for it.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 10:19 AM

Hey Ironhead! What about the 1+ Trillions that was given to Wall Street? Then they gave "Bonuses" to all of their Homeboys.. Gotta love Ammerica!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 10:22 AM

I vote Democrat in national elections and Republican in state and local elections. The former is for social reasons, and the latter is for economic reasons. This is not an uncommon pattern among fiscal conservatives in the Northeast.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 10:23 AM

Got that right, lechacal.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 10:28 AM

Hey What,

The government gave the banks no restrictions on what to do with the TARP money. Of course the bankers skimmed it.

Under pressure, Bush opened the floodgate and now Obama has carte blanche to let the borrowing and spending really rip.

It's the perfect storm and I agree with you. We're screwed.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 10:33 AM

The worst part of the legislation is the reduction in the vacancy allowance. Ignoring the morons like SG2 and Tishman who overpayed for rent-stabilized housing, even the conservetive operators who buy based on CURRENT Rent Rolls need the vacancy allowance to provide any hope of true upside and to justify continued investment in their properties. By lowering the vacancy allowance you effectively incentivise running buildings in to the ground.

Especially when you consider that there is no morally justifiable reason to force private LL to offer apartments at below market-rate prices - I concede that controlling the increases on existing tenants may have socially redeamable value.

And The WHAT - you are wrong no decent property ever went for 3x the RR - the historical standard for virtually all of the 20th century was 6XRR in outer boros (+ above 110st) and 8-10xRR in Manhattan.

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 10:37 AM

We should start a Brownstoner "Get Out the Vote" effort.

Every local politician involved in this BS should be targeted and voted out of office.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 10:40 AM

Is What for real? Hey What, you grow up in the Bronx in the 70s? Or did you just read an article in the NYT once?

What said "If you have a problem maintaing a building, you should sell it ASAP. No one forces people to become Landlords."

I am referring to the people who own buildings, and have owned them, for decades. Like my grandmother. Her rents pay the utilities, taxes, etc. If she is forced to roll back rents, or limit increases her Social Security check might not be enough to cover. She raises rents as her expenses increase. So she should sell the building she's owned for close to 60 years because some asshat like you think rents are to high? Bullsh!t.

And What, why don't you step out from behind the moniker and be straight with people. You grew up in suburban Cleveland and managed to inherit a rent controlled apartment from some aunt where you and your receding hairline pony tail hang out and complain about your lack of success while doing f-all about your station in life, eh?

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 10:48 AM

Query whether forcing landlords to rent an otherwise vacant apartment at a loss constitues an unconstitutional taking of private property.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 10:50 AM

IB;

I'm almost starting to believe that the best route to take is to let things run their course. Folks wanted a messiah for president? Let's see how they feel in a couple of years, as he and the Democrats continue to run trillion-dollar deficits and print out worthless money to pay off favored constituents. Now that the Democrats are fully in charge in Albany, watch them drive the "rich" to NJ and Connecticut with his tax increases.

Sometimes you need a Jimmy Carter-like period to provide some clarity.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 10:52 AM

"And The WHAT - you are wrong no decent property ever went for 3x the RR - the historical standard for virtually all of the 20th century was 6XRR in outer boros (+ above 110st) and 8-10xRR in Manhattan."

FSRG I'm a Licensed Real Estate Broker! That is one aspect that the Assheads forget!

3X Rent roll was very common in the bad ole days of NYC. You had to have some big balls to buy Apartment building swhen people was Dealing Drugs out of them, rents was not being collected and Building services was neglected. In the 70's and 80's no one would pay over 3X rent roll because they was buying the headache of that building.

Lets look at some of those Manhattan Neighborhoods shall we..

The 80's up to Harlem on was very very bad in the 80's, YEAH THERE!!!!!! People could not walk around Central park because they would get mugged!

You know what's funny? I realized on the ENY thread that most of you (Assheads) are from out of town but you speak like you was born and raised here.. I realized not to argue with the "out of town" retard set, just let them bang on their helmets and be happy with the stupid crap they spew forth.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 10:54 AM

Oh, one other thing...

... for "commercial" properties which are considered 5 units and up (basically any 5+ unit brownstone), banks generally give mortgages based on roughly 9x the rent roll.

If people pay double or triple the rent roll for a property that is their choice. But what they pay or it shouldn't have anything to do with what they are allowed to charge. It is their property/business, they should be able to set the price not the government or anyone else.

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 10:55 AM

If you read the entire article, it's not exaclty a done deal.

"I realized on the ENY thread that most of you (Assheads) are from out of town"

Hey, man - what happened to "Asshats??"

Posted by: East New York at February 3, 2009 10:59 AM

"exactly"

Posted by: East New York at February 3, 2009 11:00 AM

"I am referring to the people who own buildings, and have owned them, for decades. Like my grandmother. Her rents pay the utilities, taxes, etc. If she is forced to roll back rents, or limit increases her Social Security check might not be enough to cover. She raises rents as her expenses increase. So she should sell the building she's owned for close to 60 years because some asshat like you think rents are to high? Bullsh!t."

Hold on Retard! If there is no mortgage on her property then that building should be a "Cash Cow" for her! After expenses she should have a nice chuck of change every month!

WTF are you talking about??!!!!

"And What, why don't you step out from behind the moniker and be straight with people. You grew up in suburban Cleveland and managed to inherit a rent controlled apartment from some aunt where you and your receding hairline pony tail hang out and complain about your lack of success while doing f-all about your station in life, eh?"

Cleveland???!!! ROTFLMMFAO!!! No dumbass my birth certificate says: Brooklyn NY. Born in Bed Stuy, Raised in Bed Stuy and will die in Asshat Hill of Harlem (in the other post LMMFAO).

Now Chrissy put on those tight-assed Hipster pants, Iconic T-Shirt and swill another PBR you Poser....

The What (Brooklyn Finest)

Someday this assheads are gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 11:01 AM

Ah, another thread about rent regulation...another batch of stories about tenants who make lots of money and live in rent regulated apartments. Funny, though, how in all these threads--and in the press and at public hearings--there is never, never, never a landlord who opens the books so we can all see the bottom line. The point is that landlords love to complain as much as tenants (big surprise), but if they were all going broke DHCR would be flooded with "hardship" claims for rent increases.

And before we get to the argument of fair-market tenants supporting rent-regulated tenants, try to remember that landlords set fair-market rents to make the most money they can, not because they need a subsidy.

Posted by: Iris at February 3, 2009 11:01 AM

The What - wow you actually got a RE license - amazing you must be really smart, were you able to pass the test w/o the 2hr course????

Viable buildings never went for 3x the rent roll - unless they were absolutely near abandonment - EVER - not even in the Bronx c.1978

Look it up - the deed transfers are on the ACRIS system and back then the mortgage docs sometimes contained a RR attached.

That being said - there is no question that if the legislature reduces/eliminate vacancy allowance and puts rent increases soley in the hands of the city council you will have massive loan defaults and abandonment (the market value of the building stock will plunge below even the most conservative loans written in the past 20yrs - therefore selling will not be a viable option for most LLs and therefore LL will run the building as long as they can hold on - with no investment - and then walk away from the carcass after expenses exceed revenue)

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 11:12 AM

Bed Stuy is much nicer than East Harlem, What. You made a bad choice. Best to stay in Lodi.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 11:13 AM

Isis,

So you're saying private landlords shouldn't be allowed to make money? We should be "servants" to our tenants?

If the government wants to give needy individuals rent vouchers, that's fine, but passing laws that force private landlords to lower rents is the antithesis of everything this country is about.

Why don't you move to Cuba? Castro can find a nice little state sponsored hovel somewhere for you, I'm sure.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 11:14 AM

Yes Iris it is boring please pick up an econ 101 book.

Best quote of the thread: "I vote Democrat in national elections and Republican in state and local elections. The former is for social reasons, and the latter is for economic reasons. This is not an uncommon pattern among fiscal conservatives in the Northeast."

Nope. I'm not a landlord but rent regulation results in more expensive and less available apartments for everyone.

Posted by: eh at February 3, 2009 11:14 AM

What, you crack me up. You're a douchebag, but funny.

Sure she has no mortgage, but on a building her size and in her neighborhood her taxes are a plenty and up-keep is huge. A few years ago she re-did her hallways, just patching and painting and the like. $20k. A new roof is she needs it, another $20k+. These things add up.

My point is not every building owner has a chest full of cash in the closet or a bank account in the 6 figures.

Some owners save the cash they have for rainy days, major repairs, times when rents go down. It's when the rents are up that she can build her reserve for times like now when they dip and the extended vacancy rate increases.

And by the way, my fat Brooklyn born ass would never fit into a pair of hipster jeans. And PBR sucks. And not in an ironic $2 a can hipster way, just sucks in general.

you rent right?

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 11:17 AM

IRIS - who can LLs "open their books" - too? Its very simple, if the business is not profitable people will sell (and then when they cant sell - abandon the property) - there is no great LL/Tenant god in the sky that you can "open your books" too.

It is already happening (deservedly so) at the buildings bought on unrealistic rent increase speculation - like Sty Town, Riventon, etc... BUT if you radically change the rules of the game - especially in these times - many of the properties bought with realistic expectations (based on legally following the current RS laws) will become unprofitable - there will be no great meeting, or prayer session with LL/Tenant gods high priest - people will just slowly walk away, the banks will have even more bad debts and good people will be forced to live in worse and worse housing.

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 11:19 AM

The City Council's actions are bizarre.

Property taxes on multifamily rental buildings in NYC are 29% of gross income -- extraordinarily high.

The vacancy rate is skyrocketing and market rents are plummeting due to this terrible economy.

What the hell are they thinking? They want landlords to support city tax revenues through insanely high property taxes while at the same time they want to lower rents and increase costly, inefficient bureaucracy?

Reminds me of the Jane's Addiction song Idiots Rule . . .

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 11:28 AM

When the government restricts return on any particular asset, that asset will be allowed to deteriorate until its value is low enough that it earns an acceptable return. If there is no value low enough, the asset will, one way or another, end up in the government's hands and become a burden on taxpayers. Whoever used the old saw "market failure" earlier in this discussion has successfully memorized a popular socialist catch phrase but does not appreciate the law of unintended consequences. If you force landlords to rent units at below market rents, the affected housing stock will slowly deteriorate. The remaining housing stock becomes prohibitively expensive, and new renters find it difficult or impossible to get into the below market units. The below market units effectively become a one-time property transfer from landlords (who actually took risk in buying and spend money for upkeep and repairs) to whoever had the dumb luck to be in a controlled apartment when the rules took effect. The controlled housing stock is tightly clutched in the hands of a less and less deserving population until it has to be pried from their dead hands, while over time the people who actually need affordable housing stock find it impossible to find because everything that isn't being held until death is overpriced.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 11:34 AM

"Sure she has no mortgage, but on a building her size and in her neighborhood her taxes are a plenty and up-keep is huge."

Really? Then she should sell it because she has a RETARD for a Grandson! If can not make money with a apartment building with no mortgage then sell it and put the funds with Madoff Investments LLC.

" few years ago she re-did her hallways, just patching and painting and the like. $20k"

Then she should apply for a MCI and raise the rent. 1/40 th of the cost can be put to the tenants.

" A new roof is she needs it, another $20k+. These things add up."

She can apply for a grant with HPD. They will give her the money for the roof and she will not have to pay it back. Also Dumbass (I don't know why I'm helping you) She can qualify for a Tax Reduction of she is over 62, check into it Retard and get back to me.

II'm willing to bet here DHCR is jacked up and maybe can charge more rent. This is a common mistake among Landlords.

"Look it up - the deed transfers are on the ACRIS system and back then the mortgage docs sometimes contained a RR attached."

I said pre MAB days you Asshead!!!!!

"Viable buildings never went for 3x the rent roll - unless they were absolutely near abandonment - EVER - not even in the Bronx c.1978"

Hey Chrissy can you help your fellow Asshat understand the dynamics of NYC in the 70's and 80's, Thank you...

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 11:34 AM

Christopher,IB and FSRQ;

You ever hear the old Russian joke about the two peasants and the gennie? It goes something like this: there are two peasants in a village, one owns a profitable goat, the other doesn't. One day a gennie appears to the peasant who doesn't have a goat, and tells him that he will grant him one wish for whatever he wants. He immediately replies: "I want that SOB's goat to die".

That is exactly what you are dealing with here, and you see it every day on Brownstoner. Developers are greedy SOB's - they should be regulated to extinction. Landlords are greedy SOB's - they should be taxed to extinction. It's tough to argue economics, risk or the responsibilities of property ownership with them.

As I said above, it might be better to let it run its course. A few years of "Jimmy Carter-ville" might provide some clarity.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 11:35 AM

What,

You can't charge an MCI for repairing and painting hallways.

Why do you thing the public hallways in most NYC tenement buildings are so shitty?

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 11:38 AM

Rent regulation in New York is a joke. I'm all for helping families or individuals that don't make enough money to afford New York rents but no one has been able to explain to me how these laws actually help them. 10 years ago I was a recent immigrant and all I could find was a room in Bushwick for the same price someone I know (making 5 times what I was making) was paying for a 2 bedroom on the UWS...

Posted by: SouthParker at February 3, 2009 11:42 AM

so, now that I'm a landlord I get screwed again. great...

Posted by: SouthParker at February 3, 2009 11:46 AM

Hey what - YOU ARE A MORON - please surrender your (worthless RE license) you can not get an MCI for plastering and painting a hallway - and if you could - which you cant - buildingwide MCIs are paid back with a 1/84th rent increase (not 1/40th) AND you can not impose an MCI increase that raises rent greater than 6% in any single year.

Please stick with your Macro-economic - "the End is near" arguments - as you clearly no ZERO about buying or running RS housing in NYC (now or in the 70s) - and since the legislature may help ensure your sky is falling rhetoric actually comes to pass (no reason to diminish your potential prognostic victory with stupid distractions that show you to be an idiot)

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 11:47 AM

Bensen,

I agree with you 100%. Great analogy.

Isis is definitely the peasant without the goat.

Instead of working hard and saving up for her own goat, she desperately wants her neighbor's goat to die.

Reminds me of an NYC landlord I know who's currently in court with a non paying tenant.

To take revenge for being taken to housing court, the non paying tenant (AKA Isis) is going around to all the other buildings this landlord owns and reporting violations that don't exist, just to create problems for her landlord.

Only in NYC . . . a city where property rights are trampled because the coddled masses have the vote, can tenants get away with this type of harassment without any repercussion of any kind.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 11:48 AM

What, I've changed my mind. You're not funny. Just a bitter asshole.

We could go back and forth on this all day but quite frankly you are to much of a belligerent, offensive, ignorant douchbag to have a rational conversation with.

Bottom line is landlords are not the enemy. They are small business owners. They should be allowed to run their business as they want. Many are not out to make a fortune, they are just trying to improve their quality of life and provide a service they enjoy and have pride in.

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 11:52 AM

The problem with rent regulation is that it requires individual property owners to subsidize the rent of individual tenants, regardless of how wealthy the landlord and tenant are.

If you believe that affordable housing is a common good, it should be paid for by the broadest possible base. Use tax revenues to give out Section 8 vouchers, build public housing with strict income limits, etc. But removing certain privately-owned apartments from the market, and allowing those apartments to be passed down as family heirlooms, does very little in terms of allowing people of modest means to live here, but does a great deal to engender the political loyalty of those who have, or aspire to, a rent regulated bargain.

Posted by: Sparafucile at February 3, 2009 11:53 AM

I am sympathetic with both sides in this debate.

However, I dont see why this was such a high priority for the NY legislature. Why would they want to hurt the NYC real estate market in the current environment?

Posted by: slick at February 3, 2009 11:54 AM

IB;

I used to be a landlord, and one of my tennants was a "professional NYC tennant", and I'm sure you know what that means.

Typically the heat was set in that building so that her apartment was at 72 degrees. She wanted it at 74, and I refused. My response to her was that she should look elsewhere for an apartment that offered such a service. Rather than trying to improve her situation in such a manner,she tried to "kill my goat". She used to call the NYC heat complaint line EVERY DAY,just to harass me. One day I was so fed up with this waste of my tax money that I called a supervisor in the bureau, and told them that I was willing to write a letter to them with a standing offer to come by my place AT ANY TIME to check the heat, so long as they stopped the harassment. They could not accept my offer. The law requires that they follow-up on each and every of the tennant's complaints.

My tennant was pleased in her efforts to try to kill my goat,even though it did noting to help her achieve the living condition she wanted. That is where I learned first-hand about this mentality.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 11:58 AM

One positive note is that Malcolm Smith seems to be willing to hold the line on the Senate on this - unfortunately he is politically very weak and the pressure from the typical hacks may overwhelm him - this may be Pattersons true test -> is he going to govern based upon whats (truly) best for the state/city or based on politics - I am not optimistic......

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 11:59 AM

Slick,

It's all about pleasing their constituents. They don't care about anything else.

In private, some of these politicians will openly admit it.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 12:01 PM

Oh well, jumping in with both feet here- I grew up in the Bronx. My family lived "the Bronx is burning." The Bronx was redlined-that, not rent regulation, was the reason for all the arson. Taxes were to high for what LL's could rent apartments for- the South Bronx was POOR! The City was POOR! POOR areas were the first and hardest hit. Let's not make one of the worst episodes of arson in NYC about tenants and rent control- it would be a lie.

I'd also like to point out that there was no exscuse for arson. None, zilch and zip. People died, property was destroyed for no good reason and firefighters and cops, as well as tenants suffered greatly. Rent stabilization as the reason for arson? Only if you are a psychopath or a career criminal. There was no excuse - many landlords simply walked away. At least they had some semblance of ethics. The rest- arson. What does that say about landlords and tenants?

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 12:02 PM

"Bottom line is landlords are not the enemy. They are small business owners. They should be allowed to run their business as they want."

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

And If they cannot run a building then they should sell it! If they remove RS tomorrow the rents would CRASH all over NYC!!!!!! They would first start by kicking everyone out, then these people would flee NYC, Then the rents would go to the moon (like now), then the Asshead Landlords would start competing for tenants and the rents would CRASH!!!!

If they removed RS that would be a GOD damn disaster for this City!!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at February 3, 2009 12:07 PM

Tenants are not the enemy either. Most of us just need a decent affordable place to live. And FYI- I don't think this bill is a great idea- but please- let's not spout the old "you're subsidizing the individual tenant" canard. Homeowners get tax breaks and abatements.

benson- you had a lousy tenant. And I'm sure for every bad tenant story there is a lousy landlord story. Let's be fair about it.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 12:13 PM

The What's right that removing rent regulation completely would lower average rents across the city.

Expanding the rent laws only benefits those luck enough to have below market steals.

Unfortunately those luck few happen to be about 1,000,000 voters who vote in mass to protect their deals. Any who can blame them?

Who doesn't want a free ride?

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 12:15 PM

Bx Girl - Of course RS doesnt cause arson - but you yourself said that "Taxes were to high for what LL's could rent apartments for" -

well one of the reasons that LLs couldnt rent properties for more was RS/RC (rent control was much more common 40yrs ago). And by the way it wasnt just taxes, Oil - is by far the largest expense and if you recall Oil was through the roof during this period as well.

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 12:20 PM

Bxgrl;

You are absolutely right that there are bad tenants (finally got the spelling right) AND bad landlords,just like there are bad butchers, and bad butcher customers.

The difference is that in NYC the law is on the side of a bad tenant. We are supposed to have a government that does not deem a person guilty until proven so. Yet,as I talked about above, the heat control bureau just takes the tenant's word to be true, and bad tenants uses this government bureauacracy to their advantage. The law in NYC is such that it breeds a sense of entitlement among a certain class of tenants. What should be a normal business transaction, like that between a butcher and his/her customer, is turned into an adversarial relationship often times.

Your point about redlining just reinforces the point that rent control makes a building a poor investment. Banks won't touch a building when they know that the rent roll is insufficient to cover its upkeep and improvement, AND provide a profit to the owner for taking on the responsibilities of this business.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 12:23 PM

Bxgrl,

Sure there are bad landlords too. It's a two way street.

But one OWNS the building and the other RENTS.

I know of a particularly crazy landlady who own maybe 50 million in prime Manhattan real estate. She's truly insane and hordes vacant classic six apartments rather than rent them out. She scarred to death of dealing with tenants because of all the bad experiences she's had in NYC housing court and would rather leave her apartments vacant.

But even though she's crazy, it's her right to horde vacant apartments. She OWNS the buildings.

Tenant's have rights too, of course, during the term of their lease. But giving them permanent right to renew their leases at below market rent as the current rent stabilization laws do, is in essence giving them right of OWNERSHIP which rightfully belongs to their landlord, not to them.

You can defend it all you want. Of course the stabilization laws help the lucky few just like lottery winners are lucky. But it's wrong and deep down I'm sure you know it.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 12:29 PM

HOARD apartments or rent them to the HORDES. please.

Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 12:31 PM

Benson you said -
"Banks won't touch a building when they know that the rent roll is insufficient to cover its upkeep and improvement, AND provide a profit to the owner for taking on the responsibilities of this business."

If only that WERE true - unfortunately the banks were seduced by greed, stupidity and securitization and put billions into unsupportable loans on huge purchases by the likes of Tishman-Speyer, Stellar Management, SG2, Macklowe, et al. Virtually all these deals and other recent "private equity/hedge fund" (read - idiots who know nothing about RE) deals were done on the basis of "projected rent increases" - which were not at all realistic (bordering on criminal in there divergence from reality).

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 12:33 PM

sorry dittoburg . . . my bad

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 12:35 PM

FSRQ;

I agree with you. Sorry, I should have been more specific in my post. I was referring to Bxgrl's post about the South Bronx in the 70's, and the redlining going on at that time. In those pre-securitization days, banks were both the originator and holders of the loans. As such, they were leary of lending to rent-controlled buildings in declining areas. From a risk perspetive, their judgment was completely reasonable.

Would that we had such lenders a few years ago, we wouldn't be in our current mess - which is the point you just made.

We're on the same page on this one.

Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 12:38 PM

"But giving them permanent right to renew their leases at below market rent as the current rent stabilization laws do, is in essence giving them right of OWNERSHIP which rightfully belongs to their landlord, not to them." - Ironballs

Well said.

I don't buy in to the "eliminate rent stabilization and the rental market will crash". Eliminating the regulations wont make every landlord evict their tenants and jack up the rent, the market wont support that.

The owner owns, the renter rents. If the renter doesn't like the situation they should move. End of story. Not my responsibility as a landlord to placate them. I should be able to charge what I want and run my building the way I want. The beauty of freedom. If a tenant doesn't like it tough, move. Where to? Not my problem.

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 12:43 PM

Have to agree with geekyfemme. And NYC is *not* the last big city with strong rent control. San Francisco has rent control. Unfortunately, the way it was implemented in NYC has given rise to all the of the many problems mentioned above.

In San Francisco, the law is very simple. Landlords can raise the rent every year a set amount tied to the cost of living and inflation (it changes, but it's generous, never less than 4 percent). When someone moves out, landlords can charge whatever they want. It gives the tenants the same control owners enjoy over the cost of housing. Yet it is not so extreme that landlords cannot maintain their buildings and make a profit.

Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 12:44 PM

"SouthParker" : "10 years ago I was a recent immigrant...now that I'm a landlord"

that is why:

" I get screwed again. "

And it is COW, people, not GOAT.

Posted by: moskow_on_gowanus at February 3, 2009 12:48 PM

mopar - a socially fair and economically viable model, therefore never to be adopted in NYC

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 12:49 PM

fsrq- my point about the South Bronx and Harlem is that - no matter RS/RC- you don't get big rents in poor neighborhoods- as those neighborhoods were deemed "undesirable", poorer tenants moved in. Lower rents- it happens even in places that don't have RS/RC and so christopher is wrong to blame that for the arson.

ironballs- the big mistake on both sides is to consider each side the enemy because you immediately start from a adversarial and mutually unbeneficial point of view. Yes, LL's own but they want and need tenants. It's like any business- if you don't want your customer base, and aren't willing to offer good customer service, don't go into that business. Too many landlords go into it with the idea that they hatedoing it but they must. So right off the bat, the tenant is the enemy. And tenants come in with the attitude that the LL is going to screw them. I'm not defending either side and if you read my complete post you would have seen where I said I thought the bill was not a good idea.

I really don't get where people think the laws are all for the tenant. True, many laws were written for our protection. And there were good reasons for them. But any tenant will tell you there is no feeling of power or entitlement- that's a LL fantasy.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 12:50 PM

Borough of Manhattan Community College

Academic Transcript

Student: Sheldon Silver

Economics 101 FAIL

Sociology 101 FAIL

Urban Planning 101 FAIL

Politics 101 A+

Posted by: bohuma at February 3, 2009 12:52 PM

christopher- I hope you never open another business because your business model is shortsighted and self-defeating. If you don't like having tenants- go into another line of work.

And benson- I have to disagree. Redlining was not based on rent control. It was based on racism and the perception of neighborhoods as poor. If you were right, there would have been arson all along Central Park West in those gorgeous old (and many still) rent controlled or stabilized buildings. It would have been CPW is Burning.

And it still doesn'taddress the fact that LL's intentionally burned their buildings- not caring if they killed tenants or left them homeless. There is a level of responsibility between LL and tenant that goes beyond the everyday operation of a business and that has to be recognized on both sides.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 12:58 PM

SRS is a great buy right now.

With the collapse of REITS, which will surely happen, it could hit to 200.

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 12:59 PM

bxgirl, I never said anything about landlords and arson.

Also, I never said I didn't like tenants, I just said I don't believe in giving them more rights over a building than the owner.

All I'm saying is that as an owner I should be able to run the building as I see fit. I'll assess the market for rents, I'll make repairs, I'll look at income and expenses, etc. I don't need or want the government to tell me how to do it nor do I want them to give the power to my tenants.

If a tenant doesn't like the way I run the building they can move. Just like if a customer doesn't like a restaurant they stop going, they don't get to tell the owner to change the menu and they don't get the government to set the menu prices.

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 1:24 PM

Christopher - dont knock it - lets get the City Council to mandate restaurant prices - Per-Se Dollar Menu!!!!!

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 1:29 PM

anybody that doesn't like the changes in housing laws in nyc can move somewhere else.
Working people should not support the sense of entitlement property holders possess.

Landlords and property owners are staunch believers in their own kingship and renters are the lowly subjects:

No children, no music, no talkative or happy/laughing guests over night, tip-toe when you come in, don't walk over our heads, don't touch the walls, don't sit on our stoop, the parlor is being fixed-no entering or exiting after 4 p.m. saturday or sunday.

Wtf?
if you gotta fix the roof - ya gotta raise the rent, if
the winter was unusually warm - ya gotta raise the rent, if the summer was unusually cool - ya gotta raise the rent, if the price of oil has gone down - ya gotta raise the rent, you didn't get $400 tax rebate - ya gotta raise the rent;
if your property is not worth what it used to be - ya gotta raise the rent...Wtf? really?

Posted by: The Who at February 3, 2009 1:58 PM

anybody that doesn't like the changes in housing laws in nyc can move somewhere else.
Working people should not support the sense of entitlement property holders possess.

Landlords and property owners are staunch believers in their own kingship and renters are the lowly subjects:

Posted by: The Who at February 3, 2009 2:03 PM

Isn't there a conflict of interest when politicians or their immediate family live in rent controlled apartments. I'm sure more politicians are renters of rent stabilized apts than they are landlords of them.

Posted by: Iknow at February 3, 2009 2:27 PM

Thw Who is apparently a renter; and one that might be better off in a different city, himself.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 2:36 PM

christopher is right. If you don't like it, move.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 2:39 PM

There are certainly warmer places to live.

If I were poor, I'd rather live down South myself.

What fun is it to live in a place like NYC anyway, if you can't even afford to eat out?

Posted by: IronBalls at February 3, 2009 2:44 PM

Iknow...yes, I think there is a conflict of interest. That said, its just plain sad and embarrassing when someone in the House of Representatives lives in a few rent stabilized aprtments.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Rent control is like using a hand grenade in a fistfight. Nobody wins. I am a renter who would love to see rent control abolished. Incidentally, I am thrilled that rents are in free-fall, which is very much to my benefit at the expense of my landlord. But God forbid I should continue to be a renter in a city that tightens its already suffocating grip on the rental market.

Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 2:48 PM

IronBalls...you've got two really valid points there.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 2:48 PM

I'm no Republican, but I have to agree with IB and Benson - the Rent Control system is patently unfair to landlords, particualrly small landlords (as I have been). When I was renting, I busted my a** for more than 15 years, paying market-rate and STILL saving enough to buy my own place. It pisses me off when I see childless couples who make about what I do (above average salary) living in fancy Manhattan apartments and paying 1960-era rents! Just incredible.

Posted by: East New York at February 3, 2009 3:30 PM

Interestingly I find this argument/debate has two distinct sides:

-Landlords and renters against regulation
-Renters for regulation

I always laugh at people who tell me I'm wrong and try to convince me they are right where their side of the debate has only their constituents, while the other side has members of both constituencies.

We've seen landlords and renters against it, I'm just curious if any landlord is looking forward to it.

Any landlords on here who agree with this new regulation?

Just a "hhmmmmm" kinda thought...

Posted by: christopher at February 3, 2009 3:43 PM

"Any landlords on here who agree with this new regulation?"

Christopher - I'll bite. When I owned a two-family, I recognized that it was only the artificial scarcity generated by rent regulation that allowed me to rent out a shitty basement apartment for a then-outrageous $1800 a month.

Rent regulation helps tenants in regulated units and owners of unregulated units, and hurts tenants in unregulated units and owners of regulated units.

Posted by: Sparafucile at February 3, 2009 3:53 PM

I'm a landlord, albeit of a non-rent controlled house (2 units.) If I were to look at a rent-controlled property, I would accept it as part of the business model. All of you who have a story of how someone is gaming the system... there's always someone gaming the system and it does not prove anything.

As bxgirl said it "If you don't like having tenants- go into another line of work." (of course, this is on par with telling tenantsto move if they don't like it...)

As ironballs says: OWNERSHIP (his caps) seems to trump everything else here. Perhaps the sense of entitlement is actually by the owners, not the few rent-controlled bad-apple tenants.

Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 4:04 PM

CMU - please come off your self-righteous soap box - this isnt an issue of not accepting RS as part of the business model. This is a matter of investing millions of dollars and countless years of work - accommodating the law in your business model - and then having the politicians - drastically CHANGE the law in the middle.

and the ultimate point is - that with a change this drastic current owners (who cant change their mortgage payments, oil costs or employee expenses) will be forced to change their business plan in one of 2 ways - huge cut backs in investment/service or to walk away - either way the city and current tenants lose - albeit tenants will likely be able to rent more crappy apartments for less.

Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 4:13 PM

christohper- indeed you don't like tenants because you seem to think it should be your way or the highway. Frankly, the Who raises valid points from a tenant's perspective. I've had great landlords and rotten ones. I've had landlords who freaked if they heard you laugh on your way up the stairs and landlords who bent over backwards to give you a break when things were tough. You need tenants but you want to lct like the old Laird of the Manor. It doesn't work that way in this country so if you think its just a matter of telling tenants to move if they don't like it, I suggest you move to a country that still has a caste system, because that high-handed I take your money and I can tell you how to live your life attitude doesn't work for anyone and your attitude is exactly why laws protecting tenants get passed. Just as a tenant's living problems are not yours, so are your financial problems not theirs. Works 2 ways.

The system has to be fair to both sides- I have no idea if doing away with regulation will hurt or help. I don't think anyone does until it happens. Speculation is no guarantee of anything.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 4:15 PM

fsrq- let me reiterate- I don't think these changes are right or good for anyone. That doesn't mean that both landlords and tenants couldn't do with an attitude check.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 4:19 PM

mopar - a socially fair and economically viable model, therefore never to be adopted in NYC

Very funny, fsrq.

Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 6:29 PM

I am pleased to see some this legislation. The real estate lobby has directed policy for too long.
Greedy speculative landlords will be put in check. If a landlord is not content to make a modest profit then they are in the wrong business.

My building was purchased last year. The landlord is harassing the tenants, breaking all variety of laws, emptying apartments, harassing tenants with lawsuits, and all forms of BS. They know tenants do not have the time or money to deal repeatedly with frivolous court cases. The landord has his lawyers on retainer and uses the courts merely as a harassing action...often withdrawing the case after the tenant has appeared on several court dates, done purely to harass.
What motors the incentive to screw the tenants, many who have lived here in their HOME, for decades? Pure unrestrained landlord GREED and the laws that enable it.

Unfortnately, many of you do not know the reality of the street. Or of displacing people from their homes...'gentrification'.

You have no clue about the day to day effects of a 20% vacancy increase. Or of vacancy decontrol. The new speculator landlords are not like the old slumlords. They do not even want our money...they want us out of the building and will go to any means to achieve this. The landlord-weighted laws pushed through by the real estate lobby are the enablers for this sort of raw-greed behavior.

Get rid of vacancy decontrol ENTIRELY! That combined with a reduction of vacancy increases will go far towards safeguarding our homes from these predatory

Posted by: Oxygen at February 3, 2009 7:03 PM

...landlords.

The owners are very often only the landlords of the buildings not the residents. If the owners can't satisfy their greed by reaming the tenants, they should get out of the business and go into credit default swaps or some other legalized scam, rather than trying to bleed their tenants.

Posted by: Oxygen at February 3, 2009 7:08 PM

Rent regulation gives the tenant some modicum of parity. The housing laws are evolved from the European legal system...even the term 'landlord' is from a time when it was legal to OWN the people who lived on your property, your serfs. LORD of the land.
The laws in the USA grew out of that European system and are unjustly weighted in the favor of the property owner. Rent regulation has thankfully made an effort to bring some legal justice to tenants. Unfortunately, the real estate lobby (and their money) in NYC has had a stranglehold on NYC housing laws. I am glad to see the Democrats making an effort to reverse some of that.

Posted by: Oxygen at February 3, 2009 7:15 PM

The fact is this: there is widespread predatory landlord abuse in buildings with RS and RC apartments. The business model is based upon converting all the rent regulated units completely to market value apartments (save for the token senior citizen tenant who is allowed to remain for PR purposes, the ethnic minority tenant also permitted to remain for PR purposes, and of course the rare tenant who knows the laws, is tough skinned, and is willing to engage in an eternal fight who the landlord cannot get out or buy out). This destroys affordable housing in NYC. Vacancy decontrol permits the landlords to cook their books and play the odds when illegally boosting an apartments rent to deregulate it.

Of course, many NYC'ers are ignorant of what actually goes down and how the process plays out. You only see a truck pull up to a building and a tenant loading his possessions into it; a couple months later another truck pulls up and a wealthier tenants unloads his possessions. It is a hidden process, you do not see the living hell and harassment tenants are placed under until they relent and move. Hopefully, these new laws will pass and give some relief to the tenants who are being preyed upon based on the current laws.

Posted by: Oxygen at February 3, 2009 7:39 PM

Amen (x3?) to Oxygen's comment.

It wasn't so long ago on this board that an unsuspecting tenant asked about bargaining for a lower rent with their landlord. I think the house next door had a fire, with negative consequences for the tenant. A sizable group of folks rallied around -- you guessed it -- the landlord, who should be protected from income loss beyond their control. At the time, it made me wonder how the Brownstoners would respond to the next round of the rent-stabilization debate, whether they'd extend the same market protections to tenants who lose income in an overheated rental market.

Posted by: tonewlots at February 4, 2009 12:28 AM

Let's take a vote. How many truly staunch Republicans who are against against handouts who live in rent controlled apartments are in favor of rent control?

Posted by: Iknow at February 4, 2009 9:06 AM

Finally. We also need regulation to make sure all these landlords are paying taxes on all thei illgotten rents. I can't belive I have to pay 14,000 dollars a year in rent to that parasite of a landlord I have and then I only get to deduct 8000 dollars thanks to our Mayor. Meanwhile my landlord declared 0 taxes. Also we need more severe punishments from landlords that put ten people to an apartment and charging each person 400 dollars a month. These are family homes not containers to stuff animals in them. And most of all no TARP money to homeowners. W forclosed homes.

Posted by: hannible at February 5, 2009 10:12 AM

Boh hoo no more welfare checks to homeowners. I had to listen to homeowners complain that they still had not recieved their well deserved 400 dollar checks. Well the housing market is going down the drains and if you don't like that fact that alot of smarter poorer middleclass people will be buying your homes, tough. You should have though about it when you overpaid for your house when you bought it.

Posted by: hannible at February 6, 2009 10:35 AM

« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

February 3, 2009

Democratic Assembly Passes Pro-Tenant Legislation

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions